Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[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]

I was simply explaining that the Golden Rule works as a general law of morality for the group and circumstances it applies to.

I see.

The situation is that the golden rule isn't wrong; it just has to be applied selectively - just as Newton's law works perfectly well most of the time but sometime you need to use Einstein's improved version instead.

An improved version of the Golden rule would allow a masochist to apply it whether he was with his masochist friends or with any body else. Does such a rule exist?

[Artie]

An improved version of the Golden rule would allow a masochist to apply it whether he was with his masochist friends or with any body else. Does such a rule exist?

No that is not what I am saying. The Golden Rule is universal in that it applies to everybody on the planet Earth. No matter which group you belong to or no matter the circumstances it applies within the group under those circumstances. For the Golden Rule to apply to all 7 billion as one group you would have to specify for example "if you want others to help you, help others" which should be a safe bet in most circumstances as most people would want help.

[keithprosser3]

We seem to disagree about what is meant by general or universal, that's all. If a masochist applies it with 99.9% of people he would not be behaving morally, and something that doesn't apply 99.9% of time is not very universal to my mind!

I think the question of whether we can come up with a rule a masochist (or non masochist) can follow in all circumstances and be sure he is behaving morally is more interesting that quibbling over words.

[Artie]

I think the question of whether we can come up with a rule a masochist (or non masochist) can follow in all circumstances and be sure he is behaving morally is more interesting that quibbling over words.

Why would we need such a rule when we can simply apply the Golden Rule where and as it applies? We achieve practically the same thing as if we had your universal rule. We don't need any universal rule, we don't need the Ten Commandments, we just need the Golden Rule and some common sense.

[Bust Nak]

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!

No. Yes. Good. Yes, on demand. Yes. No. Yes. In that order. Or I can just write down some vague rules and let my followers argue over what I meant.

[keithprosser3]

I can just write down some vague rules and let my followers argue over what I meant.

That's a good idea. That way we only have to bother you when we can't agree.

So, what are the rules, master?

[instantc]

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.

I don't think it's curios at all, morality has baffled academics for a long time. Nobody is amazed that we have tendency for reciprocity. It's not surprising that I have an urge to help those in need, i.e I find pleasure in helping others. An inclination for altruism is easily explained by evolution. What is baffling is that when there is no such inclination, and I'd find helping some particular person very unpleasant and unrewarding, even then I work against my biological inclinations and offer my help. The reason I do it is not because it feels good, not because that kind of behavior would help the society in a long run, but simply because it seems the right thing to do.

[Artie]

What is baffling is that when there is no such inclination and I'd find helping some particular person a very unpleasant and unrewarding idea, even then I sometimes work against my biological inclinations and help the guy. The reason I do it is not because it feels good, not because that kind of behavior would help the society in a long run, but simply because it seems the right thing to do.

And it seems the right thing to do because deep down you are programmed to help even though your conscious self might find it unpleasant and unrewarding and even though it doesn't feel good or it wouldn't help the society in the long run. You just can't escape your most basic instincts.

[keithprosser3]

because it seems the right thing to do.

I am sure it is the right thing to do! But there is a possible mundane explanation.

When you say 'altruism is explained by evolution' and 'biological inclination' are you referring to the idea that relatives carry at least part of you genome and so in helping them you are in some way helping yourself to reproduce? (cf Dawkins Selfish Gene).

If so the reason for helping strangers may be that it is hard to know who is and who is not a relative. In a small,close-knit societies such as the ones that we evolved in almost everyone you met would probably be related to some degree and so be a legitimate recipient of at least a little of you altruism.

Or it could be that you are enlightened enought to realise that your 'in group' is not specially privileged and outsiders are just as deserving of assistance as insiders!

Racists still suffer from over-valuing the in-group and out-group difference where the in-group defined as the race level, but nearly everybody values their in-group over out_groups where the in-group is defined as their immediate family.

[Danmark]

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.

I don't think it's curios at all, morality has baffled academics for a long time. Nobody is amazed that we have tendency for reciprocity. It's not surprising that I have an urge to help those in need, i.e I find pleasure in helping others. An inclination for altruism is easily explained by evolution. What is baffling is that when there is no such inclination, and I'd find helping some particular person very unpleasant and unrewarding, even then I work against my biological inclinations and offer my help. The reason I do it is not because it feels good, not because that kind of behavior would help the society in a long run, but simply because it seems the right thing to do.

You raise a good point, but I don't agree that it is baffling. Mere habit could explain it. We also know that society, at least in large part, admires the willingness to help the unlovely and the unpleasant. I also disagree what we do not in these cases still have the biological inclination just because the other is unpleasant. Our sense of reciprocity extends to them as well. We may even identify strongly with the very person we do not like, observing that perhaps we share some of the very qualities we do not like in that person. Finally, we are all too frequently able to overcome feelings of altruism.