Moral objective values...

whisperit · Post by **whisperit** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:02 pm

[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]

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:18 pm

What I find stunningly curious is that someone, like Craig, should feel a need to call upon an imaginary absolute like his 'god,' in order to explain such a natural and common phenomenon.

It's hard not to think it's because he believes in the myth of that humans are narrowly selfish by default. It's an easy mistake to make. Indeed if our evolution was driven by our 'intellectual instinct' we might well have become increasingly selfish (and died out as a result). Fortunately our evolution was dictated by our unthinking genes so we evolved a more nearly optimal mix of selfishness and altruism.

A nice illustration is given by the prisoners dilemma. In the prisoners dilemma the 'logical' thing to do is defect. But if you play randomly rather than intelligently you will at least occasionally co-operate and reap a large benefit as a result. Another half-serious example is the monty hall game. If you are of 'normal' intelligence (and not been told otherwise) you will think swapping makes no odds so most people stick. Someone not so bright would swap and hence do better!

So most people aren't clever enough to work out out-and-out selfishness isn't the best strategy after all. I am not sure that WLC is that dumb, but the audience he makes his money out of is.

Also like the monty hall game if you tell someone that not being selfish is a better strategy they might well not believe you, much as many people refuse to believe swapping doors is better in MH.

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:24 am

Nickman wrote: The Golden Rule is just a concept. It is equivalent to "don't mess with me I won't mess with you. Help me, Ill help you." The Golden Rule is a real concept that can be measured, because it relies on reciprocity.

Agree, this golden rule is just a concept, wishful thinking.
This golden rule is a real concept that can be counted, because it relies on 2 words; 6 letters & 4 letters each = 10 letters in total.

This page does not say the Golden rule is some 'objective' morality. In fact, science has no answer if it is. If you claim it is, then you need to provide evidence to support your claim.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:08 am

Nickman wrote: The Golden Rule is just a concept. It is equivalent to "don't mess with me I won't mess with you. Help me, Ill help you." The Golden Rule is a real concept that can be measured, because it relies on reciprocity.

I do not love my enemies.
Would you love my enemies?
If yes, then you are breaking this golden rule, because you're not being reciprocal to me.
If no, then you are breaking this golden rule, because you're not being reciprocal to my enemies.

This golden rules makes 2 assumptions:
1. All people are the same
2. You know all people's wants and needs.

This golden rule is therefore patently absurdly inconsistent.

Need I say more?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:55 am

JohnA wrote:Need I say more?

Yes, you need to explain why we shouldn't live by the motto "if you want help, help others" and why it would be bad for us?

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:59 am

We observe the mechanisms and gravity emerges from that. I can observe another person standing on earth (or moving if you like).
I explained what these laws are already. You can look up law as well if you do not accept my fact.

I am prepared to accept you can observe another person standing on the earth (or moving if you like) without looking it up.

My point - as I am sure everyone else realised - is that people don't observe mechanisms. We observe phenomena and theorise about the possible mechanisms behind them.

I will now argue that the Golden rule and Newtons law of gravity are exactly the same 'sort of thing'.

Newton's law of gravity is a rule that old Isaac came up with to describe how planets and apples behave when they are moving or falling.

Similarly the golden rule is a rule someone came up with to describe how people behave when they acting morally.

Newton rule is a bit off - Einstein's version is better. And the Golden rule is a bit off too, because there are problems with it - a masochist applying the golden rule would not be acting morally for example.

What we could do with is a refinement of the golden rule, a 'Einsteinian' uber-golden rule that applies to masochists as well. It doesn't matter whether we say the golden rule exists or doesn't exist or if its true or not true..... those are pointless word games that don't actually matter one bit.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:07 am

keithprosser3 wrote:Newton rule is a bit off - Einstein's version is better. And the Golden rule is a bit off too, because there are problems with it - a masochist applying the golden rule would not be acting morally for example.

Yes he would in the company of other masochists. The Golden Rule says others it doesn't say which others or how many. It doesn't say "all 7 billion other people". It just depends on the company and circumstances.

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:18 am

Yes he would in the company of other masochists.

Well, if masochists are allowed to define what is 'truly moral' we are in trouble!

I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disageeing with me Artie - you seem to agree with me that the Golden Rule doesn't really work as a general law of morality, so your comment is more or less in line with what I wrote but its tone is adversarial!

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:20 am

Artie wrote: There seem to be many subjective definitions of "objective morality".

1. If everybody agrees something is moral it is.
2. Something is moral regardless what anybody think.
3. If a deity says it's moral it is.

Dedinition 2 is the one used by philosophers. I suggest everyone adopt definition 2, especially when the OP specified definition 2.

For those who have been using definition 1, what do you think subjective morality is? Something that fewer people agrees up on?

Are there more?

Alternatively, you can use "whatever Bust Nak says is moral."

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:29 am

whatever Bust Nak says is moral.

Possible, but you'd hate the job, BN. You'd never get a moment's peace. You'd be snowed under with questions like:

1 - Is the death penalty ok?
2 - Is foxhunting bad?
3 - Is foetal stem-cell research good or evil>
4 - Is euthanasia permissible, and when?
5 - Is vast inequality of wealth immoral?
6 - Is homosexuality punishable?
7 - Is sex outside marriage allowed?

and that's just off the top of my head!

But if you want the job, it's yours!

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:29 am

keithprosser3 wrote:
Yes he would in the company of other masochists.
Well, if masochists are allowed to define what is 'truly moral' we are in trouble!

I wasn't discussing what is "truly moral" I simply explained that the Golden Rule says others and not which others or how many. In a group of masochists the Golden Rule works perfectly fine. It just depends on the company and circumstances. Otherwise you would be telling us that a group of masochists having fun are doing something immoral.

I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disageeing with me Artie - you seem to agree with me that the Golden Rule doesn't really work as a general law of morality, so your comment is more or less in line with what I wrote but its tone is adversarial!

No it isn't. I was simply explaining that the Golden Rule works as a general law of morality for the group and circumstances it applies to.