Non-theistic Moral Realism

[seer]

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.

And? That does not tell us that murder is objective wrong, only that not murdering is helpful to social cohesion. But even that is not always the case, Chimpanzees routinely kill each other and those of differing groups and they still maintain social cohesion. Social cohesion can help the survival of the species, but you did not or can not answer why the survival of our species is a moral good - apart from your subjective view on the matter.

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

So why are these things wrong? According to whom? You? Your subjective whim?

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.

Do we really need to go into what your Prophet said about the Jews?

[shunyadragon]

And? That does not tell us that murder is objective wrong,

Yes it does in all societies and cultures of humanity wrongful death is a moral that is objectively wrong.

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.

. . . only that not murdering is helpful to social cohesion.

Does not make sense at all. Not murdering is not murdering, and not wrongful death in the culture and society.

But even that is not always the case, Chimpanzees routinely kill each other and those of differing groups and they still maintain social cohesion.

False. Chimpanzees like humans in history will wage war on other communities, but no they do not routinely kill each other within their community, nor do the they routinely wage war on other Chimp communitees. Wrongful death within a community remains a moral in chimpanzee communities and yes violations may be punished by the death sentence. Yes they maintain social cohesion and order within their communities with a primitive system of morals and ethics.

Social cohesion can help the survival of the species, but you did not or can not answer why the survival of our species is a moral good - apart from your subjective view on the matter.

The objectively attributes of morals and ethics are good by the objective verifiable evidence that a system of morals and ethics is necessary to for the survival of the family, community and society. You have absolutely not objective verifiable evidence to support your assertions and agenda.

So why are these things wrong? According to whom? You? Your subjective whim?

According to the survival of the species. Immoral and unethical behavior cannot dominate the species or it will go extinct.

Do we really need to go into that your Prophet said about the Jews? And why are the above

Go into what ever you want. You avoided answering the question.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

Yes it does in all societies and cultures of humanity wrongful death is a moral that is objectively wrong.

[B]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.

Shuny, how does the fact that most cultures label murder as wrong, make it an 'objective' wrong, rather than a subjective moral consideration. What do you mean by objective - please define.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, how does the fact that most cultures label murder as wrong, make it an 'objective' wrong, rather than a subjective moral consideration. What do you mean by objective - please define.

. . . because it can be objectively verified and consistent in all cultures. The subjective aspects are the variation between cultures, and interpretation by different individuals, but again interpretation by individuals does not determine the moral of wrongful death of the society or culture. The differences that evolve over time can be objectively verified by the evidence.

Of course, it can be objectively verified by the evidence that is wrongful death dominates the family, community, and society do not survive. It is very apparent by the objective verifiable evidence that if wrong death dominates the species will not survive.

[seer]

. . . because it can be objectively verified and consistent in all cultures. The subjective aspects are the variation between cultures, and interpretation by different individuals, but again interpretation by individuals does not determine the moral of wrongful death of the society or culture. The differences that evolve over time can be objectively verified by the evidence.

Shuny, that only tells us that laws against murder are fairly consistent across cultures not that murder itself is objectively wrong, that is a different question since if murder was objectively wrong it would be wrong no matter what cultures did or thought - that is what Moral Realism claims. So again, what is your definition of objective?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, that only tells us that laws against murder are fairly consistent across cultures not that murder itself is objectively wrong, that is a different question since if murder was objectively wrong it would be wrong no matter what cultures did or thought - that is what Moral Realism claims. So again, what is your definition of objective?

Objective - That which is supported and consistently confirms the subject by verifiable evidence outside the subject itself. That which is not supported by evidence outside the subject, or exists only in the subject (ie the mind) is subjective. I have repeatedly clarified my use of 'objective' by using it in the scientific perspective as 'objective verifiable evidence' of the subject.

What other objective verifiable evidence supports any alternative?

[seer]

Objective - That which is supported and consistently confirms the subject by verifiable evidence outside the subject itself. That which is not supported by evidence outside the subject, or exists only in the subject (ie the mind) is subjective. I have repeatedly clarified my use of 'objective' by using it in the scientific perspective as 'objective verifiable evidence' of the subject.

But the claim that murder is wrong is only held in the subjective mind, that moral ideal only exists in the subjective mind it does not exist independently. And it is not always universal. For instance, in history, many governments have practiced Democide, the murder of large numbers of their citizens.

[shunyadragon]

But the claim that murder is wrong is only held in the subjective mind, that moral ideal only exists in the subjective mind it does not exist independently. And it is not always universal. For instance, in history, many governments have practiced Democide, the murder of large numbers of their citizens.

This view carried to the logical conclusion would conclude that all the knowledge of humanity and the nature of our existence is subjective and an illusion, and rejecting the human ability of humans to develop objective knowledge about our natural existence. Your proposing a Vedic Hindu view of reality. In this view God is apophatic and human knowledge is a subjective illusion. I did not realized you converted!

False, the moral of wrongful death is not only held in the subjective mind only, and it is objectively verified by the consistence objective evidence of the histories of cultures and societies collectively and not the subjective views of the minds of individuals. Already covered this, and you are dodging the facts of the objective verified nature of societies and cultures of the history of humanity, based on the definitions.

You avoided answering the question.

Still waiting . . .

[Tassman]

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.

their tribal values...all in the name of the one true God of course.

The trick is to rise above these primitive tribal values and recognise equal human rights for ALL law abiding people, not just the members of one's own tribe. This in turn enhances the maintenance of a more cohesive, better functioning society and ultimately the survival of our species.

[seer]

False, the moral of wrongful death is not only held in the subjective mind only, and it is objectively verified by the consistence objective evidence of the histories of cultures and societies collectively and not the subjective views of the minds of individuals. Already covered this, and you are dodging the facts of the objective verified nature of societies and cultures of the history of humanity, based on the definitions.

You avoided answering the question.

Still waiting . . .

What question Shuny? I agree that it is a fact that most cultures have had laws against murder, but you are confusing two issues. That just because that is the case does not mean that murder is objectively wrong. For you to make the case that murder is objectively wrong you have to make the case that murder is wrong independently of what the person or culture believes, this you have not come close to doing. The Nazis thought it was a moral good to send German Jews to the camps and murder them. We would look at that as immoral - but why is our opinion more valid or correct than theirs? Based on what?

[seer]

The trick is to rise above these primitive tribal values and recognise equal human rights for ALL law abiding people, not just the members of one's own tribe. This in turn enhances the maintenance of a more cohesive, better functioning society and ultimately the survival of our species.

Rise above what? The biology that determines everything we think, do or believe? Perhaps biology will send us deeper into tribalism. Who knows, certainly you don't. And if you look at the US and now many Western European countries Nationalism is on the rise, but hey that is just what nature is determining us to do.

[shunyadragon]

What question Shuny?

What other alternative cause of morals and ethics is supported by the objective verified evidence that we can observe in the real world? You have totally failed to present an alternative that support a more valid or correct system of morals and ethics.

Unless you are proposing some sort of social anarchy where there are no valid and correct system of morals and ethics for humanity.

Still waiting . . .

I agree that it is a fact that most cultures have had laws against murder, . . .

Than you agree that morals and ethics may be objectively observed in most?, actually all cultures, and are reflected in the Laws.

That just because that is the case does not mean that murder is objectively wrong. For you to make the case that murder is objectively wrong you have to make the case that murder is wrong independently of what the person or culture believes, this you have not come close to doing.

Laws are based on the morals and ethics of the societies and cultures that are objectively observed and described by the physical evidence.

Morality and ethics are indeed independent of what any one individual, society or culture considers wrongful death. They are objectively verified and observed as the nature of the human species, and in the primitive morals and ethics of other intelligent social animals like primates.

but why is our opinion more valid or correct than theirs? Based on what?

Not opinion, the objective observed evidence of morality and ethics is not based on which society and culture is more valid nor, correct. IT is based on the simple objectively observed facts that systems of morals and ethics are universal with all cultures and societies throughout human history, and evolved to support the survival of the human species, as well as social primates, and other social animals.

[seer]

Morality and ethics are indeed independent of what any one individual, society or culture considers wrongful death. They are objectively verified and observed as the nature of the human species, and in the primitive morals and ethics of other intelligent social animals like primates.

That is what you need to demonstrate. How/why is murder objectively wrong independently of what a culture or society believes? Everything you are pointing to involves what cultures and societies believe is moral or not. You have to show how these moral truths exist independently of mankind. This you have not done.

Not opinion, the objective observed evidence of morality and ethics is not based on which society and culture is more valid nor, correct. IT is based on the simple objectively observed facts that systems of morals and ethics are universal with all cultures and societies throughout human history, and evolved to support the survival of the human species, as well as social primates, and other social animals.

What are you talking about? How does the fact that there are common rules lead to the conclusion that morality is objective? Is morality objective for monkeys? If the majority of cultures decided that homosexuality was immoral would that make homosexuality objectively immoral?

Unless you are proposing some sort of social anarchy where there are no valid and correct system of morals and ethics for humanity.

No, since I believe there is a God given moral teleology for humankind. There is no moral teleology for humankind in a Godless universe, not even for our survival.

[shunyadragon]

That is what you need to demonstrate. How/why is murder objectively wrong independently of what a culture or society believes? Everything you are pointing to involves what cultures and societies believe is moral or not. You have to show how these moral truths exist independently of mankind. This you have not done.

Done!

Still waiting . . .

What are you talking about? How does the fact that there are common rules lead to the conclusion that morality is objective? Is morality objective for monkeys? If the majority of cultures decided that homosexuality was immoral would that make homosexuality objectively immoral?

Already answered this many times.

Still waiting . . .

No, since I believe there is a God given moral teleology for humankind. There is no moral teleology for humankind in a Godless universe, not even for our survival.

We have no way to compare a universe with God and without God. There is of course 'Utilitarian Teleology' which is based on objective verifiable evidence and observations.

What you are asserting and is based on belief and not objective observable evidence.

[seer]

Done!

That is false Shuny. Moral realism states that objective moral truth exist independently of cultures, they exist independently of mankind. In other words, even if mankind never existed or went extinct tomorrow these moral truths would still exist. They do not depend on mankind in any fashion. You have not shown how these these moral truths can exist independently of humanity. You have only asserted/.

Still waiting .

Still waiting for what?

Already answered this many times.

Is there an objective morality for monkeys - yes or no?

We have no way to compare a universe with God and without God. There is of course 'Utilitarian Teleology' which is based on objective verifiable evidence and observations.

Where is the objective verifiable evidence that we should survive as a species? That there is a teleology for our survival?