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]

[JohnA]

....

And the evidence is:
1) Danmark's treatment of me, the way he is employing his tactics to discredit me. Would he enjoy if I used similar tactics on him?

2) Prisons. Why send anyone there, Danmark certainly do not want to go there, even if he breaks the law. Does anybody want to go to prison? How many people did Danmark "indirectly" sent to prison (probably based on false accusations, empty claim and ad hominems)?

John A, you are right to point out that I fell far below the standard I suggested was universal in human morality by my treatment of you. Please forgive me. Let's move on and focus on the debate itself, rather than personal remarks.

Part of the reason I wanted to respond was to clarify that for over 30 years I have worked to keep people out of prison, rather than to prosecute. I only defend. I'm just not wired to do otherwise.

The remarks I made was based on FACT. The FACT to which you now agreed to. I am in probation partly (and I will argue mainly) because of your back hand tactics. How can you apologize for it when you say "free-will" does not exist? That makes no sense, it is not logically coherent.

I would also argue that you are indeed wired the other way, given your treatment of back hand tactics, trying to assassinate my character.

Your empty claim or "objective moral laws' exists, lingers. And I know you will not defend it, based on your history of previous assertion of empty claims. But you will accuse me of being a Relativist, based on your straw man. You can surely show me wrong, but I am not interested, I have chosen to ignore it, based on your claim that free-will do not exist.

Your position therefore, for me, is incoherent. I can not trust anything you say. So I can not focus on any argument with you. But I do taste the disgusting way you treated me in my mouth. And I do not like it.

[Artie]

I disagree with:
"I simply believe that we have evolved to appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule' and has appeared in virtually every culture in one form or another for as long as man has been able to record words."

I agree with:

"I simply believe that we have evolved to appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule' and has appeared in virtually every culture in one form or another for as long as man has been able to record words."

There are obviously exceptions and those we send to prison because they don't "appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule'."

According to the FBI there were 12,996 murders committed in the US in 2010 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... rtbl08.xls and the US has a population of 317 million people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ted_States Obviously the consensus is that murder is immoral simply because that's how we evolved.

[JohnA]

I disagree with:
"I simply believe that we have evolved to appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule' and has appeared in virtually every culture in one form or another for as long as man has been able to record words."

I agree with:

"I simply believe that we have evolved to appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule' and has appeared in virtually every culture in one form or another for as long as man has been able to record words."

There are obviously exceptions and those we send to prison because they don't "appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule'."

According to the FBI there were 12,996 murders committed in the US in 2010 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... rtbl08.xls and the US has a population of 317 million people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ted_States Obviously the consensus is that murder is immoral simply because that's how we evolved.

I wrote this before.
Killing is not 'wrong'. I would never say that.
Murder is 'wrong' because it is unlawful killing.
People kill other people in self defense, and in war.
You and I kill most of the stuff we eat (or someone killed it).
Life eats/kills life all the time.

I think we formed these murder laws because of our evolutionary ethics and empathy. I can not explain it of it is "built-in" or evolved. Am also not convinced it is in all living things because of the fact that life eats/kills life to survive. But we have observed empathy in other animals.

I was under the assumption that Danmark's Golden Rule was "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

Perhaps us human animals developed this Murder 'law' to protect ourselves from extinction, to protect ourselves from people wanting to minimize survival (maximize extinction / suffering) of the our species.

There are obviously exceptions and those we send to prison because they don't "appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule'."

If they do not appreciate it, how can this "Golden Rule" be 'true for humans'? You could say that these humans are 'faulty', which would be acceptable. But why would this "Golden Rule" not be faulty instead or too?

[NoisForm]

Again, each word objective moral laws is valid, but saying 'objective moral laws' exist, is rubbish. That implies some person or being created laws, made them objective. So, are these law applicable to this being as well? If so, then this being could not have created these laws, but the other way around - which is clearly a contradiction.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here? Something existing 'objectively' implies precisely the opposite of what you've posted here (esp. the part I bolded).

That is, if something (someone?) 'created' these laws, then they, by definition, cannot be objective. If these laws or rules exist, they must have come about naturally to be considered objective. That which is objective (e.g., think, laws governing electromagnetism), are so because they exist independent of mind (i.e., cannot have been created by a mind), as explained...

Here; "A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"..."

...and here; "Something is objective insofar as it is independent of either a particular mind or minds altogether."

[keithprosser3]

You could try an empirical test. We could compare the results of locking a few miscreants up in one state from the results of reversing the Golden rule in another state - and then see what state philosophers want to live in!

The point about objective morality - if it exists - is it may involve 'brute facts' - facts that don't have an underlying reason, or not an easily accessible or immediately obvious reason.

Why is gravity weaker than magnetism? It just is - or we have to accept it just is, because the reason for that is currently beyond reach. But that is no reason to deny or doubt gravity is weaker than magnetism.

So why doubt the golden rule is better that its opposite? - maybe 'it just is' is the argument. Like the reason why gravity is weaker than magnetism, the reason that GR is better than ~GR maybe unknown but the fact GR is better than ~GR is evident.

[JohnA]

Again, each word objective moral laws is valid, but saying 'objective moral laws' exist, is rubbish. That implies some person or being created laws, made them objective. So, are these law applicable to this being as well? If so, then this being could not have created these laws, but the other way around - which is clearly a contradiction.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here? Something existing 'objectively' implies precisely the opposite of what you've posted here (esp. the part I bolded).

That is, if something (someone?) 'created' these laws, then they, by definition, cannot be objective. If these laws or rules exist, they must have come about naturally to be considered objective. That which is objective (e.g., think, laws governing electromagnetism), are so because they exist independent of mind (i.e., cannot have been created by a mind), as explained...

Here; "A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"..."

...and here; "Something is objective insofar as it is independent of either a particular mind or minds altogether."

Yes, but that is not what I wrote. You seem to be quoting me out of context.

And I object to the word 'law'. That in itself implies it is created by a thing and there are consequences (punishment by this 'thing' or 'something else).


We know and can write down, and test, scientific laws. We know the mechanisms, and in some cases (scientific theories) can use it to predict things. You can not 'break' the laws in science and there is no consequences by definition. (we can show these laws wrong, or improve on them) That is not the same as these so called "objective moral laws". We do not even know what they are or if they exist. It is pure speculation. (I agree, there is something from evolution - ethics and empathy for some animals incl human animals, but they are clearly not universal across all animals or life).

That is, if something (someone?) 'created' these laws, then they, by definition, cannot be objective.

Correct, that is why I am saying that these 'laws' could not have created the 'thing' that created the laws. Hence the contradiction.

If these laws or rules exist, they must have come about naturally to be considered objective.

Or has always been here/there.

[Artie]

I think we formed these murder laws because of our evolutionary ethics and empathy. I can not explain it of it is "built-in" or evolved.

Both "built-in" and evolved. Our brains come with morality "built-in" because that's how our brains evolved since those with morality "built-in" stood a better chance of surviving in a social context.

Am also not convinced it is in all living things because of the fact that life eats/kills life to survive. But we have observed empathy in other animals.

Morality is just the ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong". There's nothing wrong about killing and eating to survive if that's how the animal evolved.

Perhaps us human animals developed this Murder 'law' to protect ourselves from extinction, to protect ourselves from people wanting to minimize survival (maximize extinction / suffering) of the our species.

We didn't "develop" this "Murder law" we just put into writing what was already hard wired into our brains.

There are obviously exceptions and those we send to prison because they don't "appreciate certain moral values that virtually all people in all cultures agree on, a sense of fairness and reciprocity that can be summed up in the 'Golden Rule'."

If they do not appreciate it, how can this "Golden Rule" be 'true for humans'? You could say that these humans are 'faulty', which would be acceptable. But why would this "Golden Rule" not be faulty instead or too?

We evolved morals like the Golden Rule because they helped us survive. If morals like the Golden Rule had been "faulty" we wouldn't be here in the first place.

[keithprosser3]

You could try an empirical test. We could compare the results of locking a few miscreants up in one state from the results of reversing the Golden rule in another state - and then see what state philosophers want to live in!

The point about objective morality - if it exists - is it may involve 'brute facts' - facts that don't have an underlying reason, or not an easily accessible or immediately obvious reason.

Why is gravity weaker than magnetism? It just is - or we have to accept it just is, because the reason is currently beyond reach. But that is no reason to deny or doubt gravity is weaker than magnetism.

So why deny or doubt the golden rule is better that its opposite? - maybe 'it just is' is the best proof we have for now. Like the reason why gravity is weaker than magnetism, the reason that GR is better than ~GR maybe currently unknown but the fact GR is better than ~GR is evident.

[JohnA]

You could try an empirical test. We could compare the results of locking a few miscreants up in one state from the results of reversing the Golden rule in another state - and then see what state philosophers want to live in!

The point about objective morality - if it exists - is it may involve 'brute facts' - facts that don't have an underlying reason, or not an easily accessible or immediately obvious reason.

Why is gravity weaker than magnetism? It just is - or we have to accept it just is, because the reason for that is currently beyond reach. But that is no reason to deny or doubt gravity is weaker than magnetism.

So why doubt the golden rule is better that its opposite? - maybe 'it just is' is the argument. Like the reason why gravity is weaker than magnetism, the reason that GR is better than ~GR maybe unknown but the fact GR is better than ~GR is evident.

Why is gravity weaker than magnetism? It just is

No it is not. Not over distance. Why do you thing we orbit the sun? (Well, we don't actually because the sun orbits the massive black hole in the center of our galaxy, and that probably orbits something else, or does it?)

You could say we have laws of nature because it can not be that we would observe it if we were not here. There may be other universes with different laws or no laws at all.

To compare laws of nature with 'laws of morality' is a failed analogy. (see my previous post).

[Bust Nak]

He has not answered my questions. Am not sure how this can continue with this amateurish style of debating.

By ignoring my posts and talking pass me, apparently.

I would call this one-sided as well: I HAVE to answer questions, but my opponent DOES NOT, his inconsistencies/fallacies are acceptable to him, but I'm being inconsistent when I do not accept his inconsistencies/fallacies.

That is simply false, anyone can look up and see your questions answered.

I will point out only a few inconsistencies from my opponent to back up my assertions above:

He wrote:

"How does "could be seen" clearly implies that it is not justification enough?"
"I don't need to bend anything because I said "could be seen," I never said "is seen." "
"That's right, and I have to quotes to back that up. Note the "could be seen" here. "

So, when I use "could seen" I have to back it up. And even when I do, it is still not enough.
However, my opponent can just use "could be seen" without any backing up because it is his back up. That is inconsistent, and he refuses to answer the question.

That is false. I asked you would could be seen meant, you said it meant without a real world example, with speculation. Now you want it to mean not justification enough or wrongly precieved only after I keep pusing you for clarification.

He wrote:

"I am not jumping to an accusation of dishonesty. "

This is a straw man fallacy. I never accused him of dishonesty. I will once again ask for this quote where I did, and offer another reward if he can produce it.

Now this I can back up. I want my money.
"Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me."
"I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining."
"You need to decide if you want to quote mind me or not."

And when he can not, then he will probably deny making this straw man and false accusation.

Well, I can, hand over the money. $10,000 was it? Or is the offer no longer applicable?

He wrote:

" I didn't claim you said "ONLY the lack of a law would be sufficient to justify genocide." "
"You did say the Nazis could be seen as not wrong if they didn't have laws against genocide, and questioned if it was wrong to completely wipe a race out in self-defence. It is not suprising that it could be taken as justistification for genocide. "

And I did respond to it: "Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me."
He still writes:

"I am trying to saying what you said could be taken as justistification for genocide. "
"I am saying you were clear enough and it CAN be takening as justistification for genocide"

It seems to me that my opponent can not decide if he is accusing me or not. He jumps back and forth, trying to use linguistics.

Why do you think "what you said could be taken as justistification for genocide" is an accusation? Of course linguistics is a huge part of this, I am trying to get clarification of what you mean.

And this I do not approve of - this in my books is slander or character assassination:

"The only accusation I made, is you were too aggressive and sensitive"

Are you denying that you are overly aggressive or sensitive?

He wrote:

"How exactly is "Actually no. Buy yes if you quote mining me" or "I can see how you are attempting again at straw manning me using quote mining" not accusations of quote mining?"

Missing the If. An attempt is not always successful, if it was it would not be called an attempt.

Oh, you are not accusaing me of dishonesty, only failed attempts of dishonesty. As if it stops it from being an accusation. Now hand over the cash.

He wrote:

"Inaccuracies are inaccuracies, not the same thing as a strawman"

That is an attempt to redefine straw man, or dodge his fallacy. I do not know which one, as I can not decode linguistics acrobats.

You can misinterpret your opponent without quote mining, can make a false statement without lying, every time you accuse me of quote mining, you are accusing me of dishonesty.

He wrote:

"I haven't attacked any argument of yours. "

But here we are debating. So, he is admitting this is pointless, he has no beef with any of my arguments, all of this is nonsense. So, why waste my time and his time then?

I said "Other than defending against the accusation of strawman or quotemine. I haven't attacked any argument of yours." What happened to the "other than..." part? I am also trying to get you to clarify your points, you think it's a waste of time then by all means don't reply. I still want my money though.

He wrote:

"I would say they were deciding the law via a democratic process, not whether racism was right or wrong. "

So, it is not wrong for me to break the law. OK then.

Incorrect, it would not necessarily wrong for you to break the law, it could be well be wrong for you to break the law.

He wrote:

"I would say they were deciding the law via a democratic process, not whether racism was right or wrong. "

Still REFUSING to answer my question. WHY is apartheid wrong? How can I debate with someone that refuses to answer questions?

He wrote:

"Lots of reasons why I do not like what they are doing, I think I could sum it up with I don't like seeing people suffer. But then you can ask me "Why do you not like seeing people suffer?" I could point out I am empathic and when other people suffer, I suffer too. Then you could ask me "what makes suffering wrong?" as so on for each and every reason I give until I have no answer. So I am skipping all the intermediate steps straight to the "I just don't! Ok?" I am a moral subjectivist - they are wrong because in my opinion, they are wrong. "

So, he can not answer my question. Yet my same answer for this is "I do not understand what evolution gave us, but it did give us something" is not good enough for him. I rest my case.

How is that not an answer you your question - you asked me why apartheid wrong, and I answered "I don't like seeing people suffer" which in turn boils down to "they are wrong because in my opinion they are wrong."

And here he goes again:

"I said there is no such thing as 'objective moral values'"

But previously he said he does not know why something is wrong, but evolution gave iusand now he claims he KNOWS there is no objective moral values. This is inconsistent. I can not debate someone with this type inconsistencies.

That is incorrect. No where have I said that I do not know why something is wrong. I do know why something is wrong - it is wrong with in my opinion they are wrong.

My point has been clear. My opponent is in spin, linguistics and inconsistencies. I think he may be struggling with trying to put me in a philosophical box (relativist, objectivist, subjectivist, whateva) even after he himself admitted that "Definitions changes and not everyone agree on the same definitions."

I am struggling to understand you. There is nothing wrong with using "philosophical boxes" as you call it.

And here is yet another unanswered question: "What makes 'his' Objectivism' better than "Relativism"? "

Because loaded questions cannot be answered. I didn't say his (Danmark's) objectivism better than relativism. And as it turns out, Danmark doesn't think he is an objectivist.

And here we have an agreement to my exact same position:

"I do agree, and I don't want to call that objective. "

Yet, he still asks me to explain my position, (even when it seems to be the same as his). So, I need to explain my position X, but he does not need to explain his position X. That is inconsistent.

I agree with one part of your statement. That doesn't mean my position is the same as yours. You need to explain my position X, because it is not clear what X is.

Yet in the very next sentence he writes:

" By objective morals, I mean moral that are independent from any agency/mind. They do not exist and as such there is no evidence for it in peer reviewed scientific journal or otherwise. "

But he just confirmed that evolution (agency) did give us something.
And he says Objective morals do not exist - but admit that science has no support for this.

This is inconsistent, and contradiction.

There is no inconsistency, you have misrepresented me then argued against the mispresentation - this here is what a strawman is, the mispresentation PLUS an argument against the mispresentation. I am saying there is no support for objective morals, as opposed to there is no support for my claim that objective moral do not exist. No where have I said that evolution is agency either.

He writes:

"You are not sure if that something evolution gave you is objective or not."

Even after I explained it:
No. "morals" above is "ethics and empathy" - my understanding of it.
Evolution gave us (human animal) and some other animals (I can not speak for all animals as I do not have these type insights to make blanked statements like Danmark can make without giving evidence) - something to maximize survival and minimize extinction. Evolution is the source of it. If you want to call this "something = objective morals" then YOU can claim it. But I do say there is something that we got from evolution, and it has to so with our ethics and empathy within a species to survive, but not across species (because life eats life).
So, if one says "objective morals" is the same as, it entails, part of, consist of "something from evolution" within the human animal species - then I agree, since it is merely linguistics.
So, if one says "objective morals" is exactly equal to "something from evolution" for all life - then I disagree. I want evidence to convince me. tell me what exactly this something from evolution is. Tell me how you can take that and say it is objective morals, especially if you have not even defined objective morals.

I can not win. I explain it, by my opponent denies that I did. How is this logical?

I am not denying that you explained it. I am saying I still don't get your explaination.

He writes:

"You deny the existence of objective moral law, yet you reject the idea that morality is a matter of opinion. "

Even after I said that there is 3 sources of ethics and empathy - 2 of which is opinion referencing the 1st.

What are you saying here? Are you denying that you deny the existence of objective moral law, yet you reject the idea that morality is a matter of opinion?

He writes:

"As for debating styles. I don't debate sentence by sentence. I debate point by point. And if someone inexperienced can poke holes in a post by debating it sentence by sentence, all it says is one needs to construct their posts better so that their opponent can't debate it sentence by sentence. "

How is it that I can refer to his inconsistencies across sentences, showing how his points are contradictory?

Loaded question cannot be answered. You have failed to refer to any inconsistencies across sentences.

He wrote:

"You got annoyed with people saying you are justifying genocide, then say follow it up by saying it's okay in self defence. "

When I point out his straw man he reply:

"But I did not state that your said genocide is justified by self-defense alone. You added "alone" yourself. Self-defence is a factor in whether genocide can be justified or not; agree or disagree? "

This in inconsistent. You can not say someone is saying X, and then say you are not saying that this someone is saying X.

But I can say someone is saying X, and then say you are not saying that this someone is saying Y. I even explained the differences between X and Y - with the addition of the word "alone."

He wrote:

I practice what I preach. Thank you very much. All you questions have been answered, I have been more than polite to you, in an non aggressive way; and have not once did I accused you of strawman or quotemine. But I might start accusing you of trolling very soon.

No he does do not practice what he preaches. I showed you above why not.
His replies to me is aggressive as he is using inconsistencies to try and straw man me, to discredit me. I find that tactic aggressive and dismissive. Given his stance on "morality" he can not even deny my position.

But I can deny your accusation of strawman and quote mines, as well as inconsistencies.