Morality Without Justice

[seer]

It does actually. The evolved "purpose" is survival of the species. Survival is the prime imperative of all living creatures.

That is silly Tass, there is no reason that we as a species should survive. How many other species went extinct - was it their "purpose" to survive?

[seer]

What if minds don't create moral laws, but instead describe moral laws?

Well if you can explain how moral ideals can exist apart from minds, I'm all ears. I mean, gravity would still exist, even if there were no minds in the universe.

What other alternative exists?

Personal experience, history. I'm sure you remember that a while back I posted an experience that defied natural law. Perhaps even miraculous. I can't prove it scientifically but it was as real and true as typing on this computer at this moment.

[seer]

So, tell me, what is the point of the moral nature of your believed in paradise? What is the point of men behaving in accord with the moral principles of that world. Is it because the moral principles which are adhered to by all its inhabitants makes for a pleasant world in which to live? Isn't that why its called paradise? Of course it is.

But that is not the point Jim. The point is men, either largely or not, do not follow said principles. The golden rule has been known, in one form or another, for centuries across cultures - but men often do not follow it, or only give it lip service. And if we adhered to that one simple ethical principle we would have heaven on earth - but we don't.

So then, if you understand that, then you should be able to understand that the existence of such a system is not dependent on minds, or a mind. Its a world in which there is no murder, no rape, no theft, no anything that could be detrimental to a pleasant and peaceful life for the inhabitants therein. The moral principles would need to be adhered to in order for it to work yes, but that is a different question as to whether such principles could objectively exist in a godless world.

Of course it is completely mind dependent. It is your subjective belief that that should be the goal for humanity. But why is your goal more correct than the Nazis, Communists or Radical Muslims?

[Cornell]

Tassman

So where can I find 'survival' in matter? How do I see, touch, smell, hear or taste 'survival'? Is it a human convention, made up for practical reasons, but yet doesn't really exist objectively? Something evolution told us, and therefore it must be true? A real abstract thing such as a platonic form?


as far as the baby goes that is a non-sequitur (I asked you WHEN did rationality come from non rationality, as far as the sum of reality is concerned), obviously babies didn't always exist in the universe, so at what point in time did rationality come from non-rationality? Did rationality just pop into existence and plug itself into animals when animals acted some way?

[JimL]

But that is not the point Jim. The point is men, either largely or not, do not follow said principles. The golden rule has been known, in one form or another, for centuries across cultures - but men often do not follow it, or only give it lip service. And if we adhered to that one simple ethical principle we would have heaven on earth - but we don't.

No seer, your contention was, and always has been, since you have argued the point in many threads, that objective morals could not exist in a godless world, but the existence of objective morals has nothing to do with whether or not they are adhered to. Whether or not the golden rule is adhered to has nothing to do with whether it is an objective moral princple. Men don't adhere to your moral standard either, you know, the one you claim to flow from gods moral character. So the argument that you make i.e. that because men don't abide by an objective moral standard then it can't exist, is defeated. Transgression and justice is a totally different argument than whether objective morals can exist or not. So you can no longer make that argument. Objective morals can exist in a godless world, and in my opinion, since I don't believe in god, do exist in a godless world.

Of course it is completely mind dependent. It is your subjective belief that that should be the goal for humanity. But why is your goal more correct than the Nazis, Communists or Radical Muslims?

No, the goal for all species, as Tass has repeatedly pointed out is survival, and an adhered to objective moral standard, whether naturally or supernaturally sourced is the tool, if you will, that can be utilized to bring that about. That in fact is what we do when we legislate morality.

[seer]

No, the goal for all species, as Tass has repeatedly pointed out is survival, and an adhered to objective moral standard, whether naturally or supernaturally sourced is the tool, if you will, that can be utilized to bring that about. That in fact is what we do when we legislate morality.

This is nonsensical Jim, there is no objective goal for any species. There is no moral imperative that we as a species should survive in the first place. Any more than for any other species that went extinct in the past. And I would remind you Jim that most of humanity survived and flourished under totalitarian, and often cruel, rule. So if survival is the goal, even there, there are subjective ways to attain said goal. Nothing in any of this Jim points to objective moral facts.

[JimL]

This is nonsensical Jim, there is no objective goal for any species. There is no moral imperative that we as a species should survive in the first place. Any more than for any other species that went extinct in the past. And I would remind you Jim that most of humanity survived and flourished under totalitarian, and often cruel, rule. So if survival is the goal, even there, there are subjective ways to attain said goal. Nothing in any of this Jim points to objective moral facts.

I never said that the goal of survival was objective, and I never said that there was a moral imperative that we survive. Please don't put words into my mouth for the sake of your argument. My only argument is that the desire to survive, whether subjective or objective, has within nature an objective tool to be utilized in order to maintain that desire. And please stop equating other species with humans in this argument because they don't have the same cognative abilities as humans. And when you say that humanity flourished under evil circumstances you are putting the cart ahead of the horse. The goal of a paradise on earth where all humans can survive in peace and joy has never been achieved under any moral system. But that has nothing to do with whether or not such an adhered to objective moral sytem itself exists, or can exist. You already admit that it can exist, you believe it exists in the after world where there is no need of justice because all men adhere to the moral system. So just admit that the possiblity of an objective moral system to exist has nothing to do with subjectivity or justice, it has to do with adherence.

[seer]

I never said that the goal of survival was objective, and I never said that there was a moral imperative that we survive. Please don't put words into my mouth for the sake of your argument. My only argument is that the desire to survive, whether subjective or objective, has within nature an objective tool to be utilized in order to maintain that desire. And please stop equating other species with humans in this argument because they don't have the same cognative abilities as humans. And when you say that humanity flourished under evil circumstances you are putting the cart ahead of the horse. The goal of a paradise on earth where all humans can survive in peace and joy has never been achieved under any moral system. But that has nothing to do with whether or not such an adhered to objective moral sytem itself exists, or can exist. You already admit that it can exist, you believe it exists in the after world where there is no need of justice because all men adhere to the moral system. So just admit that the possiblity of an objective moral system to exist has nothing to do with subjectivity or justice, it has to do with adherence.

Jim, then tell me how such an objective moral system can exist apart from God.

[JimL]

Jim, then tell me how such an objective moral system can exist apart from God.

I've explained that ad infinitum already seer. Gods punishment for transgressing his law, like human punishment for breaking the law, has only to do with justice, it has nothing to do with the existence of the objective moral laws themselves. Adherence to an objective moral system has nothing to do with whether or not the objective moral system itself exists whether natural or supernaturally sourced. Your argument is not that such a system can not exist naturally, although thats an assertion that you make, but your only legitimate argument is that transgressors can escape justice if the objective moral system is natural rather than supernaturally sourced.

[seer]

I've explained that ad infinitum already seer. Gods punishment for transgressing his law, like human punishment for breaking the law, has only to do with justice, it has nothing to do with the existence of the objective moral laws themselves. Adherence to an objective moral system has nothing to do with whether or not the objective moral system itself exists whether natural or supernaturally sourced. Your argument is not that such a system can not exist naturally, although thats an assertion that you make, but your only legitimate argument is that transgressors can escape justice if the objective moral system is natural rather than supernaturally sourced.

What? You are not making sense - do you believe that an objective moral system exists or not?

[JimL]

What? You are not making sense - do you believe that an objective moral system exists or not?

I don't know if you are being willfully ignorant or are just having trouble with comprehension seer. It is very obvious by what i've said that we both believe that an objective moral system exists, the only difference between our views on this is that of enforcement. In your view no one can escape punishment for transgression because no one can hide from authority, in my view, though an objective morals exists, transgressors can and sometmes do get away with it. Don't know how you can not understand that since the objective morals would be the same in either case, objective morals that you yourself believe to exist, accepting that you believe them to be of a supernatural source.

[seer]

I don't know if you are being willfully ignorant or are just having trouble with comprehension seer. It is very obvious by what i've said that we both believe that an objective moral system exists, the only difference between our views on this is that of enforcement. In your view no one can escape punishment for transgression because no one can hide from authority, in my view, though an objective morals exists, transgressors can and sometmes do get away with it. Don't know how you can not understand that since the objective morals would be the same in either case, objective morals that you yourself believe to exist, accepting that you believe them to be of a supernatural source.

That is fine Jim, but it all is about more than justice. It has to do with what men are by nature. And again, if you do believe in objective moral facts you need to show how that is possible in your universe.

[JimL]

That is fine Jim, but it all is about more than justice. It has to do with what men are by nature. And again, if you do believe in objective moral facts you need to show how that is possible in your universe.

Once again, you don't seem to being getting it seer. You are correct that the existence of objective morals themselves have nothing to do with justice, but their existence also has nothing to do with what men are by nature. Those issues, though related, have nothing to do with whether or not objective morals themselves exist. You already believe that they exist, that there are certain moral principles that if adhered to are best suited to life in a peaceful and joyous society, defined in religious terms as Eden, paradise or heaven. You argue against yourself when you then assert that objective morals themselves can not and do not exist. The reason that it is possible that objective morals exist in the natural world, is for the same reason that you believe it possible that they exist in the after life paradise. Because adhering to the moral principles is what best suits a good life for all the inhabitants of that world. Did you think that objective morals serve no purpose?

[Psychic Missile]

Well if you can explain how moral ideals can exist apart from minds, I'm all ears. I mean, gravity would still exist, even if there were no minds in the universe.

Well for starters, do you think that all social animals have minds?

Personal experience, history. I'm sure you remember that a while back I posted an experience that defied natural law. Perhaps even miraculous. I can't prove it scientifically but it was as real and true as typing on this computer at this moment.

Can personal experience verify true things to others?

[Tassman]

That is silly Tass, there is no reason that we as a species should survive.

should survive. Nevertheless self-preservation and survival are universal instincts among all living creatures.

How many other species went extinct - was it their "purpose" to survive?