Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

I reject moral 'truths' therefore I am I Nihilist? Too simplistic definition.

Well no, you are a theist and you don't reject the moral laws of God. As your religion teaches both Moses and Christ brought the law of God to humanity.

[Charles]

That does not follow, since God's commands can not be arbitrary. Which we discussed at length. So back to you - can you offer a non-circular definition of "good?" If you can't just say so and stop accusing me since you can not offer anything better.



Of course it does, Webster:Nihilism a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.

You are yet to show how it follows. An atheist can hold to objectives grounds of truth in case you did not know. So, then....

Rather it seems nihilism is a precondition for accepting your basically immoral ideas about what morals even is. And it seems nihilism stays at the heart if it along, of course, with the circular logic you provide. Feel free to show me where you think I am circular and I will explain.

[Charles]

That does not follow, since God's commands can not be arbitrary. Which we discussed at length. So back to you - can you offer a non-circular definition of "good?" If you can't just say so and stop accusing me since you can not offer anything better.



Of course it does, Webster:Nihilism a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.

They are arbitrary by their very nature, seer. You cannot escape that. If god did hold other views those would be the ones you found good, and you would claim they could not be different. You have got no tools to evaluate it because you limit yourself to circular claims about what goodnes is and base it all on god with no further justification. Sad.

[shunyadragon]

Well no, you are a theist and you don't reject the moral laws of God. As your religion teaches both Moses and Christ brought the law of God to humanity.

The Laws of God are NOT moral laws. They are Laws of God. Morality and Ethics by definition are not Laws of God. I have repeated this many times and continue to misquote and misrepresent me.

[seer]

You are yet to show how it follows. An atheist can hold to objectives grounds of truth in case you did not know. So, then....

When it comes to objective moral truths it would then be on the atheist to show how such moral truths can exist independent of a mind or minds. Something no one here, including you, has been able to demonstrate.

Rather it seems nihilism is a precondition for accepting your basically immoral ideas about what morals even is. And it seems nihilism stays at the heart if it along, of course, with the circular logic you provide. Feel free to show me where you think I am circular and I will explain.

Stop Charles, I explained my position, now it is your turn. Present your definition of good and why it is good and I will show why it is circular.

[seer]

The Laws of God are NOT moral laws. They are Laws of God. Morality and Ethics by definition are not Laws of God. I have repeated this many times and continue to misquote and misrepresent me.

Shuny your own religion call the laws of Moses the law of God and many of them, if not most, are moral laws. They include laws against murder, stealing, fraud, rape, etc...So I have no idea what you are talking about.

[seer]

They are arbitrary by their very nature, seer. You cannot escape that. If god did hold other views those would be the ones you found good, and you would claim they could not be different. You have got no tools to evaluate it because you limit yourself to circular claims about what goodnes is and base it all on god with no further justification. Sad.

No Charles, they can not be arbitrary by definition since they are grounded in an immutable moral nature, that is the very opposite of arbitrary. And what non-arbitrary standard do you have Charles, tell us all? Based on your limited arbitrary mutable opinion? So I'm still waiting for your non-circular definition of "good."

[JimL]

No Charles, they can not be arbitrary by definition since they are grounded in an immutable moral nature, that is the very opposite of arbitrary. And what non-arbitrary standard do you have Charles, tell us all? Based on your limited arbitrary mutable opinion? So I'm still waiting for your non-circular definition of "good."

Its been explained to you seer, you just don't accept it thats all. You need a god and objectively grounded morals in order for you to hold to basic principles of good and evil. We don't need to be told, we don't need them to have an objective reality of their own, we can figure it out and decide for ourselves whats right and whats wrong, and that is what we do. You have no evidence to the contrary so you can go on and on all you want about what you believe to be the case, but though its always possible that you could be correct, you have no evidence for it and what we see in the world contradicts it, so you just give us no reason to accept your purely biased viewpoint.

[lee_merrill]

For the survival of the species, and life in general.

But why should our species survive? Or life in general, why are the nihilists wrong?

Protest all you like, but to no avail. If the pack of wolves does not respect the hierarchy, share the food and the need to cooperate to hunt large animals for food, the pack cannot survive.

But that's not based on selfishness.

Blessings,
Lee

[seer]

Its been explained to you seer, you just don't accept it thats all. You need a god and objectively grounded morals in order for you to hold to basic principles of good and evil. We don't need to be told, we don't need them to have an objective reality of their own, we can figure it out and decide for ourselves whats right and whats wrong, and that is what we do. You have no evidence to the contrary so you can go on and on all you want about what you believe to be the case, but though its always possible that you could be correct, you have no evidence for it and what we see in the world contradicts it, so you just give us no reason to accept your purely biased viewpoint.

Well Jim you already said that evil does not really exist, then I guess good really doesn't exist either so I'm not sure what you are taking about.

[JimL]

But why should our species survive? Or life in general, why are the nihilists wrong?

There is no "should lee, there is no reason why we should survive. We could all die of some unforseen catastrophy tomorrow and there would be no reason why we should die either. Why do you keep asking?

[lee_merrill]

... I don't think instincts can get as far as altruism, enlightened self-interest won't give up itself.

Altruism is just as ingrained as reciprocity in social species such as us. NB the experiments of primatologist and ethologist Frans de Waal.

https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_w...ls_have_morals

But I thought we had concluded that instinctive morals boiled down to enlightened self-interest, thus altruism is not sincere.

Best wishes,
Lee

[JimL]

But I thought we had concluded that instinctive morals boiled down to enlightened self-interest, thus altruism is not sincere.

Best wishes,
Lee

Lee, altruism is part of enlightened self interests.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny your own religion call the laws of Moses the law of God and many of them, if not most, are moral laws. They include laws against murder, stealing, fraud, rape, etc...So I have no idea what you are talking about.

The Baha'i scripture refers to Divine Law, and not Moral Law. I have no idea what your talking about.

Actually there is nothing in the definition of morals and ethics that refer to laws. Laws may or may not be based on morals and ethics.

[Tassman]

But I thought we had concluded that instinctive morals boiled down to enlightened self-interest, thus altruism is not sincere.

Enlightened self-interest encompasses the whole range of evolved behaviours which facilitate community survival including altruism, bonding, cooperation, empathy, reciprocity and response to the social rules of the group.

There is no "should lee, there is no reason why we should survive. We could all die of some unforseen catastrophy tomorrow and there would be no reason why we should die either. Why do you keep asking?

Because his mindset is based upon the notion that morality consists of what we "should do" to please God.