A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Charles]

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

And even if I do so you will still be waiting. Because we have been over all of this time and time again. And as soon as you cannot answer, you pretend like nothing ever happened and ask the same questions again and again. So, yes, you will be waiting. If you want to find it, it is in this very thread. But I suppose you would rather be waiting.

[Charles]

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...

So, once again you are forgetting everything we have gone through in this thread? The very first post is of very high importance in this context. You may want to read it again.

And what is the answer to the challenges pointed to in your own view. As usually you answer by asking a question instead of telling what you actually think and what you base it on.

[seer]

And even if I do so you will still be waiting. Because we have been over all of this time and time again. And as soon as you cannot answer, you pretend like nothing ever happened and ask the same questions again and again. So, yes, you will be waiting. If you want to find it, it is in this very thread. But I suppose you would rather be waiting.

No Charles, you did not do what you claimed, you tried with Kant, but as with the lying example you clearly failed. So I will give you another chance - name ONE moral wrong and why it is "objectively" wrong and I will demonstrate why you will end up arguing in a circle.

[seer]

So, once again you are forgetting everything we have gone through in this thread? The very first post is of very high importance in this context. You may want to read it again.

And what is the answer to the challenges pointed to in your own view. As usually you answer by asking a question instead of telling what you actually think and what you base it on.

Charles, you need to demonstrate, at least in principle, how ethical truths can be mind independent - you have never done this. I'm claiming that moral truths are subjective, mind dependent. Prove me wrong.

[Charles]

No Charles, you did not do what you claimed, you tried with Kant, but as with the lying example you clearly failed. So I will give you another chance - name ONE moral wrong and why it is "objectively" wrong and I will demonstrate why you will end up arguing in a circle.

This is a very good example of your approach. I clearly stated I did not agree with Kant in that regard. And I gave clear lines of reasoning as to how something could be evaluated as universal or not. But obviously you would rather make false statements about what I said than confronting the actual issue. Thus you will be waiting.

[Charles]

Charles, you need to demonstrate, at least in principle, how ethical truths can be mind independent - you have never done this. I'm claiming that moral truths are subjective, mind dependent. Prove me wrong.

Seer, read the post and confront the points made instead of this childish approach. And start answering questions instead.

[seer]

This is a very good example of your approach. I clearly stated I did not agree with Kant in that regard. And I gave clear lines of reasoning as to how something could be evaluated as universal or not. But obviously you would rather make false statements about what I said than confronting the actual issue. Thus you will be waiting.

No Charles, you did not such thing. I mean really, you did not give one universal moral truth or moral wrong. Just restate it here for all to see. Just ONE...

Seer, read the post and confront the points made instead of this childish approach. And start answering questions instead.

Charles, I did answer your question about killing for God. Now it is your turn - why is killing, for God or Country, or even for greed, objectively wrong? I answerd you, now you answer me...

[shunyadragon]

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...

'As far as you know' does not reflect the evidence that other higher mammals as having documented primitive morals and ethics. They following is a little long because you repeatedly reject or avoid the actual objective verifiable evidence offered in previous threads with many references:

[Tassman]

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.

Genetic predisposition, instinct and higher intelligence account for the development of moral reasoning. Particularly as we see the precursors of modern morality among the higher animals. We have observable evidence of this and we have archeological evidence that all of the various human species in the past have lived in social communities. This implies rules of behaviour, i.e. morality. OTOH there is no credible evidence of divine revelation re morality.

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.

Libertarian free will is the concept that man is an autonomous being, who operates independently of antecedent forces. This is logically incoherent. What you tout as LFW is in fact compatabilism, with which I have no quarrel.

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.

See above re genetic predisposition, instinct and higher intelligence accounting for the development of moral reasoning over time.

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.

And the ISIS Jihadists believe that God is actually ordering them to do what they are doing, just as God ordered Moses to slaughter every man woman and child of the Midianites et al. Great God you've got there seer.

[seer]

'As far as you know' does not reflect the evidence that other higher mammals as having documented primitive morals and ethics. They following is a little long because you repeatedly reject or avoid the actual objective verifiable evidence offered in previous threads with many references..

Yes Shuny, as far as we know animals don't think in moral concepts, there is no evidence that they do. What you quoted is based on instinct, nothing more. Never mind the fact that your religion teaches that God has informed human ethics over time via his manifestations, read your "The Secret of Divine Civilization." And if that, or something like that, is the case then evolution alone can not account for human ethics. Do you agree with your religion Shuny?

[shunyadragon]

Yes Shuny, as far as we know animals don't think in moral concepts, there is no evidence that they do. What you quoted is based on instinct, nothing more. Never mind the fact that your religion teaches that God has informed human ethics over time via his manifestations, read your "The Secret of Divine Civilization." And if that, or something like that, is the case then evolution alone can not account for human ethics. Do you agree with your religion Shuny?

Your side stepping the scientific evidence offering nothing in return. If the morals and ethics of the primates and higher intelligent mammals it is logical that human morals and ethics evolved as instinct. The same behavior involving morals and ethics of humans exists in primates.

True, because God would be responsible for the evolutionary processes that resulted in our morals and ethics, and those of the primates and higher mammals that evolved morals and ethics. As usual the selective citation of the Baha'i Faith gets you nowhere, since you do not believe in the Baha'i Faith anyway.

[seer]

Your side stepping the scientific evidence offering nothing in return. If the morals and ethics of the primates and higher intelligent mammals it is logical that human morals and ethics evolved as instinct. The same behavior involving morals and ethics of humans exists in primates.

True, because God would be responsible for the evolutionary processes that resulted in our morals and ethics, and those of the primates and higher mammals that evolved morals and ethics. As usual the selective citation of the Baha'i Faith gets you nowhere, since you do not believe in the Baha'i Faith anyway.

Nonsense Shuny, Instincts are not concepts. The fact is humans would have never developed ethically apart from being created in the image of God and having rational souls, that separates us from all animals. As your religion teaches: All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.

Without the rational soul Shuny, we would still be like the animals, acting on instinct. So no, naturalism is not sufficient to explain human morality.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, Instincts are not concepts.

If true therefore the morals and ethics of primates are not instincts any more than human morals and ethics are instincts.

The fact is humans would have never developed ethically apart from being created in the image of God and having rational souls, that separates us from all animals. As your religion teaches: All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.

Selective biased citation of the Baha'i Faith which you do not believe.

Without the rational soul Shuny, we would still be like the animals, acting on instinct. So no, naturalism is not sufficient to explain human morality.

The Baha'i Faith believes the mind is distinct and separate from the soul, and the morals and ethics of humans and higher primates are a product of the brain. and manifest through the mind.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Shuny, Instincts are not concepts. The fact is humans would have never developed ethically apart from being created in the image of God and having rational souls, that separates us from all animals.

You are assuming without supporting evidence the existence of souls, and the existence of God. The demonstrable fact is that we have developed ethically and the same applies to the behaviour of the other primates and higher intelligent mammals. They too have acceptable and unacceptable rules of behaviour, which is the precursor of a moral system. Clearly this is the consequence of naturalism.

[seer]

If true therefore the morals and ethics of primates are not instincts any more than human morals and ethics are instincts.

I have no idea what this means. Apes don't sit around contemplating the works of Plato, because well, apes don't have a Plato and never will.

Selective biased citation of the Baha'i Faith which you do not believe.

No Shuny, as a Christian I agree fully with this view of the Soul.

The Baha'i Faith believes the mind is distinct and separate from the soul, and the morals and ethics of humans and higher primates are a product of the brain. and manifest through the mind.

More nonsense: All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.

All knowledge Shuny. You can't have it both ways, you either believe your religion or you don't. And again why did God need to send Moses and the Torah, Jesus and His ethical teachings, Mohammad and his law or your Prophet and His ethical teachings if nature was enough?