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]

[Artie]

Just a general note regarding the Golden Rule and masochism:

A masochist is also a "general person". When he is a "general person" among other "general persons" he should treat others as he would like others to treat himself and when he is a "masochist" among "masochists" he should treat others as he would like others to treat himself. We wear many hats and the Golden Rule applies when we are with people who wear the same hats. Simple as that.

[JohnA]

I hope to help you see that your anti-scientific pontification of myth, grounded in biased and faulty reasoning, is irrational and incoherent.

So "One should help others as one would like others to help oneself" is myth grounded in biased and faulty reasoning. Good luck with convincing people of that. Then you should never help people and people should never help you. You wouldn't want to help perpetuate the myth you know.

By the way, you said and I quote: "I hope to help you". That would be you acting according to the Golden Rule, the same rule that according to you is a "myth grounded in biased and faulty reasoning". You have heard the expression shooting oneself in the foot, right? You shouldn't be acting according to the same rule you are trying to discredit you see.

By posting you are trying to help us. Either

1. Stop posting or
2. Admit that you are acting according to the Golden Rule.

You have not answered my questions.

You are merely demonstrating (via your disagreement with me ) that this golden rule is false.

Furthermore, you have not addressed any questions and facts from my previous posts.
I have explained why this golden rule is false, but I can not make you understand it. That is your job.

The rest of your post is just tandem ramblings that makes no sense. It's similar to your opinion that you have no opinion on god/gods. Is just way off.

[JohnA]

Just a general note regarding the Golden Rule and masochism:

A masochist is also a "general person". When he is a "general person" among other "general persons" he should treat others as he would like others to treat himself and when he is a "masochist" among "masochists" he should treat others as he would like others to treat himself. We wear many hats and the Golden Rule applies when we are with people who wear the same hats. Simple as that.

Correct. This golden rule makes 2 assumptions.
All people are the same.
You know other's wants and needs.

That is clearly false. Except for Artie and Danmark. I am not sure if they represent humanity or if the rest of us represents humanity. They fail to clarify their positions, but are great at assertion fallacies.

[Artie]

I have explained why this golden rule is false, but I can not make you understand it. That is your job.

"The Golden Rule: The path way to Human Right and World Peace"

"The Golden Rule is a universal principle that says "treat others the way you want to be treated." The message of the Golden Rule is simple, universal and powerful and is the most prevalent and universal moral principle in human history. It has been affirmed in many religions, traditions, indigenous cultures and secular philosophies as a fundamental principle of life and the foundation upon which the base of a Global Ethic is found.

The Golden Rule is not just a moral ideal for relationships between people but also for relationships among nations, cultures, races, sexes, economies and religions. Clearly, the Golden Rule has the capacity to be the ethical cornerstone in developing a Global Ethic as the human family works together to build a peaceful, just and sustainable global society."

"World peace is only possible when we start to make peace within ourselves, our families and in our respective communities. Therefore all of us need to make extra effort to practice every day

"8) To live by, uphold and be guided by the Golden Rule and use it as our
motto and principle in life."

http://www.fowpal.org/f/english/F_d_056.html

Why are you working against this by doing your best to discredit the Golden Rule? Have you considered that this is an open forum and other people than me might be very interested in your motives for continuously and consistently discrediting the Golden Rule?

[Artie]

That is clearly false. Except for Artie and Danmark. I am not sure if they represent humanity or if the rest of us represents humanity. They fail to clarify their positions, but are great at assertion fallacies.

"The document which was signed by 300 representatives of the world's religions at the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago says "We are interdependent. Each of us depends on the well-being of the whole, and so we have respect for the community of living beings. We must treat others as we wish others to treat us." http://www.fowpal.org/f/english/F_d_056.html

You can just count how much of humanity is covered by representatives for 300 religions and then add everybody else who also live by the Golden Rule. The people you call "the rest of us" seem to be pretty outnumbered don't you think?

[instantc]

(*corrected my spelling)

...a wrongful act is not morally bad unless it is a manifestation of a bad intention.

So say, (hypothetically, of course!) 'some dictator' actually had the best of intentions - ridding the world of a depraved and subhuman segment of humanity, in order to strengthen and ultimately 'perfect' our species so that we might all prosper?

So long as this fella 'thought' he was doing good, despite how *incomprehensibly vile his actions might be viewed by many, his actions are moral because his "intentions" were good? Does that really work?

That's not a good intention. By 'good intention' I mean an intention to do something we would consider good. Suppose there is a man is punching another man in the alley, and a bypasser decides to stop the assault by attacking the perpetrator. Now, he later finds out that it was merely a play practice by a local drama club. Thus, what he did was in fact a wrongful act, but we don't punish people for such acts as long as the intention was clearly good, despite of the actual circumstances.

So then, it doesn't appear to be about the 'intention' of the actor at all, but rather about the hypothetical "we's" opinion of the act itself. The intention of the dictator in my scenario was quite 'good' (by what standards?) - "to strengthen and ultimately 'perfect' our species so that we might all prosper". The act, in the opinion of this 'we', was quite bad (again, by which standards)?

You are confusing intention with motive, these are two different things. I'm not saying a good motive should always justify an intentional wrongful act.

[instantc]

If the good you feel doesn't outweight the unpleasantness, you wouldn't be doing it.

This is precisely wrong, that was my whole point. Even when the good feeling doesn't nearly outweigh the unpleasantness, I might still help, merely because it is the right thing to do, no further reason, no (simple) evolutionary explanations.

[JohnA]

I have explained why this golden rule is false, but I can not make you understand it. That is your job.

"The Golden Rule: The path way to Human Right and World Peace"

"The Golden Rule is a universal principle that says "treat others the way you want to be treated." The message of the Golden Rule is simple, universal and powerful and is the most prevalent and universal moral principle in human history. It has been affirmed in many religions, traditions, indigenous cultures and secular philosophies as a fundamental principle of life and the foundation upon which the base of a Global Ethic is found.

The Golden Rule is not just a moral ideal for relationships between people but also for relationships among nations, cultures, races, sexes, economies and religions. Clearly, the Golden Rule has the capacity to be the ethical cornerstone in developing a Global Ethic as the human family works together to build a peaceful, just and sustainable global society."

"World peace is only possible when we start to make peace within ourselves, our families and in our respective communities. Therefore all of us need to make extra effort to practice every day

"8) To live by, uphold and be guided by the Golden Rule and use it as our
motto and principle in life."

http://www.fowpal.org/f/english/F_d_056.html

Why are you working against this by doing your best to discredit the Golden Rule? Have you considered that this is an open forum and other people than me might be very interested in your motives for continuously and consistently discrediting the Golden Rule?

You are doing brilliant job yourself by discrediting this golden rule using propaganda. All you are doing is cementing my points. And the irony is that you do not get it. Keep going, you just affirmed again that this golden rule is anti-scientific. Keep pontificating please. And hey, no need to answer my questions, because you think you are upholding this fake rule.

[JohnA]

That is clearly false. Except for Artie and Danmark. I am not sure if they represent humanity or if the rest of us represents humanity. They fail to clarify their positions, but are great at assertion fallacies.

"The document which was signed by 300 representatives of the world's religions at the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago says "We are interdependent. Each of us depends on the well-being of the whole, and so we have respect for the community of living beings. We must treat others as we wish others to treat us." http://www.fowpal.org/f/english/F_d_056.html

You can just count how much of humanity is covered by representatives for 300 religions and then add everybody else who also live by the Golden Rule. The people you call "the rest of us" seem to be pretty outnumbered don't you think?

Right. So you can not defend this rule - everything you say you is merely affirming it is false. If this rule was true then you would not need 300 religions to sign it. And now you offer your affirmed position that this rule is false with an argument from authority and population.
Your arguments are getting more desperate with every new post from you.

[Danmark]

...everything you pay you ate merely affirming is its false. If this rule was true then toy would not need 300 religions to sign it. And now you spend your affirmed positron that this rule is false with an argument from authority and population.
....

Does anyone reading this have a clue what this assemblage of words means?
What do 'positrons' have to do with the discussion?

What does "...everything you pay you ate merely affirming is its false" mean?
Anyone?