The flaws of NT-based morality

[Mountain Man]

I know how it's usually used in philosophy.

It doesn't seem so, because your last post argued in favor of subjectivity. You said, "Minds have beliefs, and minds find meaning in things, and minds have emotions, and minds place value on things. If you talk about a belief or an emotion, it's necessary to specify which mind has the emotion you're talking about," which is the opposite of objectivity. According to the ever reliable Wikipedia (ha!), "Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

But anyway, you seem to have lost the thread of Craig's argument by getting hung up on the phrase "objective value". Here's the sentence in question: "If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree." Notice that Craig is not arguing for or even defining what "objective value" means here. Rather, he's saying that a non-theist could arbitrarily assert that human beings have objective value and then use that premise as the basis for a system of ethics; he goes on to argue, however, that even that would not obligate us to behave morally.

Really, is taking issue with two words in a lengthy philosophical essay really the best you can do?

[Starlight]

Good thing I wasn't holding my breath waiting for MM to actually explain "objective value".

[Tassman]

They are arguing that if there is no basis for objective morality then it is just every man for himself. You can fool yourself into saying it is because of evolution, but if so, who cares? Evolution also teaches us only the fittest survive so it is just as moral to kill anyone who gets in your way. That is what they are saying.

[Mountain Man]

Good thing I wasn't holding my breath waiting for MM to actually explain "objective value".

Yes, I have this annoying habit of refusing to be sidetracked by minor issues that are irrelevant to the point actually being debated. Silly me.

[Sparko]

OK let's go with that. Then what makes helping your tribe survive by killing all the other competitor tribes around you and taking their stuff, morally bad?

[JimL]

OK let's go with that. Then what makes helping your tribe survive by killing all the other competitor tribes around you and taking their stuff, morally bad?

Because if it is an evil unto you then it is an evil period. What you can do to others can also be done to you.

[Sparko]

Because if it is an evil unto you then it is an evil period. What you can do to others can also be done to you.

why is it evil?

[JimL]

why is it evil?

Because it is against the best interests of human beings and human society as a whole. Do unto others as you would have others do to you!

[Mountain Man]

Because it is against the best interests of human beings and human society as a whole. Do unto others as you would have others do to you!

So what you're saying is, "One ought to do what is in the best interests of human beings and human society as a whole." What is your basis for this?

It seems your guiding principle is the golden rule, but what if someone is able to avoid the consequences of his immoral behavior, or simply doesn't care about the consequences? Why should he do what it's in the best interests of others?

[Sparko]

Because it is against the best interests of human beings and human society as a whole. Do unto others as you would have others do to you!

You refer to the bible's moral code to justify your belief that evolution determines morality? nice.

[Sparko]

Why don't say, Lions do what is best in the interest of all lions, then? Why do they just do what is best in the interest of their pride and attack any other pride? Why do chimps do the same thing? Why don't they cooperate for the good of the species if that is what evolution is about?

[rogue06]

They are arguing that if there is no basis for objective morality then it is just every man for himself. You can fool yourself into saying it is because of evolution, but if so, who cares? Evolution also teaches us only the fittest survive so it is just as moral to kill anyone who gets in your way. That is what they are saying.

That is not what "survival of the fittest" means in an evolutionary sense. Survival of the fittest means those who are the most successful at leaving the most progeny. And that does not mean who is the biggest and baddest. One might be successful because they have better hearing, smelling or sight and can detect predators better than others of their species. It might mean that the color of their skin, scales or fur blends in better with the terrain and are harder to detect. Even with predators it could be that because they are smaller they don't need to kill as much or as often or because they tend to co-operate with others of their species that they are much more efficient hunters.

[Sparko]

That is not what "survival of the fittest" means in an evolutionary sense. Survival of the fittest means those who are the most successful at leaving the most progeny. And that does not mean who is the biggest and baddest. One might be successful because they have better hearing, smelling or sight and can detect predators better than others of their species. It might mean that the color of their skin, scales or fur blends in better with the terrain and are harder to detect. Even with predators it could be that because they are smaller they don't need to kill as much or as often or because they tend to co-operate with others of their species that they are much more efficient hunters.

It also means that if you can kill your competitors and take their stuff you get to survive longer and pass on your genes. My point is that evolution doesn't make morals.

[JimL]

So what you're saying is, "One ought to do what is in the best interests of human beings and human society as a whole." What is your basis for this?

Because that which is in the best interests of the whole community is ultimately also in the best interests of the individuals living in community within it. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

It seems your guiding principle is the golden rule, but what if someone is able to avoid the consequences of his immoral behavior, or simply doesn't care about the consequences? Why should he do what it's in the best interests of others?

Because anyone else could then also avoid the consequences and do the same evil unto you. The objectivity of morality applies to the social structure as a whole, and its that moral structure which is objectively good for the individuals living in community in accord with it.

[hedrick]

It also means that if you can kill your competitors and take their stuff you get to survive longer and pass on your genes. My point is that evolution doesn't make morals.

Only from a myopic view. The problem is that both you and the other tribe are doing the same thing. So both tribes suffer compared with a pair of tribes that live in peace. Not to mention a pair of tribes that trade with each other and develop specialties that they're particularly suited for.