A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[siam]

Okay, I find a lot of agreement so far.


Back to the question: where does this value life has come from? I don't see interactions and patterns created with others within various cultural environments as having any ethical meaning per se. They have ethical guidance because imo it [value] exists in our reality a priori to living a life. If there's no value in "is", the interactions, cultural settings, etc. are just clusters of inert matter bumping around in time and space. This seems to place value, if there is any, in essence. How does value endue essence when there aren't any minds to perceive/create it?

Where do you see cause and effect's place in ethics?

If Tawheed (Unity) can lead to balance, harmony and peace it is "Truth". This "balance" (Qadr= measure) is made up of patterns (such as patterns of equilibrium in nature) therefore it is necessarily relational. Thus "Truth" is understood/interpreted by human beings in its relational aspect (gravity is understood in its relation to (cause/effect) other "objects") Science finds these "patterns" and confirms/tests the replication of these patterns (laws)....and we come "to know" these as "facts" that govern reality.....to mix the metaphysical and physical is confusing...so, to see this in another way....

Knowledge (Truth) exists (a priori) but it is necessarily interpreted through the human mind/form---this "interpretation" is the perceived "reality" but its articulation is diverse (different worldviews). The "Truth" is in the essence of "reality" and not its various articulations/interpretations. This quality of "Truth" makes wisdom (Wisdom = subset of Knowledge/Truth) timeless. "to Know" = to understand/interpret timeless wisdom into the particulars of our lived reality (environment, circumstances) makes this acquired "knowledge" timebound. ---in other words----our mind/form interprets the environment/circumstances around us (relationally) forming our perceptions of "reality". This "reality" is individual and universal and "to know" its realtionality is aqcuired knowledge and to know its essence is wisdom. This is to know "Truth".

If "Truth" (Tawheed/Unity) is the essence of created things then it is not "just inert matter bumping into each other" because it is the relation that creates balance (and gives meaning = value). ----and the perception and interpretation of relation is necessarily through the human intellect.....these relationships are the patterns and by making sense of these patterns (laws) we make sense of "reality" (Qadr =measure/destiny). Ethics/Morality are the codes (principles) that govern human relationships both macro and micro....not just between human beings but between humans and other living and non-living creation. The universal (timeless) would be the essence of the principles and the particular (timebound) would be the diverse human interpretation and implementation according to their lived "realities".

cause and effect are the "reasoning" mechanisms that human beings use in justifying (making sense) of ethics/morality within their perceived "reality"---a Christian will have his reasoning, a Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheist, will have his....cause/effect is how we perceive and express "patterns" which make up our lived "reality" ---so, for example, one might say life has value because of survival of the species, another might say life has value because God said so....either expression/perception is true because the essence of the principle is "True" and this is so because it aligns with "Unity" which creates balance that leads to harmony.....

rules and laws that lead to fragmentation, imbalance and discord...are not aligned to "Truth" even if there is sufficient "reasoning" behind them.....

This understanding of Truth and Untruth is not linear but circular (Eastern way of thinking) because it is humanity that needs "Truth"---not the other way around....."we" need "Truth" to make sense of our reality and give meaning/purpose....and so it has to be human-centric---begins and ends with the human intellect.....

[Tassman]

I was speaking with Charles who does believe that there are universal moral truths.

There are obvious universal moral truths based upon the fact that we have to live among other human beings and certain basic principles must apply in order to successfully do so. But I think Charles was arguing against transcendent, faith-based universal truths, as was I.

[seer]

There are obvious universal moral truths based upon the fact that we have to live among other human beings and certain basic principles must apply in order to successfully do so. But I think Charles was arguing against transcendent, faith-based universal truths, as was I.

No Tass, universal means universal, not relative to a particular species.

[Charles]

There are obvious universal moral truths based upon the fact that we have to live among other human beings and certain basic principles must apply in order to successfully do so. But I think Charles was arguing against transcendent, faith-based universal truths, as was I.

Yes, Tassman. That is correct. Thanks.

[seer]

Yes, Tassman. That is correct. Thanks.

So you don't believe in universal moral truths, just what happens to work for our species. So you are a pragmatist. Got it...

[Anomaly]

Charles was arguing against transcendent, faith-based universal truths, as was I.

This is actually why I rarely get involved in theist-atheist discussions. Most atheists argue from a fundamental circularity, as has surfaced in this thread. The atheist says to the theist, "Come, let us argue our worldviews. We have one simple rule: only objects in time and space or concepts that refer to these objects are valid for discussion. Now then, come tell me all about your God and the spiritual realm."

Like Chalmers' 'hard problem' of consciousness, ethics discussions between theists and atheists also inevitably end up at a similar dead end, alluded to earlier: from whence does the value that supplies ethics come? If it was already in the universe before intellects perceived it, how did it get here? If it only arose from intellectual perception, what is the mechanism for it? As noted in earlier posts, the Christian perspective of truth [at least from my point of view] seems to find strong unity with both revelation and experience. It seems to me a cogent and intuitive explanation not just for how morality/ethics works, but as a working hypothesis using the principles involved for why people stand on or lean toward one side of the discussion or the other.

I apologize for bringing a faith-based view to the thread, read the op but didn't see where only non-supernatural explanations were allowed. Do have to wonder, though, why you want to have a purely naturalistic discussion on a theology board? If it's because you folks are professional philosophers and feel the need to maintain the status quo so your credentials remain untarnished, I understand. All the same, good luck in your quest for truth.

[seer]

I apologize for bringing a faith-based view to the thread, read the op but didn't see where only non-supernatural explanations were allowed. Do have to wonder, though, why you want to have a purely naturalistic discussion on a theology board? If it's because you folks are professional philosophers and feel the need to maintain the status quo so your credentials remain untarnished, I understand. All the same, good luck in your quest for truth.

You are perfectly free to argue for supernatural explanations, I do all the time. And there are no professional philosophers here... That I am aware of anyway...

[Charles]

I apologize for bringing a faith-based view to the thread, read the op but didn't see where only non-supernatural explanations were allowed. Do have to wonder, though, why you want to have a purely naturalistic discussion on a theology board? If it's because you folks are professional philosophers and feel the need to maintain the status quo so your credentials remain untarnished, I understand. All the same, good luck in your quest for truth.

No need to apologize. And no need to feel unwelcome just because some of us do not agree. You wrote some rather interesting posts which I stressed while at the same time pointing to where I disagreed. I think that should be fair when having a discussion.

[shunyadragon]

So you don't believe in universal moral truths, just what happens to work for our species. So you are a pragmatist. Got it...

Universal moral truths is eventually based on universal natural law which applies to the entire nature of our physical existence. Universal moral truths regardless of which planet an intelligent species exists is dependent on and cannot violate natural law, and is necessary for the survival of an intelligent species regardless.

[Tassman]

No Tass, universal means universal, not relative to a particular species.

Moral truths are a consequence of natural selection and are universal derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case.

[seer]

Moral truths are a consequence of natural selection and are universal derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case.

That is not universal, what you are speaking of is relative to our species.

[seer]

Universal moral truths is eventually based on universal natural law which applies to the entire nature of our physical existence. Universal moral truths regardless of which planet an intelligent species exists is dependent on and cannot violate natural law, and is necessary for the survival of an intelligent species regardless.

Nonsense Shuny, if an advanced species came to earth and began harvesting us for food - would that be a moral wrong?

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, if an advanced species came to earth and began harvesting us for food - would that be a moral wrong?

No, is it morally wrong for humans doing the same thing.

[seer]

No, is it morally wrong for humans doing the same thing.

So it is not universally wrong, and why would cannibalism be wrong. After all human Cannibalism was rather common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_in_humans

[shunyadragon]

So it is not universally wrong, and why would cannibalism be wrong. After all human Cannibalism was rather common.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_in_humans

Your line of reasoning is only justifying an evolution of natural morals and ethics through out history of humanity with no hint of a specific Divine origin that would justify your agenda. The evidence indicates that morals and ethics evolved over time, and are consistent through history.

You have offered no other 'source' of morals and ethics that can be objectively verified by the evidence based on what you propose.