A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Tassman]

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

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

It would be no more immoral for an advanced species to harvest us for food than it is for us to harvest cattle and other livestock for food. Although of course, we wouldn't like it.

[Charles]

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

That is absolutely true.

[seer]

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 can not prove that - that God had no influence. As a matter of fact your own religion teaches that God did in fact influence our ethics, through the Torah, the teaching of Christ, and your other Manifestations of God.

[seer]

Tass can you name one moral wrong that is a universal wrong?

[shunyadragon]

Tass can you name one moral wrong that is a universal wrong?

Cause the wrongful death of another human.

[seer]

Cause the wrongful death of another human.

Why is that universally wrong?

[shunyadragon]

You can not prove that - that God had no influence. As a matter of fact your own religion teaches that God did in fact influence our ethics, through the Torah, the teaching of Christ, and your other Manifestations of God.

Yes, my religion not only does this, but believes God determined the attributes of humans, and this is question of belief, but that is not the issue here. In fact I acknowledge that science is able describe the attributes of of morality and ethics from an evolutionary perspective, which is how God created. There is a difference between God Law and evolved human morals and ethics. The evolved positive human morals and ethics do reflect the attributes of God.

Again . . .

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.

[seer]

Yes, my religion not only does this, but believes God determined the attributes of humans, and this is question of belief, but that is not the issue here. In fact I acknowledge that science is able describe the attributes of of morality and ethics from an evolutionary perspective, which is how God created. There is a difference between God Law and evolved human morals and ethics. The evolved positive human morals and ethics do reflect the attributes of God.
Again . . .

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.

Are you completely daft Shuny? If this is true, that God endowed us with certain ethical norms, attributes and informed us through His prophets of His law, then no, evolution can not alone explain our morals and ethics, because without God we would not have developed, ethically, as we did.

[shunyadragon]

Why is that universally wrong?

If it were not the human species would not survive.

[seer]

If it were not the human species would not survive.

But we kill each other quite often and still survive. Besides why would it be a universal wrong for us not to survive?

[shunyadragon]

But we kill each other quite often and still survive.

True that is how survival of the species works.

Besides why would it be a universal wrong for us not to survive?

Survival of the species is neither universally right nor wrong. Where are you going with this foolishness?

[seer]

True that is how survival of the species works.

But you said that to cause the wrongful death of another human was a universal wrong. Obviously you were wrong.

Survival of the species is neither universally right nor wrong. Where are you going with this foolishness?

I asked Tass to present one universal moral wrong - you put your nose in with something you could not back up.

[shunyadragon]

But you said that to cause the wrongful death of another human was a universal wrong. Obviously you were wrong.

No, it is a universal concerning the morality and ethics of humans. Beyond this Natural Law is the Universal standard that may be objectively falsifiable by the evidence.

[Tassman]

Tass can you name one moral wrong that is a universal wrong?

[seer]

No, it is a universal concerning the morality and ethics of humans.

OK, so it is not a universal moral wrong to kill your fellow man like you suggested.

Beyond this Natural Law is the Universal standard that may be objectively falsifiable by the evidence.

And this universal standard is what?