A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[seer]

For the umpteenth time, the driving instinct for a social species such as us is social cohesion. The natural evolution of human behaviour is to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.

That doesn't change my point, and nothing ensures our survival, we just happen to have the instincts to survive in community - for now. And you don't seem to have a problem with undermining social order when it is for a cause you agree with.


So you have no idea what such evidence would look like, and you claim no such evidence exists. Really?


I was not dishonest Tass - you said that natural selection determined who and what we are!

What do you mean despite men like Trump and Moses - they are alpha males, just like with higher primates, and they and their behavior have been selected for and are just as necessary for survival of the species. With the higher primates, and with much of human history, it is these dominate personalities that maintain social order.

[Roy]

Of course you are dishonest Charles, and hypocritical. And you did not answer the point. You said that the idea of a universal mind being the source of universal truth was illogical.

No, he didn't.

He actually said this, which seer has quoted multiple times: "I would like to see you show how God could logically be a source for universal values. Where is the logic in that?"

This was a response to seer's statement: "what I'am saying is that God (akin to the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God) could logically be a source for universal values".

That is what you refuse to answer, why would that be illogical.

It's actually seer who is refusing to answer Charles's question. He is, as usual, trying to avoid the burden of supporting his own claim, and he has no compunction about misrepresenting Charles's words in the process.

[seer]

No, he didn't.

He actually said this, which seer has quoted multiple times: "I would like to see you show how God could logically be a source for universal values. Where is the logic in that?"

This was a response to seer's statement: "what I'am saying is that God (akin to the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God) could logically be a source for universal values".It's actually seer who is refusing to answer Charles's question. He is, as usual, trying to avoid the burden of supporting his own claim, and he has no compunction about misrepresenting Charles's words in the process.

No Roy, if Charles is claiming that it is illogical for a universal mind to be the source for universal moral truths it is on him to show what rule of logic that violates. I see nothing illogical about that idea, and again back to what I said to him:

I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm not claiming proof - what I'am saying is that God (akin to the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God) could logically be a source for universal values, and that I see no other option for said universal ethics. As we have discussed.

[Charles]

That is not the point Charles, I'm not asking if you would agree with what this universal mind finds moral or not. Only that it would not be illogical for this mind to be the source for universal moral truths. Just admit that that concept is not illogical and we can move on to your next question.

It is not be logical at all. What this discussion clearly shows is that you need to avoid any idea of what morality is in order to establish the "logic" you go for. That is why you cannot answer the question. You want to point to God as a source of universal moral truths, but you want to do so without knowing what "moral" is.

[Charles]

Just a side note Charles, there are no moral truths that exist independent of minds or a mind, not for God or for you, as we discussed.

That is what you have been stating yes. And then you run into all the problems I initially pointed to in the first post in this thread. You need to revisit Leibniz' points.

[seer]

It is not be logical at all. What this discussion clearly shows is that you need to avoid any idea of what morality is in order to establish the "logic" you go for. That is why you cannot answer the question. You want to point to God as a source of universal moral truths, but you want to do so without knowing what "moral" is.

No, Charles, we are not establishing what is or is not immoral. Only if a universal mind could be the source of universal moral truths. You said that that concept was illogical, you know it isn't and you refuse to admit that you have no logical argument against it. That is why you move the goal posts.

That is what you have been stating yes. And then you run into all the problems I initially pointed to in the first post in this thread. You need to revisit Leibniz' points.

It doesn't matter Charles, what problems you or Leibniz think there may be. Moral truths do not exist apart from minds, there is no objective standard to which we can appeal. And you have failed massively to demonstrate otherwise.

[Charles]

No, Charles, we are not establishing what is or is not immoral. Only if a universal mind could be the source of universal moral truths.

Read those two lines again. You want to establish what could be the source of universal moral truth without even having an idea about what is or is not immoral. Are you starting to get the point, seer? It is a bit like trying to establish whether grass is green without knowing the colours. What you are basically saying is that God could be the source of universal moral truths if we accept that universal moral truths could be anything and everything including the opinion of some god who may find it fitting to torture and kill. But then again... We are not establishing what is or is not moral... Because that would point to the obvious errors in your line of reasoning.

[Tassman]

That doesn't change my point, and nothing ensures our survival, we just happen to have the instincts to survive in community - for now. And you don't seem to have a problem with undermining social order when it is for a cause you agree with.

Nothing ensures the survival of any

So you have no idea what such evidence would look like, and you claim no such evidence exists. Really?

I was not dishonest Tass - you said that natural selection determined who and what we are!

What do you mean despite men like Trump and Moses - they are alpha males, just like with higher primates, and they and their behavior have been selected for and are just as necessary for survival of the species. With the higher primates, and with much of human history, it is these dominate personalities that maintain social order.

So why your previous disapproval of:

[seer]

Read those two lines again. You want to establish what could be the source of universal moral truth without even having an idea about what is or is not immoral. Are you starting to get the point, seer? It is a bit like trying to establish whether grass is green without knowing the colours. What you are basically saying is that God could be the source of universal moral truths if we accept that universal moral truths could be anything and everything including the opinion of some god who may find it fitting to torture and kill. But then again... We are not establishing what is or is not moral... Because that would point to the obvious errors in your line of reasoning.

Charles, I think I get it now. You don't believe that we can know what is right or wrong unless there is an objective moral standard- correct? But there is no evidence that such a mind independent standard exists, and if it did exist no one really knows what it is. So where does that leave us? In other words you have to show, at least in principle, how moral truths can exist apart from minds.

[seer]

Nothing ensures the survival of any

So? And like I said, you have no problem undermining social cohesion when it is for a cause you agree with. So obviously cohesion is not a main concern for you.

Well no you claimed there was evidence for God, but you have no idea what such evidence would even look like - so your demand for evidence is meaningless.


Like we discussed Tass, there are different views of free will, mine includes the ability to do otherwise, and that is not incoherent, and that it is not necessarily Compatibilism.

So why your previous disapproval of:

That is just stupid Tass, like you said "natural selection determined us to be who and what we are." There is, in your world, no moving past natural selection. It is what it is, Trump is what he is, as natural selection determined. Again Tass, why do you dislike what nature created so much?

[shunyadragon]

Charles, I think I get it now. You don't believe that we can know what is right or wrong unless there is an objective moral standard- correct? But there is no evidence that such a mind independent standard exists, and if it did exist no one really knows what it is. So where does that leave us? In other words you have to show, at least in principle, how moral truths can exist apart from minds.

From the Philosophical Naturalist morals and ethics do not exist apart from minds. The evolved as the mind evolved as an evolution strategy for the survival of the species. There is no objective verifiable evidence that would convince the Philosophical Naturalist that other minds exist beyond human minds that would be responsible for morals and ethics. There view adequately explains human morals and ethics by the objective evidence.

From the Theist perspective it is a belief that cannot be objectively verified. It is based on a belief in a God that is the 'Source' of all things.

[seer]

From the Philosophical Naturalist morals and ethics do not exist apart from minds. The evolved as the mind evolved as an evolution strategy for the survival of the species. There is no objective verifiable evidence that would convince the Philosophical Naturalist that other minds exist beyond human minds that would be responsible for morals and ethics. There view adequately explains human morals and ethics by the objective evidence.

From the Theist perspective it is a belief that cannot be objectively verified. It is based on a belief in a God that is the 'Source' of all things.

Can you prove, with verifiable evidence, that all ethics and morals can be explained by natural means alone?

[shunyadragon]

Can you prove, with verifiable evidence, that all ethics and morals can be explained by natural means alone?

Again. again, and many agains, science does not prove anything. The objective verifiable evidence demonstrates the morals and ethics have survival value of social intelligent animals like humans, and exist in primitive forms in other social primates.

[seer]

Again. again, and many agains, science does not prove anything. The objective verifiable evidence demonstrates the morals and ethics have survival value of social intelligent animals like humans, and exist in primitive forms in other social primates.

No Shuny, animals do not reason in moral concepts, as far as I know only humans do. Second, just because morals and ethics have survival value does not mean, logically, that that accounts for all our understanding of ethics. As a matter of fact your religion teaches that God has informed human ethics through His manifestations. The Torah, the teachings of Christ, etc...

[Charles]

Charles, I think I get it now. You don't believe that we can know what is right or wrong unless there is an objective moral standard- correct? But there is no evidence that such a mind independent standard exists, and if it did exist no one really knows what it is. So where does that leave us? In other words you have to show, at least in principle, how moral truths can exist apart from minds.

Once again you are trying to change the topic and try to make me talk about stuff I have talked about numerous times. Is it really that hard for you to answer the question, seer? Let men know when you have got anything. I will be waiting... Probably for a very long time. Or perhaps I should just conclude that your answer is so bad that you do not want us to know it because it would be embarrasing.