Science of Morality

[JimL]

No Jim, you are wrong. If God exists then there is an objective purpose for man, there is an objective moral goal. Apart from this Jim there is no objective ethical goal for human beings any more than there was an objective ethical goal for dinosaurs. There is no objective reason why we as a species should survive in the first place, never mind survive with a particular ethic.

Seer, the point keeps going right over your head. If there is a set of morals for humans to live by which would be the basis of a pleasing and happy life for all, then whether they are grounded in an external source or not wouldn't matter in the least. If you and all of your resurrected compadres in heaven adhere to the moral system there, then life there would be no different than life on earth if people here did the same. The morals themselves don't need an objective source in order to work, they just need to be adhered to. Justice is an altogether different matter than morality.

Jim humanity has grown and thrived for pretty much all of history under totalitarian rule, as higher primates still do today. And Jim in your godless universe survival is the ultimate good - no matter how you get there.

You are not responding to what I actually said. Survival of the species itself is not what morality is all about. Thats only part of it. If life is chaotic and miserable, then what good is survival?

But that is not the point Jim. There is no objective "perfect set of principles" in your universe, there is no objective right way for humans to interact. Only opinion, you and I may prefer the golden rule, others prefer to control and dominate. And our opinion is no more correct or valid than theirs.

If there is a right way for humans to act, then there is a right way for humans to act, and that right way would not be dependent upon an objective source. What you are saying is that if people behaved the same way here on earth as you believe they will behave in your after world, that it is somehow different. Its not. Its the same thing. The morals would be the same whether they have an objective source or not. Not sure what you are not getting about that.

[Tassman]

You mean like our basic instinct for selfishness, greed and dominance? Like the higher primates Tass? They survive and practice community living even when the alpha males take the food and females from the beta males.

The basic instincts are for communal living not

Hey don't blame us - that is that way the process of evolution created us to think and act...

Correct! The evolution of a larger brain than that of our fellow primates enabled humans to adapt and grow beyond the primitive behaviour we initially shared with our fellow apes leading ultimately to the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, which have transformed our species and enabled us to discard our superstitions.

[seer]

The basic instincts are for communal living not

See there you go again - moved on from what to what? There is no higher ethical or moral goal, there is only what works for survival. And I will remind you Tass that a good portion of the human population is still under totalitarian rule, so it is not merely a caveman thing. And totalitarianism with humans, as with apes, still works. And has proven to be beneficial for social cohesion.

Correct! The evolution of a larger brain than that of our fellow primates enabled humans to adapt and grow beyond the primitive behaviour we initially shared with our fellow apes leading ultimately to the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, which have transformed our species and enabled us to discard our superstitions.

Except most of mankind is still "superstitions" and if the Muslims have their way all of mankind with either accept their religion or die. Yes, evolution in action. One world religion - great for universal social cohesion!

[seer]

Seer, the point keeps going right over your head. If there is a set of morals for humans to live by which would be the basis of a pleasing and happy life for all, then whether they are grounded in an external source or not wouldn't matter in the least. If you and all of your resurrected compadres in heaven adhere to the moral system there, then life there would be no different than life on earth if people here did the same. The morals themselves don't need an objective source in order to work, they just need to be adhered to. Justice is an altogether different matter than morality.

Again who says that the goal is a pleasing and happy life for all? How about a pleasing and happy life for the majority at the expense of a minority or a pleasing and happy life for the powerful minority at the expense of the majority? Which seems pretty must like the history of man. The goal here Jim is what is subjective. And BTW - I do not divorce morality from justice, to me that would make any moral system incoherent. Like yours...

You are not responding to what I actually said. Survival of the species itself is not what morality is all about. Thats only part of it. If life is chaotic and miserable, then what good is survival?

Totalitarian rule is the opposite of chaotic, and the FACT is people survive just fine, just like higher primates, under totalitarian rule.

[JimL]

Again who says that the goal is a pleasing and happy life for all? How about a pleasing and happy life for the majority at the expense of a minority or a pleasing and happy life for the powerful minority at the expense of the majority? Which seems pretty must like the history of man. The goal here Jim is what is subjective. And BTW - I do not divorce morality from justice, to me that would make any moral system incoherent. Like yours...

What do you mean "who says"? Everyone says. If you disagree then you are saying the opposite to be true, which is that an individuals goal in life is to be miserable. That is how morals work, as a system which responsive to this desire for all the people in general, to society, not just the majority or those in power. This would be the same in your afterworld moral system as it is in the real world, which is what you continue to ignore or to actually respond to. So, it does not matter whether you do not divorce justice from the moral system itself, they are divorced whether you like it or not.

Totalitarian rule is the opposite of chaotic, and the FACT is people survive just fine, just like higher primates, under totalitarian rule.

As I continue to explain to you, survival is not the only thing that morals answer to. Is survival all that is important with regards to the moral system live under in your afterworld? Of course not, its all about eternal joy!

[seer]

What do you mean "who says"? Everyone says. If you disagree then you are saying the opposite to be true, which is that an individuals goal in life is to be miserable. That is how morals work, as a system which responsive to this desire for all the people in general, to society, not just the majority or those in power. This would be the same in your afterworld moral system as it is in the real world, which is what you continue to ignore or to actually respond to. So, it does not matter whether you do not divorce justice from the moral system itself, they are divorced whether you like it or not.

Jim you are not making sense. Human history is one of the few and the powerful dominating the majority or the majority exploiting the minority. You can prattle all you want about your utopia but it will never happen. Our nature tends towards conflict. And your opinion that the greater good should be served, is just that opinion and one NOT shared by all men, nor has it been since the beginning of time - and your opinion is no more valid or correct than theirs. And yes, in your godless universe your ethical system is justice is divorced from morality - which is why your system is, and will remain, incoherent.

As I continue to explain to you, survival is not the only thing that morals answer to. Is survival all that is important with regards to the moral system live under in your afterworld? Of course not, its all about eternal joy!

Eternal joy? Did you really just say that?

[JimL]

Jim you are not making sense. Human history is one of the few and the powerful dominating the majority or the majority exploiting the minority. You can prattle all you want about your utopia but it will never happen. Our nature tends towards conflict. And your opinion that the greater good should be served, is just that opinion and one NOT shared by all men, nor has it been since the beginning of time - and your opinion is no more valid or correct than theirs. And yes, in your godless universe your ethical system is justice is divorced from morality - which is why your system is, and will remain, incoherent.

No, you are just not comprehending the main points, else you are just purposely ignoring them in defense of your subjective agenda. This is not about human history or whether or not a utopia on earth would ever happen. All this is about is whether or not an adhered to moral system, laws of behavior, need be rooted in an objective source in order to bring about that Utopia. The unrefutable fact is that it wouldn't need be objectively sourced. You actually believe that as well, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. The reason I say you believe it is because you believe that such a system would be the basis of your Utopian afterworld, your heaven or paradise. So, If you believe that to be the case, then all you do is shift that same moral system, those same laws of behavior, from your heaven, to the earth, and it will have the same result. The laws then themselves needn't have an objective source, because they work in their own right whether objectively sourced or not. Your argument has consistently been, not that morals have to be objective, but that they have to be objectively sourced in an all knowing mind, a mind distinct from the natual world. You give no reason for that, your only argument is the ultimate justice argument, which has nothing to do with whether or not such a system of morals if adhered to would work.

Eternal joy? Did you really just say that?

I did say it, not because I believe it, but because it is what you, and afaict, all christians believe. Are you denying that? If not then why are you implying it to be silly?

[Tassman]

See there you go again - moved on from what to what? There is no higher ethical or moral goal, there is only what works for survival.

you

And I will remind you Tass that a good portion of the human population is still under totalitarian rule, so it is not merely a caveman thing. And totalitarianism with humans, as with apes, still works. And has proven to be beneficial for social cohesion.

The most pervasive form of totalitarian rule is religion, which continues to infest the world. But the most developed countries of the world have moved on from religion and embraced secularism to the overall benefit of all.

Except most of mankind is still "superstitions" and if the Muslims have their way all of mankind with either accept their religion or die. Yes, evolution in action. One world religion - great for universal social cohesion!

[seer]

you

Yes, but most of these people came from a totalitarian country. And they were doing fine before the war, and had an acceptable quality of life. They are seeking survival at this point. BTW Tass, how many of these refugees is your country going to take? And I don't sneer at the survival instinct, just the fact that if atheism is true then we have no more inherent worth that any other species that has gone instinct. In the big picture it is no big deal if all of humanity doesn't survive.

The most pervasive form of totalitarian rule is religion, which continues to infest the world. But the most developed countries of the world have moved on from religion and embraced secularism to the overall benefit of all.

Nonsense, we have no idea if secularism could or will provide the social cohesion necessary for survival. It is still to early, besides with the birth rates of Muslims in Europe and this latest influx of refugees no doubt, if this continues, Western Europe will be Islamic within a hundred years. Evolution in action Tass...



That is correct Tass, most of mankind past and present have been, or are, religious. Which makes atheism abnormal. Probably a genetic or mental defect. And of course this is evolution in action - it is the evolutionary process that created us to think and act as we do. How many times have you told me that it is all predetermined? No free will.

[seer]

No, you are just not comprehending the main points, else you are just purposely ignoring them in defense of your subjective agenda. This is not about human history or whether or not a utopia on earth would ever happen. All this is about is whether or not an adhered to moral system, laws of behavior, need be rooted in an objective source in order to bring about that Utopia. The unrefutable fact is that it wouldn't need be objectively sourced. You actually believe that as well, you just can't bring yourself to admit it. The reason I say you believe it is because you believe that such a system would be the basis of your Utopian afterworld, your heaven or paradise. So, If you believe that to be the case, then all you do is shift that same moral system, those same laws of behavior, from your heaven, to the earth, and it will have the same result. The laws then themselves needn't have an objective source, because they work in their own right whether objectively sourced or not. Your argument has consistently been, not that morals have to be objective, but that they have to be objectively sourced in an all knowing mind, a mind distinct from the natual world. You give no reason for that, your only argument is the ultimate justice argument, which has nothing to do with whether or not such a system of morals if adhered to would work.

But Jim, I have said a long time ago that if all men followed the golden rule from their hearts we would have peace on earth. My point, is that there is no good reason to follow the golden rule if breaking it gains one power and wealth. After all if they have the power there are no consequences in this life or after death. Evil wins...

[JimL]

But Jim, I have said a long time ago that if all men followed the golden rule from their hearts we would have peace on earth. My point, is that there is no good reason to follow the golden rule if breaking it gains one power and wealth. After all if they have the power there are no consequences in this life or after death. Evil wins...

Yes, that is true, but again that is not the point as to whether or not a set of morals if adhered to need be objectively sourced. Whether or not an individual abides them, and whether or not an individual gets away with transgressing them, are different matters. So, there you go. You admit yourself that if all men followed the golden rule the world would be a better place for all humanity in general, and that rule, 'Do unto others" has no need of a supernatural source.

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, that is true, but again that is not the point as to whether or not a set of morals if adhered to need be objectively sourced. Whether or not an individual abides them, and whether or not an individual gets away with transgressing them, are different matters. So, there you go. You admit yourself that if all men followed the golden rule the world would be a better place for all humanity in general, and that rule, 'Do unto others" has no need of a supernatural source.

What about sadomasochists? They want others to treat them in a violent or humiliating manner. And if they follow the Golden rule, that throws off your "best for the community" subjective standard. You need something outside of that rule to define what is "good" and what is "bad".

[seer]

Yes, that is true, but again that is not the point as to whether or not a set of morals if adhered to need be objectively sourced. Whether or not an individual abides them, and whether or not an individual gets away with transgressing them, are different matters. So, there you go. You admit yourself that if all men followed the golden rule the world would be a better place for all humanity in general, and that rule, 'Do unto others" has no need of a supernatural source.

Jim you are making a point I have agreed with in the past, more than once. But that has never been the problem or the question.

[Tassman]

Yes, but most of these people came from a totalitarian country. And they were doing fine before the war, and had an acceptable quality of life. They are seeking survival at this point. BTW Tass, how many of these refugees is your country going to take? And I don't sneer at the survival instinct, just the fact that if atheism is true then we have no more inherent worth that any other species that has gone instinct. In the big picture it is no big deal if all of humanity doesn't survive.

really imagine that escapist fantasies will make any difference to these facts? This is just wishful thinking writ large.

Nonsense, we have no idea if secularism could or will provide the social cohesion necessary for survival. It is still to early, besides with the birth rates of Muslims in Europe and this latest influx of refugees no doubt, if this continues, Western Europe will be Islamic within a hundred years. Evolution in action Tass...

This is not

That is correct Tass, most of mankind past and present have been, or are, religious. Which makes atheism abnormal.

...no more abnormal that Agriculturalist societies were "abnormal" compared to Hunter/Gatherer societies.

Probably a genetic or mental defect. And of course this is evolution in action -

Once again, this is not evolution in action. Evolutionary natural selection is glacially slow; it occurs over tens of thousands of years, not decades or centuries.

it is the evolutionary process that created us to think and act as we do. How many times have you told me that it is all predetermined? No free will.

[Tassman]

What about sadomasochists? They want others to treat them in a violent or humiliating manner. And if they follow the Golden rule, that throws off your "best for the community" subjective standard. You need something outside of that rule to define what is "good" and what is "bad".