A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[seer]

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 embarrassing.

Charles, if your premise is that we can't know what is right or wrong apart from an objective standard, and you can not demonstrate if this standard exists, or how we know what it includes or not, how on earth can we find any common ground to discuss these things? Where do we even start? And there is nothing embarrassing about what I believe.

[Anomaly]

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.

J. Prescott Johnson wrote the following:

The view that there are certain natural facts which are constitutive and definitive of value is called naturalism. One variant of naturalism in value theory is the interest theory of value. It is probably quite widely held. The theory is given definitive formulation by Professor Ralph Barton Perry. He says that values are created, or instituted, in the psychological processes of desire and interest. To desire something, to take an interest in something - whether this is real or imaginary - is to institute value. Value is created by, dependent upon, an interest attitude. Value is the interest attitude; apart from the interest attitude there is no value at all.

x is truth = interest is taken in x [because of the two grades of value, no rational mind would take an interest in imposing false as a value of interest or to pursue].

[Charles]

Charles, if your premise is that we can't know what is right or wrong apart from an objective standard, and you can not demonstrate if this standard exists, or how we know what it includes or not, how on earth can we find any common ground to discuss these things? Where do we even start? And there is nothing embarrassing about what I believe.

And yet you refuse to answer questions about it. Even very simple ones concerning what actually follows from the statements you make. But I have got enough by now to know that you are unable to answer. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[seer]

And yet you refuse to answer questions about it. Even very simple ones concerning what actually follows from the statements you make. But I have got enough by now to know that you are unable to answer. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Answer what? Repeat the question.

[Charles]

Answer what? Repeat the question.

Wow, seer, you are really trying to avoid it.

But once again: If your so called universal mind tells you to kill should you then do so without further reflection and would it be morally justified? What if it is an innocent, a baby? It seems you imply there is no way we can know by ourselves what is right, so should we do it?

[seer]

Wow, seer, you are really trying to avoid it.

But once again: If your so called universal mind tells you to kill should you then do so without further reflection and would it be morally justified? What if it is an innocent, a baby? It seems you imply there is no way we can know by ourselves what is right, so should we do it?

Is this what you were hounding me about? Really? Yes Charles if God required me to kill a fellow human being I would (if I had the emotional ability, because I would find it difficult, I can't even kill a mouse anymore). But doing so would not embarrass me, after all I was more than willing to kill my fellow man for my Country when I enlisted in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam war. And since you have no source for objective moral values you can not categorically state that killing in the name of God or Country is morally wrong.

[Tassman]

Is this what you were hounding me about? Really? Yes Charles if God required me to kill a fellow human being I would (if I had the emotional ability, because I would find it difficult, I can't even kill a mouse anymore). But doing so would not embarrass me, after all I was more than willing to kill my fellow man for my Country when I enlisted in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam war. And since you have no source for objective moral values you can not categorically state that killing in the name of God or Country is morally wrong.

And this is different from the ISIS rationale how, exactly?

[Tassman]

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.

I said there was no substantive evidence for gods. If you believe that there is then what is it?

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

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.

[Tassman]

No Shuny, animals do not reason in moral concepts, as far as I know only humans do.

Presumably neither did primitive humans

[seer]

And this is different from the ISIS rationale how, exactly?

I doubt very much as a Christian, that God is actually ordering them to do what they are doing. And as a Christian I take the teachings of Christ as my ultimate moral guide.

[seer]

Presumably neither did primitive humans

Tass, did you live with the cave men? Do you have any real idea how they treated each other? Were they really any different than higher primate groups where the alpha males take food and females from the weaker members of the group? Instinct does not automatically equate to moral concepts or reasoning. We have a strong instinct to be selfish, to be violent, to covet. Yet conceptually we tend to reject these or try and modify these behaviors. So instinct alone can not be the ground for moral reasoning.

Tass, my view of LFW primarily includes the ability to do other wise, that is the main component - so how is that incoherent? Be specific please.

That does change the fact that if "natural selection determines who and what we are" the Trumps of the world are only acting out the way that nature created them. Again, why do you hate what nature created so much? Do you dislike the Silver Back because he dominates and controls the group, often even by violent means?

[Charles]

I doubt very much as a Christian, that God is actually ordering them to do what they are doing. And as a Christian I take the teachings of Christ as my ultimate moral guide.

But really there is no way based on your own premises you can evaluate the moral quality of any religious teaching. You cannot say that what this God says is morally wrong and what that God says is morally right, because according to you that is basically up to God to decide. You take the teachings of Christ as your ultimate moral guide but there is no way you can evaluate the moral qualities of it without making circular claims that God is good because God himself says so.

[Charles]

Is this what you were hounding me about? Really? Yes Charles if God required me to kill a fellow human being I would (if I had the emotional ability, because I would find it difficult, I can't even kill a mouse anymore). But doing so would not embarrass me, after all I was more than willing to kill my fellow man for my Country when I enlisted in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam war. And since you have no source for objective moral values you can not categorically state that killing in the name of God or Country is morally wrong.

There would be quite many reasons for being embarrased and potentially there would be no limit to what you could be asked to do. Moses was prepared to kill his own son. Perhaps your test would be if you would go even further. But what your answer clearly shows that you are without moral guidance because of the ideas you hold. That is presumable also the reason that you are blind to to objective moral values.

[seer]

But really there is no way based on your own premises you can evaluate the moral quality of any religious teaching. You cannot say that what this God says is morally wrong and what that God says is morally right, because according to you that is basically up to God to decide. You take the teachings of Christ as your ultimate moral guide but there is no way you can evaluate the moral qualities of it without making circular claims that God is good because God himself says so.

Then Charles, make an argument for a moral wrong that is not circular. I will be waiting...

[seer]

There would be quite many reasons for being embarrased and potentially there would be no limit to what you could be asked to do. Moses was prepared to kill his own son. Perhaps your test would be if you would go even further. But what your answer clearly shows that you are without moral guidance because of the ideas you hold. That is presumable also the reason that you are blind to to objective moral values.

And Charles, what you believe is moral or not is merely grounded in your personal preference or your cultural mores. And you keep claiming "objective moral values" but you can not show how ethics can be mind independent or even what they are. You can not even argue that killing in the mane of God or country is objectively wrong. You have nothing...