To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[seer]

this; this is merely conjecture, unsupported by any verifiable evidence.

Like your mythical multiverse or your universe that pops out of nothing?

[JimL]

Like your mythical multiverse or your universe that pops out of nothing?

No thats wrong seer, the multiverse theory is a direct result of quantum mechanics. No one was looking or even thinking in terms of other universes. They may have thought of this universe as being infinite and eternal, but I don't believe anyone was thinking about an infinite many universes out there. Quantum Mechanics and the Schroedinger equation, the fact that eveything, including our own particular universe, is in a superposition led to the notion of the multiverse. Its not a dream't up mythical tale. Its not known, but its not unsupported either.

[shunyadragon]

OK, my mistake, yet we still have sanctioned or unsanctioned murders within cultures. So prohibitions against murder are not universal.

This incorrect. You have wrongful death (murder) in all cultures, and have justified killing, from punishment for crimes to war. Prohibitions against 'wrongful death' is indeed universal with all cultures in history.

Take God out of the picture then where does one look for this universal standard?

There does not appear to be an absolute universal standard including all cultures regardless of whether God exists or not. There are consistent morals and ethics in all cultures in history, but the vary in history and between cultures. Pretty much all cultures have morals, ethics and laws defining wrongful death, theft, marriage and sexual relationships,

[Doug Shaver]

I'm not sure what you mean by logical. They murdered millions of dissenters to further political and social cohesion. And it pretty much worked. How is that illogical?

If political and social cohesion can be maintained without terrorizing people, then it is illogical to terrorize people to maintain political and social cohesion.

So I was correct, logically the atheist could make up his own moral code.

If every atheist can make up his own code, then there is no code for all atheists.

[Tassman]

Like your mythical multiverse or your universe that pops out of nothing?

Nothing like it!

Unlike your unverified god hypothesis, particles popping in and out of existence is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is an extremely well tested, complete and tightly woven theory.

[The Pixie]

OK, my mistake, yet we still have sanctioned or unsanctioned murders within cultures. So prohibitions against murder are not universal.

Not sure I understand you here. The prohibition is not exactly the same across all cultures, but in a broad sense, yes, prohibitions against murder are universal.

Actually no, universal means universal.

Again, not sure what you mean. It is universal in that all cultures have it. It is not applied universally in all cultures.

Then the question is how/where do these universal moral truths exist? As far as I know moral truths only exist in minds (they are by nature interpersonal) and the only universal mind I know of is God. Take God out of the picture then where does one look for this universal standard?

And as far as I know, minds only exist connected to biological brains, so I guess we can rule out God, right?

A universal truth is that the angles in a triangle add up to 360 degrees. While you need a mind to comprehend that, it was a universal truth before mankind had any clue about geometry. I see no reason why moral truths should not similarly exist in the abstract.

[seer]

This incorrect. You have wrongful death (murder) in all cultures, and have justified killing, from punishment for crimes to war. Prohibitions against 'wrongful death' is indeed universal with all cultures in history.

Like Nazis gassing German Jews?

[Tassman]

Like Nazis gassing German Jews?

But Nazis gassing other Nazis would

[seer]

But Nazis gassing other Nazis would

So gassing German Jews was not wrongful?

[seer]

Not sure I understand you here. The prohibition is not exactly the same across all cultures, but in a broad sense, yes, prohibitions against murder are universal.

No they are not universal unless you believe for instance that gassing German Jews was not murder.

Again, not sure what you mean. It is universal in that all cultures have it. It is not applied universally in all cultures.

If it not applied universally then by definition it is not universal.

A universal truth is that the angles in a triangle add up to 360 degrees. While you need a mind to comprehend that, it was a universal truth before mankind had any clue about geometry. I see no reason why moral truths should not similarly exist in the abstract.

Again, even a Nazi would agree that 2+2=4, but he would not agree that gassing Jewish children was immoral. Angles in a triangle are based on physical properties, the concept "murder is wrong" is not based on a physical property. Here is something I recently wrote:

I will contend here that no such thing as objective morality exists. Objective here is defined as something that exists independent of the mind or minds. If something is objective it has being apart from any personal knowledge of it. The sun, the color blue, trees, mountains etc... would all still exist even if there were no minds to grasp their reality. They have an independent existence. Morality is not in their category. Morality is interpersonal, how rational beings order their interaction with other rational beings. No rational beings, no opportunity for interaction, hence no morality. There is no independent rule "thou shalt not kill", such an ideal (which is really an abstract) does not, and I maintain, can not, exist apart from a mind or minds.

The problem is once you bring minds into the picture you have subjectivity, that is inescapable. Some will suggest that moral ideals are akin to mathematical truths, just kind of out there for us to discover. But here again we find subjectivity. Yes there is an objective distance between the moon and the earth for instance. But what you call that distance, the tokens you use to measure it, are subjective. Is the moon 384,400 kilometers away? Or 238,900 miles? Yes distance is an objective fact, how we measure it is subjective. And when it comes to ethics there are no objective facts to link a morally subjective measurement or opinion to. They are obviously not the same.

[Tassman]

So gassing German Jews was not wrongful?

Yes of course it was "wrongful" according to our modern concept of universal human rights. It was not considered "wrongful" within the tribal mentality of the Nazis...just as Moses' slaughtering of the Midianites, men, women and children, was not seen as wrongful by Moses or his tribal deity.

[JimL]

So gassing German Jews was not wrongful?

The universe is a-moral seer, there are no objective morals from the atheistic perspective, because there is no evidence of objective morals. Besides, even if there were objective morals, you'd have no idea what they are. The morals to which you hold to have evolved and have been impressed upon you by your family and culture. Now that you know that, don't go robbing and murdering people, because it's not nice!

[seer]

Yes of course it was "wrongful" according to our modern concept of universal human rights. It was not considered "wrongful" within the tribal mentality of the Nazis...just as Moses' slaughtering of the Midianites, men, women and children, was not seen as wrongful by Moses or his tribal deity.

So it was not a universal wrong as Pixie and I were discussing, it is only a relative wrong.

[seer]

The universe is a-moral seer, there are no objective morals from the atheistic perspective, because there is no evidence of objective morals.

You need to tell Pixie that...

[shunyadragon]

Like Nazis gassing German Jews?

The gassing of the Jews is considered wrongful death by our society, and condemned.