Non-theistic Moral Realism

[seer]

Well, again, again, and again ad nauseum, yes the utilitarian teleology, NMN, and other Natural teleologies do provide objective evidence that the positive morals and ethics indeed do have survival value in the survival of the human species.

Problem with your Theistic Teleology is that it fails miserably to consistently 'tell us what is right or wrong. War, killing, dominance, subjugation, which are of course just as much a part of our nature as other behaviors. I have wanted for a millennia of threads for you to define from the Theistic Teleological view definitely and consistently what is right and wrong concerning morals and ethics, and you have failed miserably.

Still waiting . . .

Again Shuny, utilitarian teleology, and moral realism are meaningless. They do nothing to cause men to be better, they are invented theories. You never made an objective case for why moral realism is more correct than moral anti-realism or ethical relativism. Nor have you made the case as to why utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory as opposed to, for instance, Deontology. We would survive just as well if we practiced deontology over utilitarianism, and we would survive just as well if we held to anti-realism as opposed to realism. So your theories are not necessary for survival nor does nature or science choose your pet theories over the others.

[shunyadragon]

Again Shuny, utilitarian teleology, and moral realism are meaningless. They do nothing to cause men to be better, they are invented theories. You never made an objective case for why moral realism is more correct than moral anti-realism or ethical relativism. Nor have you made the case as to why utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory as opposed to, for instance, Deontology. We would survive just as well if we practiced deontology over utilitarianism, and we would survive just as well if we held to anti-realism as opposed to realism. So your theories are not necessary for survival nor does nature or science choose your pet theories over the others.

Pick or choose which ever non-Theistic philosophy alternative you wish to argue for is best. It remains that a non-Theistic scientific explanation is adequate to explain life, human existence, and the nature of human behavior, and morals and ethics.

Your assertions carry no explanation of the objective verifiable evidence.

Failed to provide an alternative . . .

Problem with your Theistic Teleology is that it fails miserably to consistently 'tell us what is right or wrong. War, killing, dominance, subjugation, which are of course just as much a part of our nature as other behaviors. I have wanted for a millennia of threads for you to define from the Theistic Teleological view definitely and consistently what is right and wrong concerning morals and ethics, and you have failed miserably.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

Pick or choose which ever non-Theistic philosophy alternative you wish to argue for is best. It remains that a non-Theistic scientific explanation is adequate to explain life, human existence, and the nature of human behavior, and morals and ethics.

Your assertions carry no explanation of the objective verifiable evidence.

Are you dense Shuny? You have no objective verifiable evidence demonstrating which one of these theories are correct, certainly neither nature or science tell us. And they can't be all correct since they contradict each other. You are just spouting nonsense again.

[shunyadragon]

Are you dense Shuny? You have no objective verifiable evidence demonstrating which one of these theories are correct, certainly neither nature or science tell us. And they can't be all correct since they contradict each other. You are just spouting nonsense again.

No they cannot all be correct, and I never staed they are, They are philosophies, and in and of themselves are only based on scientif c explanations of non-Theist origins.

Pick or choose which ever non-Theistic philosophy alternative you wish to argue for is best. It remains that a non-Theistic scientific explanation is adequate to explain life, human existence, and the nature of human behavior, and morals and ethics.

Your assertions carry no explanation of the objective verifiable evidence.

Failed to provide an alternative . . .

Problem with your Theistic Teleology is that it fails miserably to consistently 'tell us what is right or wrong. War, killing, dominance, subjugation, which are of course just as much a part of our nature as other behaviors. I have wanted for a millennia of threads for you to define from the Theistic Teleological view definitely and consistently what is right and wrong concerning morals and ethics, and you have failed miserably.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

No they cannot all be correct, and I never staed they are, They are philosophies, and in and of themselves are only based on scientif c explanations of non-Theist origins.

Pick or choose which ever non-Theistic philosophy alternative you wish to argue for is best. It remains that a non-Theistic scientific explanation is adequate to explain life, human existence, and the nature of human behavior, and morals and ethics.

Which one of these does science support? Where is your objective verifiable evidence telling us which one is true? You say my position carries no evidence, neither do yours. You present subjective theories as if they are objective - they are not. This is why you can not offer objective evidence as to which one is true. You are guilty of the very same thing you accuse me of. Hypocritical.

[seer]

Problem with your Theistic Teleology is that it fails miserably to consistently 'tell us what is right or wrong. War, killing, dominance, subjugation, which are of course just as much a part of our nature as other behaviors. I have wanted for a millennia of threads for you to define from the Theistic Teleological view definitely and consistently what is right and wrong concerning morals and ethics, and you have failed miserably.

Still waiting . . .

So the Baha'i moral laws have failed miserably too, they are theistic? And if you want to know what I believe is right or wrong look to the Law of Christ, as found in the New Testament. I mean you do believe that Christ was a manifestation of God - correct?

[shunyadragon]

Which one of these does science support? Where is your objective verifiable evidence telling us which one is true?

Science is supported by the Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism, and alone provides an adequate explanation for the natural evolution of humans, human nature and morals and ethics. Various Naturalist non-Theist appeal to the scientific explanation, science does support any on as specifically 'true' over the other. NMN appeals to the brute fact of the natural scientific explanation for morals and ethics as its basis, and it fits the scientific view well. Science does not take sides on the proposed explanation of different philosophies when they go beyond the scientific evidence. There are some that do not fit well with the scientific view of the morals and ethics. One that is obvious is it appeals to happiness as the goal and purpose. I will site some in the next post. The on I rely on the scientific explanation as a non-Theist adequate explanation.

You say my position carries no evidence, neither do yours. You present subjective theories as if they are objective - they are not. This is why you can not offer objective evidence as to which one is true. You are guilty of the very same thing you accuse me of. Hypocritical.

The science of the evolution of human nature is not based on a subjective theory. I went to the effort to cite references from scientific journals of thousands of articles on research on human behavior, and hundreds referenced concerning morals and ethics, and these are not based on subjective theories. You choose to hand wave them.

The philosophies proposing an explanation are less well grounded unless they appeal directly to scientific evidence like NMN.

[seer]

Science is supported by the Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism, and alone provides an adequate explanation for the natural evolution of humans, human nature and morals and ethics. Various Naturalist non-Theist appeal to the scientific explanation, science does support any on as specifically 'true' over the other. NMN appeals to the brute fact of the natural scientific explanation for morals and ethics as its basis, and it fits the scientific view well. Science does not take sides on the proposed explanation of different philosophies when they go beyond the scientific evidence. There are some that do not fit well with the scientific view of the morals and ethics. One that is obvious is it appeals to happiness as the goal and purpose. I will site some in the next post. The on I rely on the scientific explanation as a non-Theist adequate explanation.

Shuny, you are just babbling now. First, Moral Realism is not based on fact, brute or otherwise. If you think otherwise then demonstrate it. And there is no scientific evidence for Moral Realism. And since you have no objective evidence for which ethical theory is correct we are back into the same boat with differing religions. You have gained nothing.

The science of the evolution of human nature is not based on a subjective theory. I went to the effort to cite references from scientific journals of thousands of articles on research on human behavior, and hundreds referenced concerning morals and ethics, and these are not based on subjective theories. You choose to hand wave them.


The philosophies proposing an explanation are less well grounded unless they appeal directly to scientific evidence like NMN.

Shuny, put up or shut up - where is the scientific evidence for Moral Realism. Do you even know what Moral Realism is?

Again:

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. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts.

WHERE DOES SCIENCE SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT MORAL FACTS EXIST ARE OBJECTIVE AND THAT THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF OUR BELIEFS, FEELINGS AND ATTITUDES.

[shunyadragon]

So the Baha'i moral laws have failed miserably too, they are theistic?

No too simpistic of a response. Baha'i Faith relies on the specific Laws of God in the Katabi-Akdas, and any sort of standard nor system of morals and ethics.

. . . And if you want to know what I believe is right or wrong look to the Law of Christ, as found in the New Testament.

Too vague.

[

I mean you do believe that Christ was a manifestation of God - correct?

Yes, but I follow the Baha'i Faith the Revelation from God for today, and the Baha'i Law and not a system of morals and ethics.

The question of the thread is whether there is a valid explanation of non-Theist morals and ethics like NMN. This is not debate concerning my beliefs, which do not propose a system of morals and ethics. My argument is simple; 'I believe it is possible that science provides an adequate natural non-Theist explanation for morals and ethics, and philosophies that are compatible with the objective evidence. Being able to provide an adequate explanation, does mean the philosophy is definitively true.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are just babbling now. First, Moral Realism is not based on fact, brute or otherwise. If you think otherwise then demonstrate it. And there is no scientific evidence for Moral Realism. And since you have no objective evidence for which ethical theory is correct we are back into the same boat with differing religions. You have gained nothing.

Shuny, put up or shut up - where is the scientific evidence for Moral Realism. Do you even know what Moral Realism is?

WHERE DOES SCIENCE SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT MORAL FACTS EXIST ARE OBJECTIVE AND THAT THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF OUR BELIEFS, FEELINGS AND ATTITUDES.

Again, Moral Realism like other philosophies are not science. Science does not consider any on philosophy true nor false. The scientific evidence supports that the morals and ethics are based on objective evidence of the evolution of humanity, which is independent of the subjective nature of individual beliefs, feelings and attitudes, which are too variable and inconsistent and unreliable.

My argument remains and always will be that the foundation objective evidence for a non-Theist origin of morals and ethics is science, and not any one of the diverse philosophies. At its base NMN and Moral realism consider morals and ethics is a brute fact, which is the scientific view, beyond that philosophies diverge in their own argument, and may not be in agreement with science. Philosophies are what appeal to science for evidence, sometimes they succeed in part sometimes they do not. Science does not appeal to the philosophies for objective evidence to support a non-Theist explanation for the origins of morals and ethics.

Again there are some that are specifically not in agreement with science, and I will address these later.

put up or shut up yourself!

[seer]

Again, Moral Realism like other philosophies are not science. Science does not consider any on philosophy true nor false. The scientific evidence supports that the morals and ethics are based on objective evidence of the evolution of humanity, which is independent of the subjective nature of individual beliefs, feelings and attitudes, which are too variable and inconsistent and unreliable.

My argument remains and always will be that the foundation objective evidence for a non-Theist origin of morals and ethics is science, and not any one of the diverse philosophies. At its base NMN and Moral realism consider morals and ethics is a brute fact, which is the scientific view, beyond that philosophies diverge in their own argument, and may not be in agreement with science. Philosophies are what appeal to science for evidence, sometimes they succeed in part sometimes they do not. Science does not appeal to the philosophies for objective evidence to support a non-Theist explanation for the origins of morals and ethics.

First you say that science does not support Moral Realism, then you say that it is the scientific view that morals and ethics are brute facts. I mean do you even know what is meant by brute facts? Please explain. But that is not what Moral Realism is, at its core. Moral Realism says much more than that: WHERE DOES SCIENCE SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT MORAL FACTS EXIST ARE OBJECTIVE AND THAT THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF OUR BELIEFS, FEELINGS AND ATTITUDES. That is moral Realism.

[shunyadragon]

First you say that science does not support Moral Realism, then you say that it is the scientific view that morals and ethics are brute facts. I mean do you even know what is meant by brute facts? Please explain. But that is not what Moral Realism is, at its core. Moral Realism says much more than that: WHERE DOES SCIENCE SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT MORAL FACTS EXIST ARE OBJECTIVE AND THAT THEY ARE INDEPENDENT OF OUR BELIEFS, FEELINGS AND ATTITUDES. That is moral Realism.

Science is absolutely not going to support everything philosophies believe, but the above statement is not incompatible with science. The above statement is subjective like the claims of a Theistic objective morality, it may be true and it may false, but it is not science. You, of course, cannot prove it false.

Again, Moral Realism like other philosophies are not science. Science does not consider any one philosophy true nor false. The scientific evidence supports that the morals and ethics are based on objective evidence of the evolution of humanity, which is independent of the subjective nature of individual beliefs, feelings and attitudes, which are too variable and inconsistent and unreliable.

[Tassman]

Nonsense, show me anyone who holds to Libertarianism who believes the will is without any restrictions. If we have the ability to "do other than we did" in some cases, or most cases, then that is enough to undermine both determinism and compatibilism.

Libertarianism, which you erroneously claim to be arguing, is the position that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will which can override such a universe. Therefore determinism is false.

What you are in fact arguing without being aware of it, is the Compatibilist position...namely that free-will is subject to restrictions and that free will and determinism are therefore compatible ideas. This is Compatibilism NOT Libertarian Free-will. You are a Compatibilist, right up there with atheist/secularist,Dan Dennett.

[seer]

Again, Moral Realism like other philosophies are not science. Science does not consider any one philosophy true nor false. The scientific evidence supports that the morals and ethics are based on objective evidence of the evolution of humanity, which is independent of the subjective nature of individual beliefs, feelings and attitudes, which are too variable and inconsistent and unreliable.

Shuny, I have no idea what that means. If morality is not subjective to the individual or to the culture then where do these moral truths exist independently of our subjective views? And yes, science can tell us that ethics developed thus and so, but it has no opinion as to what is actually right or wrong. Yes, men can be kind and cooperate, but they can also be cruel and selfish - both are part of our natural make up.

[seer]

Libertarianism, which you erroneously claim to be arguing, is the position that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will which can override such a universe. Therefore determinism is false.

What you are in fact arguing without being aware of it, is the Compatibilist position...namely that free-will is subject to restrictions and that free will and determinism are therefore compatible ideas. This is Compatibilism NOT Libertarian Free-will. You are a Compatibilist, right up there with atheist/secularist,Dan Dennett.

Nonsense Tass, since on Compatibilism there is no option of contrary choice (could have done otherwise). I'm arguing for contrary choice - does that mean that all our decisions must have the option of contrary choice? Of course not. Just the majority.