Moral objective values...
Moderator: Moderators
Moral objective values...
Post #1[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]
Post #612
I knew a guy who died rock climbing without safety equipment, he took a volitional risk. He sacrificed the survival of himself and his genome for the mere pleasure of risk taking. Now, risk taking is beneficial in evolutionary terms no doubt, but the fact remains that he sacrificed the survival of himself and his future offspring for a simple pleasure.Artie wrote: Sorry but KP didn't mention any exceptions. You simply don't seem to understand that evolution works on populations and when you give your life for your children both you and evolution work for the continuation of your genome and the species.
Post #613
I can try to word it differently. Evolution is about the survival and continuation of as many members of the species as possible not necessarily of single individuals. If for example your survival gets in the way of the survival of your children and perpetuation of your genome and the species you are programmed to sacrifice your life for your children so that's what you do. Just like a bee sacrifices its life for the hive. Same principle.keithprosser3 wrote:I am not sure I understood that at all, but I'll take your word for it.
Post #614
And now he is dead and his defective genome that made him take too big a risk and put pleasure before survival is now out of circulation and he won't produce more like him. That is how evolution works.instantc wrote:I knew a guy who died rock climbing without safety equipment, he took a volitional risk. He sacrificed the survival of himself and his genome for the mere pleasure of risk taking. Now, risk taking is beneficial in evolutionary terms no doubt, but the fact remains that he sacrificed the survival of himself and his future offspring for a simple pleasure.
Post #615
Where did I dispute the functionality of evolution? I feel like you just drift randomly in these conversations. I challenge your point and in the response you just make a completely separate assertion.Artie wrote:And now he is dead and his defective genome that made him take too big a risk and put pleasure before survival is now out of circulation and he won't produce more like him. That is how evolution works.instantc wrote:I knew a guy who died rock climbing without safety equipment, he took a volitional risk. He sacrificed the survival of himself and his genome for the mere pleasure of risk taking. Now, risk taking is beneficial in evolutionary terms no doubt, but the fact remains that he sacrificed the survival of himself and his future offspring for a simple pleasure.
You said that valuing other things helps survival, I said yes but there are exceptions. You said no there aren't. I showed you wrong above, now what? You respond by making the most basic statement about how natural selection works, completely irrelevant.
Post #616
Attack is always the best defense isn't it?instantc wrote:Where did I dispute the functionality of evolution? I feel like you just drift randomly in these conversations. I challenge your point and in the response you just make a completely separate assertion.
I never said you disputed the functionality of evolution. I don't drift randomly in these conversations I explain patiently about evolution and morality and now you say you challenge my point by telling me a story. What was the challenge?Post #617
You showed me wrong? How? Oh I get it! You mean he valued climbing over survival. I said that valuing other things helps survival, I didn't say one should value other things over survival.instantc wrote:You said that valuing other things helps survival, I said yes but there are exceptions. You said no there aren't. I showed you wrong above, now what?
Post #619
Because in a population of 7 billion risk takers some simply go too far and take too big risks because they like what they do and want to stretch the limits as far as they can go and just sometimes go too far. He simply overestimated himself. He just made a mistake. So?keithprosser3 wrote:Well, duh!Artie wrote:That is how evolution works.
So how do you, Artie, explain that guys behaviour? He wasn't behaving in a way that was good for the survival of himself, of his genome or of his potential offspring. So why did he do it?
Post #620
Don't think so... Did you get the point of my last post to you?keithprosser3 wrote:I'm almost sure that is the opposite of what you wanted to say.I didn't say one should value other things over survival.
