Is Morality Objective or Relative?

[shunyadragon]

That may be an opinion, but it has nothing to do with nature or the natural process - which has no opinion on whether we survive or not. There is nothing innate about it. We may happen to survive, we may happen not to survive.

It is not an opinion. It is based on sound objective methods of science.

[seer]

It is not an opinion. It is based on sound objective methods of science.

What is based on science? That nature created us with an innate purpose to survive? That is false on its face, nature does not purpose that we survive or not. The natural processes purpose nothing. We just happen to survive or not happen to survive.

[shunyadragon]

What is based on science? That nature created us with an innate purpose to survive? That is false on its face, nature does not purpose that we survive or not. The natural processes purpose nothing. We just happen to survive or not happen to survive.

Actually yes the science of evolution is based on sound objective science, which you reject unless it happens to support your agenda, and demonstrates that the innate purpose of every species is to survive and reproduce. Some, of course, do not survive over the millennia, but they produce other species, which have the innate purpose to survive.

[seer]

and demonstrates that the innate purpose of every species is to survive and reproduce. Some, of course, do not survive over the millennia, but they produce other species, which have the innate purpose to survive.

That is nonsense Shuny. There is no innate purpose for anything in nature. Some species just get lucky and others don't. No purpose, certain no innate purpose.

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference

[JimL]

Jim, I don't get this. First how is there an innate purpose in life? Did all the species that went extinct before us also have this innate purpose to survive?

Of course, all living things strive to survive and if that is not an innate characteristic, what would you call it?

And how is your idea of a safer more peaceful existence for all not merely your opinion?

Because, it is a universal desire.

And what about the other golden rule: he with the most gold rules?

We are not talking about individual morality, we are talking societal morality because we live together in society. Moral laws are not about the good of individuals specifically, they are about the good of human society.

That is the point Jim, nature does not care if we adapt or if we are happy while we do it.

We are nature seer, so we/nature does care if we adapt and are happy.

Well there are a lot of conservatives in western Mass, I live in northwestern Connecticut. Yes, we are surrounded by godless liberals! ; )

Thats true, there are plenty of conservatives in Massachusetts, as there are everywhere, but generally speaking they are for the most part moderate, center right, conservatives. We mostly elect liberal minded democrats in this state, Senators Ted Kennedy and Elizabeth Warren come to mind, though we are not averse to electing the occassional Republican. No one is perfect!

[seer]

Of course, all living things strive to survive and if that is not an innate characteristic, what would you call it?


Because, it is a universal desire.

If you really want to go the innate route then it is also an innate characteristic of man to want to dominate and control our fellow man, and to war...

We are nature seer, so we/nature does care if we adapt and are happy.

Yes, and some men are made happy by taking your stuff, land and possessions. That is also part of our nature.

We are not talking about individual morality, we are talking societal morality because we live together in society. Moral laws are not about the good of individuals specifically, they are about the good of human society.

Again, why is the good of human society and objective moral good?

Thats true, there are plenty of conservatives in Massachusetts, as there are everywhere, but generally speaking they are for the most part moderate, center right, conservatives. We mostly elect liberal minded democrats in this state, Senators Ted Kennedy and Elizabeth Warren come to mind, though we are not averse to electing the occassional Republican. No one is perfect!

Kennedy and the Indian Princess - there must be something in the water up there! ; )

[The Thinker]

If you really want to go the innate route then it is also an innate characteristic of man to want to dominate and control our fellow man, and to war...





Yes, and some men are made happy by taking your stuff, land and possessions. That is also part of our nature.





Again, why is the good of human society and objective moral good?




Kennedy and the Indian Princess - there must be something in the water up there! ; )

You're still peddling the nonsensical idea that morality and rights are based on a god? Do you ever tire of being incoherent?


Tell us Seer, if morality is grounded in god, what god? How can I objectively assess what god this morality is grounded in or based on? And if you think god is against murder and theft, why is god against murder and theft? What's the explanation?

[JimL]

If you really want to go the innate route then it is also an innate characteristic of man to want to dominate and control our fellow man, and to war...

So then, are you conceding to as fact that the goal of survival and happiness is an innate human characteristic? What the best moral system would be in order to achieve that is not really the question, whether or not there is an objective moral system that would best achieve that goal is the question. Domination and war isn't going to get you there because if you "don't do unto others as you would have done unto you" then humanity would always be at war.

Yes, and some men are made happy by taking your stuff, land and possessions. That is also part of our nature.

Well yes, but then they are made unhappy when you take their stuff. It works both ways. If they don't take your stuff, and you don't take their stuff, and if they don't kill you in the taking, and you don't kill them, it works out better for all concerned. Isn't that somewhat how you imagine heaven to be, i.e where no one is in fear of the behaviors of the other?

Again, why is the good of human society and objective moral good?

Again, because it is in the "best interests" of human beings living together. What is in the best interests of human society is what is in the best interests of individuals living together in society.

Kennedy and the Indian Princess -

Yep, the constituency they fight for is the people, not the greedy corporations.

there must be something in the water up there! ; )

Well, it ain't lead, like in republican run Michigan!

[seer]

So then, are you conceding to as fact that the goal of survival and happiness is an innate human characteristic? What the best moral system would be in order to achieve that is not really the question, whether or not there is an objective moral system that would best achieve that goal is the question. Domination and war isn't going to get you there because if you "don't do unto others as you would have done unto you" then humanity would always be at war.

No Jim, not at all, there is no goal in nature. We either happen to survive or we don't. And there certainly isn't a goal that we should be happy while we do it. We personally may desire to survive and be happy, but that is a subjective consideration, not an innate or objective goal.

[shunyadragon]

No Jim, not at all, there is no goal in nature. We either happen to survive or we don't.

This false, the goal of life based on simply natural evidence is to survive, and the result that some species survive some do not, but species that do not survive generate more species. The natural goals to survive favor the survival of life, and the continuous evolution of species.

And there certainly isn't a goal that we should be happy while we do it. We personally may desire to survive and be happy, but that is a subjective consideration, not an innate or objective goal.

Happiness is an advantage to survive for intelligent cooperative social species such as homo sapiens. Yes it is an objective and innate goal by the evidence.

[seer]

This false, the goal of life based on simply natural evidence is to survive, and the result that some species survive some do not, but species that do not survive generate more species. The natural goals to survive favor the survival of life, and the continuous evolution of species.

You are not making sense, nature did not create us with any goal. Nature cares not whether we survive or not. We just happen to survive or we don't. Does nature, for instance, have the goal that humanity should survive? Yes or no?

Happiness is an advantage to survive for intelligent cooperative social species such as homo sapiens. Yes it is an objective and innate goal by the evidence.

But what happiness consists of is subjective. What makes you happy may not be what makes the Jihadist or Communist happy.

[shunyadragon]

You are not making sense, nature did not create us with any goal. Nature cares not whether we survive or not. We just happen to survive or we don't. Does nature, for instance, have the goal that humanity should survive? Yes or no?




But what happiness consists of is subjective. What makes you happy may not be what makes the Jihadist or Communist happy.

True, but happiness in all the various forms regardless remains an innate objective for the survival of a social cooperative intelligent species, homo sapiens. Trying to increase the fog index does not help your case.

[seer]

True, but happiness in all the various forms regardless remains an innate objective for the survival of a social cooperative intelligent species, homo sapiens. Trying to increase the fog index does not help your case.

No it doesn't, you are just making stuff up. Where is it written that we should be happy in the first place, or that nature created us with the goal to be happy. Or that we even should survive?

[shunyadragon]

No it doesn't, you are just making stuff up. Where is it written that we should be happy in the first place, or that nature created us with the goal to be happy. Or that we even should survive?

It is not written in scripture nor natural sciences that 'we should be happy in the first place.' Many places in scripture question whether 'humans should be happy.' Bible verse often encourages happiness, but unfortunately the description of Original Sin and the Fall guarantees humans will be extremely unhappy as a punishment for their sin.

In the natural processes of evolution of the human species demonstrates happiness as survival value for the survival of the species. Nothing here demonstrates that humans should always be happy. Unhappiness in turn can have survival value in that promotes goals and ways for humans to become happy and socially cooperative.

[seer]

In the natural processes of evolution of the human species demonstrates happiness as survival value for the survival of the species. Nothing here demonstrates that humans should always be happy. Unhappiness in turn can have survival value in that promotes goals and ways for humans to become happy and socially cooperative.

Right - there are no goals for human beings.