Non-theistic Moral Realism

[shunyadragon]

But again Shuny, some species do not survive so survival was not a goal for them. And there is nothing to say that all life won't go extinct some day.

True, but the natural outcome is simply a fact of the objectively verified observations natural life and does not change the goals.

There is no goal found in nature for humankind (and Utilitarian Teleology only applies to humankind) . . .

Your mixing multiple concepts and questions, but the answer remains the same concerning non-theist scientific explanations for the nature of our existence, life, and the nature of humanity.

In terms of NMN and other philosophies like Utilitarian Teleology they represent descriptive philosophies for a non-theist morals and ethics considerations for non-theist explanations, but the over all philosophy applies to the nature of life, and the natural course of events for non-theist philosophies. Being a viable explanation for the nature of our physical existence, life and humanity does not require a philosophical/theological plan to satisfy any one nor all diverse religions claims. These are decidedly subjective claims not verifiable by objective verifiable evidence,

. . . so I will have to ask again, if nature does not have this goal for humanity then where does this goal come from?

Ask again, again, again, and again . . . the answer will not change. Any philosophical goals and purposes for non-theist explanations for the nature of life, and human morals and ethics will be the same, the nature of our physical existence and Natural Laws determines the goals and purposes. For life, as well as humans the goal is the perpetuation of life (possible based on the survival of genes), and the survival of species through evolution. There is no need nor plan for perpetual success in these goals and purpose. It is obvious that in the billions of years of geologic history that species come and go, but life continues. This is likely the fate of humanity to eventually go extinct regardless, and some apocalyptic religious views believe this will happen. This based on the objective verifiable evidence, and it is demonstrated that evolved morals and ethics have positive survival value for humanity through the necessity of cooperative relationships in the family, community and society. IT is important to note that the egocentric selfish interest of individuals have no influence on the morals and ethics of the community, society nor humanity in general.

[seer]

In terms of NMN and other philosophies like Utilitarian Teleology they represent descriptive philosophies for a non-theist morals and ethics considerations for non-theist explanations, but the over all philosophy applies to the nature of life, and the natural course of events for non-theist philosophies. Being a viable explanation for the nature of our physical existence, life and humanity does not require a philosophical/theological plan to satisfy any one nor all diverse religions claims. These are decidedly subjective claims not verifiable by objective verifiable evidence.

Right Shuny, they are philosophies. Invented and subjective. Utilitarian Teleology is completely subjective, it is not objective or verifiable, it is merely personal opinion, an invented philosophy. If you think otherwise make your case for Utilitarian Teleology being objective and verifiable.

Ask again, again, again, and again . . . the answer will not change. Any philosophical goals and purposes for non-theist explanations for the nature of life, and human morals and ethics will be the same, the nature of our physical existence and Natural Laws determines the goals and purposes. For life, as well as humans the goal is the perpetuation of life (possible based on the survival of genes), and the survival of species through evolution. There is no need nor plan for perpetual success in these goals and purpose.

No Shuny, we are speaking Utilitarian Teleology which deals with humankind, and there is no goal for humanity in nature. You could make up a goal, but that would be subjective.

[shunyadragon]

Right Shuny, they are philosophies. Invented and subjective. Utilitarian Teleology is completely subjective, it is not objective or verifiable, it is merely personal opinion, an invented philosophy. If you think otherwise make your case for Utilitarian Teleology being objective and verifiable.

If you propose this, than any of the diverse theist explanations are even more subjective and lack any basis whatsoever in objective verifiable observations.

I agree they are philosophies, but nonetheless they are based on objective verifiable observations of the science of morality and ethics of humanity. We have the objective observations and evidence used in the sciences of evolution, sociology, and anthropology and vast research and peer reviewed scientific articles. You have zip, nada, negatory, xero objective verifiable evidence to support your alternatives.

No Shuny, we are speaking Utilitarian Teleology which deals with humankind, and there is no goal for humanity in nature. You could make up a goal, but that would be subjective.

This is only an assertion on your part denying science based on objective verifiable observations for the natural of humanity morals and ethics. It is SOP that you only selectively misuse science to justify your own worldview and off hand reject the rest.

[Tassman]

First Tass, that is false. As we discussed, I know the New Testament and the writings of the early Church Fathers well enough to know that my beliefs are very consistent with theirs.

Nevertheless, the accepted social values of Christian societies 2,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago or 100 years ago are demonstrably different...despite being supposedly bible-based. Clearly the bible means different things to successive Christian societies. So much for objective Christian values!

Second, even if we interpreted scripture wrongly that would not mean that God's law did not exist.

CLAIM

[seer]

If you propose this, than any of the diverse theist explanations are even more subjective and lack any basis whatsoever in objective verifiable observations.

Shuny, it doesn't matter what you think of theistic explanations, the fact remains that your position is subjective, not objective.

I agree they are philosophies, but nonetheless they are based on objective verifiable observations of the science of morality and ethics of humanity. We have the objective observations and evidence used in the sciences of evolution, sociology, and anthropology and vast research and peer reviewed scientific articles.

Shuny, I have no idea what this means. Yes, it is an objective fact that men act morally, but that does not tell us what is good, what is moral or not. Or what moral goals we should strive for - those considerations are subjective, not objective.

Again, let me quote from your link:

What Utilitarianism is

According to the greatest happiness principle...the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable This being according to the utilitarian opinion the end of human actionhttp://ethics.iit.edu/teaching/utilitarianism

The greatest happiness principle, which is the goal or end of Utilitarianism is a subjective goal - it is not a goal found in nature, it is in fact an invented philosophy.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, it doesn't matter what you think of theistic explanations, the fact remains that your position is subjective, not objective.

YES!!!! It does, because you have failed to present an alternative based on objective verified evidence for an alternatives based on alternatives to NMAN.

Shuny, I have no idea what this means. Yes, it is an objective fact that men act morally, but that does not tell us what is good, what is moral or not. Or what moral goals we should strive for - those considerations are subjective, not objective.

If you have no idea, that is your problem of understanding basic English. It is likely best that you assert that you do not agree. That is more comprehensible in an argument or disagreement. WHICH IS IT!??!!? Your comprehension of the English language or simply you disagreement with my position, which is based on objective verifiable evidence.

By definition of the English language, morals and ethics are neither subjective nor objective. They are the social obligations and conventions of societies and cultures.

Again, let me quote from your link:

Quoting me from the link is not quoting me, it is your selective citation ot justify your biased agenda.

The greatest happiness principle, which is the goal or end of Utilitarianism is a subjective goal - it is not a goal found in nature, it is in fact an invented philosophy.

NO! It is the the view of several philosophers among many who reject this view. As cited before you dishonestly selectively cite the source to justify your agenda.

[seer]

YES!!!! It does, because you have failed to present an alternative based on objective verified evidence for an alternatives based on alternatives to NMAN.

What? You have no such objectively verifiable moral system, yet you require one from me? If you think moral realism is such a system then make the case, right here now in your own words. Don't cut and paste works you don't even understand. If not go back and answer the points I brought up with Matt early in this thread.

Your comprehension of the English language or simply you disagreement with my position, which is based on objective verifiable evidence.

WHAT is based on objective verifiable evidence? That murder is wrong? That stealing is wrong? That homosexuality or adultery are wrong? What is based on objective verifiable evidence? Be specific.

NO! It is the the view of several philosophers among many who reject this view. As cited before you dishonestly selectively cite the source to justify your agenda.

Good grief man, it is your reference, and that is the basic principle of Utilitarianism, by the man who invented the theory. But if there is disagreement it only proves my point that it is clearly subjective, not objective.

[shunyadragon]

What? You have no such objectively verifiable moral system, yet you require one from me? If you think moral realism is such a system then make the case, right here now in your own words. Don't cut and paste works you don't even understand. If not go back and answer the points I brought up with Matt early in this thread.




WHAT is based on objective verifiable evidence? That murder is wrong? That stealing is wrong? That homosexuality or adultery are wrong? What is based on objective verifiable evidence? Be specific.



Good grief man, it is your reference, and that is the basic principle of Utilitarianism, by the man who invented the theory. But if there is disagreement it only proves my point that it is clearly subjective, not objective.

Were covering old grounds, and getting now where very very slowly. rejected the vast literature on the scientific objective verified basis for natural systems of morals and ethics, misrepresented your own sources, and you have failed to respond to my questions.

[seer]

Were covering old grounds, and getting now where very very slowly. rejected the vast literature on the scientific objective verified basis for natural systems of morals and ethics, misrepresented your own sources, and you have failed to respond to my questions.

Shuny, you have no answer. All these theories are subjective and invented. Nature had no moral teleology for humankind, not even for our survival. We makes up these concepts. Why is Utilitarianism for instance more correct than Ethical Egoism? Why is Moral Realism more valid than Moral Anti-Realism or Relativism? Which theory is right and why? These are not scientific questions, science does not tell us what is moral or not moral. Throwing out the word 'science' does not make your point valid since science is silent on these issues. But I will ask you once again - what is the 'scientific objective verified basis' for labeling murder as immoral? I will be waiting...

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you have no answer. All these theories are subjective and invented. Nature had no moral teleology for humankind, not even for our survival. We makes up these concepts. Why is Utilitarianism for instance more correct than Ethical Egoism? Why is Moral Realism more valid than Moral Anti-Realism or Relativism? Which theory is right and why? These are not scientific questions, science does not tell us what is moral or not moral. Throwing out the word 'science' does not make your point valid since science is silent on these issues. But I will ask you once again - what is the 'scientific objective verified basis' for labeling murder as immoral? I will be waiting...

I have answered your questions and you reject science based on a religious agenda, and dishonestly misrepresented your own reference.

[Tassman]

WHAT is based on objective verifiable evidence? That murder is wrong? That stealing is wrong? That homosexuality or adultery are wrong? What is based on objective verifiable evidence? Be specific.

[seer]

This is the basis of our moral code, .

So was slaughtering the Tutsi by the Hutu, so was the Holocaust, so was the murder of 30 million Chinese by the Stalinists. All perfectly natural and instinctive.

[seer]

I have answered your questions and you reject science based on a religious agenda, and dishonestly misrepresented your own reference.

Shuny, you are not making sense. Where does "science" say that murder is wrong, or stealing is wrong or immoral? You keep bringing in science, but where does science make these moral claims? I will be waiting for your answer.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are not making sense. Where does "science" say that murder is wrong, or stealing is wrong or immoral? You keep bringing in science, but where does science make these moral claims? I will be waiting for your answer.

The science of anthropology, sociology, and evolution shows that wrongful death codes of morals are necessary for the cooperation and adherence to a system of morals and ethics to maintain social order. In simpler forms these morals and ethics exist in higher social animals like primates.

[shunyadragon]

So was slaughtering the Tutsi by the Hutu, so was the Holocaust, so was the murder of 30 million Chinese by the Stalinists. All perfectly natural and instinctive.

Explain the slaughter, chattel slavery of foreigners, and ethnic cleansing by the Hebrews in the OT as moral in God's standards of morality.

What about the writings of Martin Luther concerning the ethnic cleansing of Jews. Is this moral in God's morality? He uses references in the Bible to support his view.