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]

[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.

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.

What if I don't care about the society's admiration, my altruistic inclinations do not extend to that person and I certainly cannot identify with him at any level. What if none of the above explanation apply to my situation, but yet I decide to offer my help merely because it is the right thing to do? I feel like you are beating around the bush trying to come up with possible explanations as to why we help each other in certain situations, but the fact remains that even in cases where none of these explanations apply, one might still choose to do the right thing merely for the sake of doing the right thing.

Finally, we are all too frequently able to overcome feelings of altruism.

Agreed!

[Artie]

What if I don't care about the society's admiration, my reciprocal inclination does not extend to that person and I certainly cannot identify with him at any level. What if none of the above explanation apply to my situation, but yet I decide to offer my help merely because it is the right thing to do?

I just explained that to you in another post. You feel it is the right thing to do because evolution has programmed you to help and that subconscious instinct overrides other considerations.

[instantc]

What if I don't care about the society's admiration, my reciprocal inclination does not extend to that person and I certainly cannot identify with him at any level. What if none of the above explanation apply to my situation, but yet I decide to offer my help merely because it is the right thing to do?

I just explained that to you in another post. You feel it is the right thing to do because evolution has programmed you to help and that subconscious instinct overrides other considerations.

You have explained nothing, you keep making the same assertion and I am tired of asking you to back it up. Please continue when you have something new to add to the conversation. Until then, I'd like to see what other people have to say. My experience of reality is the exact opposite of what you say, namely (moral) consideration overrides the biological instincts.

[Artie]

You have explained nothing, you keep making the same assertion and I am tired of asking you to back it up.

Back it up? Such basic and elementary knowledge? It's like telling others the alphabet and being asked to back it up. OK...

"there is probably a more basic source powering altruism, one so ingrained that we could call it an "altruism instinct." Evidence for this comes from infants who act altruistically even though they likely don't understand the ins and outs of reputation building. Children as young as 18 months help others without being prompted, and there is evidence that preferences for altruism develop much earlier than that."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you ... m-instinct

[Nickman]

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.

I can't disagree

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?

1. I don't see how this is an assumption of the Golden Rule
2. I don't see this either

[instantc]

You have explained nothing, you keep making the same assertion and I am tired of asking you to back it up.

Back it up? Such basic and elementary knowledge? It's like telling others the alphabet and being asked to back it up. OK...

"there is probably a more basic source powering altruism, one so ingrained that we could call it an "altruism instinct." Evidence for this comes from infants who act altruistically even though they likely don't understand the ins and outs of reputation building. Children as young as 18 months help others without being prompted, and there is evidence that preferences for altruism develop much earlier than that."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you ... m-instinct

Seriously Artie, you are closer to confirming my point rather than refuting it, and you certainly haven't even attempted to explain what I suggested might be baffling about morality. I have heard what you have to say. Now, please let other people respond.

[Artie]

Seriously Artie, you are closer to confirming my point rather than refuting it, and you certainly haven't even attempted to explain what I suggested might be baffling about morality. I have heard what you have to say. Now, please let other people respond.

Yes of course. Carry on. I wasn't aware that other people couldn't respond while I was trying to explain things to a person who just don't want to know things. I won't pester you with knowledge anymore. It's just that what is "baffling" to you is just basic knowledge to us.

[keithprosser3]

@instantc,
I take it what is 'baffling' about morality is that sometimes it seems to operate in such a way as to provide no possible benefit to the person being moral, even to the point where being moral is potentially or even actually 'bad for you'?

If not, what do you mean?

[instantc]

@instantc,
I take it what is 'baffling' about morality is that sometimes it seems to operate in such a way as to provide no possible benefit to the person being moral, even to the point where being moral is potentially or even actually 'bad for you'?

No I wouldn't say that, since given different interpretations of 'possible benefit' this proposition could mean almost anything.

I would phrase it as follows. There are explanations (evolutionary and otherwise) as to why we help each other. Even when none of these explanations apply to a certain situation, I might still help someone merely for the sake of doing the right thing. That's baffling.

[keithprosser3]

It's coming clearer to me... I think! So in such a case, is it because you make a conscious decision to help or is it more instinctual? I'm not trying to psycho-analyse you, just trying to identify what you mean and relate it to something that may be in my own experience.