Science of Morality

[seer]

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

Right, then, all your arguing about morality is as meaningless as we are.

This is not

Of course this is evolution in action - there is nothing else. If Islam takes Europe it is because they reproduced more, were more aggressive and adapted better. Which is a real possibility.

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


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.

Perhaps being non-religions is not your fault, perhaps you were "born that way." But we should treat it like any other mental defect and try to find out what is missing. Maybe we could develop a medication?


Oh stop. The only reason why the Muslims are the way they are is because that is the way evolutionary process created them to think and act. So it is with all our violent tendencies. It is all predetermined according to you Tass. There is no free choice or free thought in your universe.

[JimL]

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.

Good, well i am glad you agree then that for moral truths to exist they have no need of an objective source.

[seer]

Good, well i am glad you agree then that for moral truths to exist they have no need of an objective source.

Yes Jim, moral opinions exist.

[JimL]

Yes Jim, moral opinions exist.

Well make up your mind seer. You just agreed with me in post #208 that for moral truths to exist they need no ontological ground or distinct source. Do you agree or not? If you disagree, if you think that morals need an objective source for them to be true, then please expain why you think they need a source to be true? Remember, we are not talking about justice as justice is a wholly different matter as to whether or not moral truths themselves exist. Justice is enforcement of morals, not the morals themselves.

[Tassman]

Right, then, all your arguing about morality is as meaningless as we are.

Of course this is evolution in action - there is nothing else. If Islam takes Europe it is because they reproduced more, were more aggressive and adapted better.

Social change is not

Which is a real possibility.

Perhaps being non-religions is not your fault, perhaps you were "born that way." But we should treat it like any other mental defect and try to find out what is missing. Maybe we could develop a medication?

Beliefs are socially acculturated, not

Oh stop. The only reason why the Muslims are the way they are is because that is the way evolutionary process created them to think and act.

Nonsense! Muslims are the way they are for the same reason that Christians or Buddhists are the way they are, namely cultural indoctrination from a young age and subsequent cultural reinforcement.

So it is with all our violent tendencies.

Our primary tendency is towards communal living, which is the reason why we proscribe violence and penalize it where necessary, i.e. in order to preserve our social harmony.

It is all predetermined according to you Tass. There is no free choice or free thought in your universe.

[seer]

Well make up your mind seer. You just agreed with me in post #208 that for moral truths to exist they need no ontological ground or distinct source. Do you agree or not? If you disagree, if you think that morals need an objective source for them to be true, then please expain why you think they need a source to be true? Remember, we are not talking about justice as justice is a wholly different matter as to whether or not moral truths themselves exist. Justice is enforcement of morals, not the morals themselves.

No Jim that is not what I agreed with. I agreed that if you had a subjective moral goal like the greater good for the greatest number that their are objectively better ways to reach that goal. But the goals are subjective. And I don't think you need God to have these subjective moral goals. And just a side note, any moral system void of justice is not moral in any sense of the word. Morality is about how we as a society order our interpersonal relationships and if you take justice out of the picture you have an incoherent system. Why call a behavior "wrong" if there are no consequences for engaging in the behavior?

[JimL]

No Jim that is not what I agreed with. I agreed that if you had a subjective moral goal like the greater good for the greatest number that their are objectively better ways to reach that goal. But the goals are subjective. And I don't think you need God to have these subjective moral goals. And just a side note, any moral system void of justice is not moral in any sense of the word. Morality is about how we as a society order our interpersonal relationships and if you take justice out of the picture you have an incoherent system. Why call a behavior "wrong" if there are no consequences for engaging in the behavior?

And if there are better subjective ways to meet that goal then that means that there is a best way to meet that goal and the fact that such ways exist makes them objective. Nobody is taking justice out of the equation, we dole out justice, but justice itself has nothing to do with the existence of the of the moral system itself. You call the behavior wrong because it violates the moral law.

[seer]

And if there are better subjective ways to meet that goal then that means that there is a best way to meet that goal and the fact that such ways exist makes them objective. Nobody is taking justice out of the equation, we dole out justice, but justice itself has nothing to do with the existence of the of the moral system itself. You call the behavior wrong because it violates the moral law.

Yes Jim, the means to meet the goal can be objective, but the goal itself is subjective. Look, here is a subjective moral goal: I should not let my neighbor starve. Well there is an objective way to meet that goal, feed him. And I disagree, justice is integral to any moral system, if it isn't the system is incoherent. Which is of course the case with all atheistic systems - they are ultimately incoherent.

[seer]

Tass, do we have the freedom of will or thought to do other than we do? Do the Muslims have freedom to not think and act as they do? Have the not forces of nature predetermined them to do what they do?

[Bill the Cat]

The golden rule is individualistic, not communal. And by admitting that social cohesion is the determiner of what rules the GR must follow, you have placed social cohesion above the GR. And that brings into play things like eliminating elders that serve no function in society or that consume resources without contributing. It's nothing more than your preference of what "altruism" includes.

[JimL]

Yes Jim, the means to meet the goal can be objective, but the goal itself is subjective. Look, here is a subjective moral goal: I should not let my neighbor starve. Well there is an objective way to meet that goal, feed him. And I disagree, justice is integral to any moral system, if it isn't the system is incoherent. Which is of course the case with all atheistic systems - they are ultimately incoherent.

Okay, but now you are moving the goal post. Your original argument was that morals need be objectively sourced, i.e. that without an ontological ground, aka a deity, then morals must needs be subjective. Now you have moved the goal post in order to argue that the goal itself must needs be subjective without an ontological ground. But that doesn't change or help your argument seer. The goal, a best world within which to live, and the morals that support it, are naturally intertwined, so the same argument applies. The moral system and the world that is founded upon it are one and the same thing, so if you agree that morals are objective in and of themselves, then so too is the goal, or the world that they support.

And again, no one is implying that justice is not an integrel part of a moral system, but justice has nothing to do with whether or not the morals that are adjudicated exist. I'll put it in the form of a question for you: 'Do you believe that murder is wrong in itself, or do you believe that murder is only wrong if you get caught?'

[seer]

Okay, but now you are moving the goal post. Your original argument was that morals need be objectively sourced, i.e. that without an ontological ground, aka a deity, then morals must needs be subjective. Now you have moved the goal post in order to argue that the goal itself must needs be subjective without an ontological ground. But that doesn't change or help your argument seer. The goal, a best world within which to live, and the morals that support it, are naturally intertwined, so the same argument applies. The moral system and the world that is founded upon it are one and the same thing, so if you agree that morals are objective in and of themselves, then so too is the goal, or the world that they support.

Jim, I did not move anything. I have been saying the same thing right along. And no, the goal is subjective, so the means to reach said goal is dependent on the goal. The means to prevent my neighbor from starving is different from the means I would use to take food from my neighbor to feed my family. So the means are always dependent on the subjective goal.

And again, no one is implying that justice is not an integrel part of a moral system, but justice has nothing to do with whether or not the morals that are adjudicated exist.

Sounds like a contradiction. But if justice is an integral part of a moral system then our man made systems are severely lacking - actually incoherent.

I'll put it in the form of a question for you: 'Do you believe that murder is wrong in itself, or do you believe that murder is only wrong if you get caught?'

No, I don't not think that murder could be wrong in itself in a godless universe - how could it be? Of course I think it is wrong because it violates the law of God.

[Tassman]

Tass, do we have the freedom of will or thought to do other than we do?

as though

Do the Muslims have freedom to not think and act as they do? Have the not forces of nature predetermined them to do what they do?

No more or less than, for example the Fourth Crusade when it sacked the Christian city of Constantinople and raped the women, looted the treasure and placed a naked prostitute upon the patriarch's throne as the supreme insult to fellow Christians.

[Tassman]

The golden rule is individualistic, not communal. And by admitting that social cohesion is the determiner of what rules the GR must follow, you have placed social cohesion above the GR.

And that brings into play things like eliminating elders that serve no function in society or that consume resources without contributing. It's nothing more than your preference of what "altruism" includes.

[JimL]

Jim, I did not move anything. I have been saying the same thing right along. And no, the goal is subjective, so the means to reach said goal is dependent on the goal. The means to prevent my neighbor from starving is different from the means I would use to take food from my neighbor to feed my family. So the means are always dependent on the subjective goal.

So, you think that a "best world," based on a best moral system, can be achieved, but only if the moral system it is founded upon is ontologically grounded in a distinct deity? By what reasoning do you arrive at that conclusion seer? Your argument is that if a god did not exist, then a best moral system that you suppose is grounded in god could not exist or be followed either. Please explain how you get there. What difference would the non existence of a deity make in your after world paradise if the moral system were adhered to by its inhabitants? It would still be paradise, correct? The only argument you have is the "ultimate justice" argument, and justice itself has nothing to do with whether that moral system itself exists.

Sounds like a contradiction. But if justice is an integral part of a moral system then our man made systems are severely lacking - actually incoherent.

No, no contradiction. Justice is distinct from the laws it adjudicates. Justice is only necessary should the moral system be violated, so it is distinct from the existence moral system itself.

No, I don't not think that murder could be wrong in itself in a godless universe - how could it be? Of course I think it is wrong because it violates the law of God.

And why do you suppose that it violates Gods law? Did god just make it up, did he just arbitrarily decide that murder is wrong? Could it be otherwise?