Non-theistic Moral Realism

[shunyadragon]

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/.

Done that. It can be assumed you reject science and any facts that do not agree with your agenda.

Still waiting for what?

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.

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

The science which you reject when it does not agree with your agenda.

[seer]

Done that. It can be assumed you reject science and any facts that do not agree with your agenda.

Shuny, that is not an answer. Where does science agree with Moral Realism? References please. And you still have not answer the question - how do moral truths exist independently of mankind?

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.

What are you talking about? I'm not making a case for an alternative theory, I'm merely pointing out that you can not justify Moral Realism. And that is what this tread it about. And again, is there an objective morality for monkeys?

The science which you reject when it does not agree with your agenda.

Are you daft man? Where does science say that there is a teleology for our survival? References please. And keep in mind the definition of teleology.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, that is not an answer. Where does science agree with Moral Realism? References please. And you still have not answer the question - how do moral truths exist independently of mankind?

Already answered.

Still waiting . . .

What are you talking about? I'm not making a case for an alternative theory, I'm merely pointing out that you can not justify Moral Realism. And that is what this tread it about. And again, is there an objective morality for monkeys?

Without alternatives, your argument is an airball with no foundation.

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.

Still waiting . . .

Are you daft man? Where does science say that there is a teleology for our survival? References please. And keep in mind the definition of teleology.

Utilitarian Teleology - Keep in mind the definition of 'Utilitarian Teleology.'

Reread the reference you dishonestly misrepresented.

[seer]

Already answered.

That is a bold face lie Shuny. You have not shown how moral truths can exist independently of mankind. And You have not given references where science agrees with Moral Realism. Reference please.

Without alternatives, your argument is an airball with no foundation.

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.

Still waiting . . .

I'm not presenting alternative idiot. This thread is about Moral Realism which you have failed to defend - how moral truths exist independently of mankind.

Utilitarian Teleology - Keep in mind the definition of 'Utilitarian Teleology.'

Reread the reference you dishonestly misrepresented.

You are fibbing again - you brought science into the question. So where is the scientific evidence that there is a Teleology for our survival? References please.

[shunyadragon]

That is a bold face lie Shuny. You have not shown how moral truths can exist independently of mankind. And You have not given references where science agrees with Moral Realism. Reference please.

Been there done that, as well as others here on Tweb. It is assumed you reject science unless it specifically agrees with your agenda.

Morals and ethics DO NOT exist independent of humanity, unless you can provide som objective verifiable evidence to support this baseless assertion. They are an integral part of what it is to be human, and objectively observable by the evidence.

I'm not presenting alternative idiot. This thread is about Moral Realism which you have failed to defend - how moral truths exist independently of mankind.

Than your argument is baseless and meaningless. There is no objective evidence that morals and ethics exist independently of humanity, and it is religious claim, which cannot be objectively verified. There is also no objective evidence that moral truths exist.

You are fibbing again - you brought science into the question. So where is the scientific evidence that there is a Teleology for our survival? References please.

Been there done that. It is assumed up front you reject the sciences of sociology, anthroplogy, and evolution. I will no longer spoon feed you over the millennia of endless debates. Do your own homework.

[seer]

Been there done that, as well as others here on Tweb. It is assumed you reject science unless it specifically agrees with your agenda.

Listen, I have no problem with science saying the evolutionary process caused us to act in one way and not another. But you are claiming much more - that moral truths do and can exist independently of humankind (that is the claim of Moral Realism). Science does not back up that claim, if you think otherwise present your references.

Than your argument is baseless and meaningless.

Again demonstrate that moral truths do and can exist independently of humankind. Stop asserting and show us all!

Been there done that. It is assumed up front you reject the sciences of sociology, anthroploogy, and evolution. I will no longer spoon feed you over the millennia of endless debates. Do your own homework.

How does any of that demonstrate that there is a teleology for the survival humankind? Where do any of those disciplines claim a teleology for humankind? Please present reference, not merely your opinion that they do.

[shunyadragon]

Listen, I have no problem with science saying the evolutionary process caused us to act in one way and not another. But you are claiming much more - that moral truths do and can exist independently of humankind (that is the claim of Moral Realism). Science does not back up that claim, if you think otherwise present your references.

Again demonstrate that moral truths do and can exist independently of humankind. Stop asserting and show us all!

Again I do not spoon feed someone who rejects science. The objective matter of fact evidence of sociology, anthropology and evolution is all the evidence we have that morals and ethics are a natural product of evolution and the survival of the species.

How does any of that demonstrate that there is a teleology for the survival humankind? Where do any of those disciplines claim a teleology for humankind? Please present reference, not merely your opinion that they do.

Science, which you reject.

Been there done that! Long history seer of many threads. It is time for you to accept the science, and it a fact that we only real world objective observations and evidence for NMN of one form or another. There is no evidence of a morality independent of humanity.

The source you misrepresented described the Utilitarian Teleology, and the different philosophies sufficiently describe a nature based morals and ethics.

[Tassman]

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.

Just stop it seer. How much longer are you going to keep repeating this nonsense?

We are NOTNOT have is libertarian free-will, which is logically incoherent and which you persist in claiming exists while providing no evidence to support it.

[seer]

Again I do not spoon feed someone who rejects science. The objective matter of fact evidence of sociology, anthropology and evolution is all the evidence we have that morals and ethics are a natural product of evolution and the survival of the species.

Spoon feed? Shuny, you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea how to defend Moral Realism. I am not arguing with the idea that morals and ethics are a natural product of evolution - that is NOT the argument. The argument is about Moral Realism - do Moral Truths exist independently of humankind - and how is that possible.

Science, which you reject.

Been there done that! Long history seer of many threads. It is time for you to accept the science, and it a fact that we only real world objective observations and evidence for NMN of one form or another. There is no evidence of a morality independent of humanity.

Shuny, that is completely false. There is no real world evidence that Moral Truths exist independently of humankind or culture. These truths are NOT physical things, and not scientifically discernible.

The source you misrepresented described the Utilitarian Teleology, and the different philosophies sufficiently describe a nature based morals and ethics.

I did not misrepresent anything I quoted directly from your source. And you brought up science (not philosophy) in the context of Teleology, so I will ask again, where does science say that there is a Teleology for humankind? It doesn't and you know it.

[seer]

Just stop it seer. How much longer are you going to keep repeating this nonsense?

We are NOTNOT have is libertarian free-will, which is logically incoherent and which you persist in claiming exists while providing no evidence to support it.

That is just stupid Tass, you have already admitted in the past that everything we think do or say is determined. Yes, we make choices but those choices are just as determined as anything else. So if we are moving towards Nationalism (tribalism) that is only happening because were are determined to. Nature at her finest!

[shunyadragon]

Spoon feed? Shuny, you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea how to defend Moral Realism. I am not arguing with the idea that morals and ethics are a natural product of evolution - that is NOT the argument. The argument is about Moral Realism - do Moral Truths exist independently of humankind - and how is that possible.




Shuny, that is completely false. There is no real world evidence that Moral Truths exist independently of humankind or culture. These truths are NOT physical things, and not scientifically discernible.



I did not misrepresent anything I quoted directly from your source. And you brought up science (not philosophy) in the context of Teleology, so I will ask again, where does science say that there is a Teleology for humankind? It doesn't and you know it.

Clarification her on the definition of Moral Realism:

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+realism+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS715US715&oq=Moral+Realism&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.8347j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

© Copyright Original Source

Note - Moral facts and moral values exist independently of our perception, and not independently from humanity. There are more non-theist arguments for morality that fall under philosophy of Moral Realism, and tend to be too simplistic in your conclusions. There is moral anti-realism. cognitivism, and descriptivism. It is likely that all these are able to describe some aspects the nature of morals and ethics, but none are absolutely correct. I personally go with descriptivism as the best choice, and NMN, Moral Realism, science and Utilitarian Teleology are best considered descriptive non-theist origin and nature of morality.

See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

[seer]

Clarification her on the definition of Moral Realism:

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+realism+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS715US715&oq=Moral+Realism&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.8347j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

© Copyright Original Source

Note - Moral facts and moral values exist independently of our perception, and not independently from humanity. There are more non-theist arguments for morality that fall under philosophy of Moral Realism, and tend to be too simplistic in your conclusions. There is moral anti-realism. cognitivism, and descriptivism. It is likely that all these are able to describe some aspects the nature of morals and ethics, but none are absolutely correct. I personally go with descriptivism as the best choice, and NMN, Moral Realism, science and Utilitarian Teleology are best considered descriptive non-theist origin and nature of morality.

See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

Tell me how do moral values exist independently of our beliefs? And why is Moral Realism more correct than Moral Anti-Realism?

[shunyadragon]

Tell me how do moral values exist independently of our beliefs?

Easy, because of the biased perception of our beliefs concerning morals and ethics.

And why is Moral Realism more correct than Moral Anti-Realism?

If you read my post, I did not say either was necessarily more correct. In fact I favor descriptivism with qualifications as described.

[seer]

Easy, because of the biased perception of our beliefs concerning morals and ethics.

Then who has the right beliefs? Who has unbiased beliefs? Even the belief in Moral Realism is biased.

If you read my post, I did not say either was necessarily more correct. In fact I favor descriptivism with qualifications as described.

But they both can't be true, either one is wrong and the other right or both are wrong. So you are biased towards one, that is your belief. But that all leaves us where we started with no empirical evidence for Moral Realism.

[shunyadragon]

Then who has the right beliefs? Who has unbiased beliefs?

Good question! Who has the right beliefs?!?!?!?! The concepts of morals and ethics proposing non-theist origins and nature by NMN, Moral Realism, and science do not make the judgement concerning who has the 'right beliefs,' only that morals and ethics are important to the survival of the species.

But they both can't be true, either one is wrong and the other right or both are wrong. So you are biased towards one, that is your belief. But that all leaves us where we started with no empirical evidence for Moral Realism.

This is an attempt at a black and white judgement of which view is correct. Yes, the different views may be partially correct, and one may be better than others in describing the origin and nature of morals and ethics.