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]

help3434 · Post by **help3434** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:25 pm

[Replying to post 745 by JohnA]

How is pointing out what you actually wrote in your post straw manning you?
You wrote

Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)

What did you mean by that if you did not mean that we evolved with empathy and ethics? [/url]

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:29 pm

help3434 wrote: [Replying to post 745 by JohnA]

How is pointing out what you actually wrote in your post straw manning you?
You wrote
Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)
What did you mean by that if you did not mean that we evolved with empathy and ethics? [/url]

How is pointing out what you actually wrote in your post straw manning you?

He is assuming I am saying golden rule = evolution = ethics or golden rule = evolutionary ethics. I have explained and identified his straw manning many times. If he did not straw man me, why am I not agreeing with him then?

Which bits about the below is not clear?

For the record, my position is:
Golden rule is wishful thinking, not evolutionary ethics given that science has not verified or falsified this at all - science do not waste time on wishful thinking garbage. This golden rule is subjective, and can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology and religion, NOT science. Science does not deal with things that are clearly false and contradictory. There are many alternative versions of this golden rule because it is a well KNOWN FACT that this rule has many criticisms and can not be true in its pure form.

Additionally, I do NOT have the burden of proof here, even-though I have shown conclusively that this rule is false and anti-scientific. The fact that my opponents can not understand this is indeed not something that I can change anymore. They need to just answer a simple question "will they love my enemies" to conclude themselves that this rule is fake, false, wrong, rubbish.

What did you mean by that if you did not mean that we evolved with empathy and ethics?

Evolution gave us humans and probably all living things something to survive. We can debate how successful it is because 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct today. I call that something empathy and ethics in the case for humans, BUT only if it can be explained by science (biology in the case of evolution). In no way did I ever say that this golden rule is something that evolution built-into humans or other animals or non-faulty humans or evolved and is no built-in. In fact, my opponents claim this and can not back their claim up. The problem is that my opponents think that this golden rule exists and is true, but they can not even formulate their claim, never mind a hypothesis. They are magically assuming that golden rule = evolutionary ethics AND that I agree. In fact, I have been begging them to come up with ANY support from science to show that this rule can be explained. And they provided NONE, ZIP, ZERO. A few came up with arguments from authority (some scientists says a and b) but provided NO peer reviewed journals that were accepted by science. In fact, it is quite clear as this golden rules is not known as a scientific fact, or scientific law, or scientific theory at all. It is garbage, wishful thinking, a rule of thumb, somewhat useful under very very subjective restrictive conditions, relies on patently false assumptions, and people break this rule all the time with NO consequences.

Do you want to accept the burden of proof and defend you position if you think this golden rule exists/is true / part of evolution as built-in or evolved for humans or some or some or all life - just define your claim here as none can - that is how ridiculous this golden rule is.

Can you answer my questions?

1) Will you love my enemies?
2) So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?
3) Can you state the assumptions that this golden rules makes?

help3434 · Post by **help3434** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:46 pm

[Replying to JohnA]

You said that empathy evolved. The Golden Rule means treating people with empathy whether you said that is what the golden rule means or not.

help3434 · Post by **help3434** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:52 pm

JohnA wrote:

2) So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?

I don't know, but when you answered that question you said,"Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)"

JohnA wrote: 3) Can you state the assumptions that this golden rules makes?

The assumption is makes is that we should treat people with empathy. You said that you are compelled to act that way because of evolution when you said, "Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)"

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:23 pm

help3434 wrote: [Replying to JohnA]

You said that empathy evolved. The Golden Rule means treating people with empathy whether you said that is what the golden rule means or not.

Where did I say empathy evolved?
I said evolution have is something. I call it ethics and empathy ONLY if it can be backed up with science.
So, if a murder offers empathy that I should help him execute a murder then I should comply? Well I will not, because murder is against the law.
If a pro life person askes me (based on empathy) to help, I will not, because I am pro choice.

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:30 pm

help3434 wrote:
JohnA wrote:

2) So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?
I don't know, but when you answered that question you said,"Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)"
JohnA wrote: 3) Can you state the assumptions that this golden rules makes?
The assumption is makes is that we should treat people with empathy. You said that you are compelled to act that way because of evolution when you said, "Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)"

You don't know. Are you saying you are rejecting this golden rule?
Do you seriously not know what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life? I do not accept that based on the mere fact that you are challenging me. Or are you admitting your challenge is baseless?

So, you reject the that this rules implies that all humans are the same and that you know the wants and needs of all people.
Is that why you refuse to answer my question 1?. You clearly do not understand this rule and you have no base because you do not know what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life.

I rest my case.

help3434 · Post by **help3434** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:30 pm

JohnA wrote:
help3434 wrote: [Replying to JohnA]

You said that empathy evolved. The Golden Rule means treating people with empathy whether you said that is what the golden rule means or not.
Where did I say empathy evolved?

When you said ". Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)"

Why did you say "empathy and ethics" in parentheses after the word "evolution" if you don't think our evolution involved empathy?

help3434 · Post by **help3434** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:34 pm

[Replying to post 755 by JohnA]

I am wondering why you keep arguing against the golden rule despite the fact that in a post about the imperatives you operate under you associated evolution with empathy and ethics. What I think about the golden rule has nothing to do with that.

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:34 pm

help3434 wrote:
JohnA wrote:
help3434 wrote: [Replying to JohnA]

You said that empathy evolved. The Golden Rule means treating people with empathy whether you said that is what the golden rule means or not.
Where did I say empathy evolved?
When you said ". Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)"

Why did you say "empathy and ethics" in parentheses after the word "evolution" if you don't think our evolution involved empathy?

You are straw manning me.

Where did I say empathy evolved?
I said evolution gave is something. I call it ethics and empathy ONLY if it can be backed up with science.
So, if a murder offers empathy that I should help him execute a murder then I should comply? Well I will not, because murder is against the law.
If a pro life person askes me (based on empathy) to help, I will not, because I am pro choice.

help3434 · Post by **help3434** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:54 pm

[Replying to JohnA]

You were asked "So exactly what imperatives are controlling influences upon the way you live your life?"

Your number 1 answer was . "Evolution (empathy and ethics - max survival, min extinction / suffering for our species)"
That was your whole number one answer. There was no conditional that said "ONLY if".