05 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipAre you assuming everyone thinks there is one universal morality?
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?
How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by divegeesterI did not write the word universal in order to leave it open.
Are you assuming everyone thinks there is one universal morality?
I believe a universal objective moral standard does exist.
Do you think the issue is made simpler if I jettison a UOMS (Universal Objective Moral Standard) ?
Originally posted by sonshipNo, I just think you may get more interesting and varied responses. Furthermore, your response here indicates that your OP is loaded; I.e. If there is a universal moral standard, then by definition there cannot be one which developed with the evolutionary process. So you have already answered your own question.
Do you think the issue is made simpler if I jettison a UOMS (Universal Objective Moral Standard) ?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipAre you suggesting that naturalism as a methodology cannot satisfactorily explain morality? If so, what about it is unsatisfactory? Perhaps it is being stretched beyond its limits.
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?
How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by JS357You're too tough JS357. I can't deal with you today!
Are you suggesting that naturalism as a methodology cannot satisfactorily explain morality? If so, what about it is unsatisfactory? Perhaps it is being stretched beyond its limits.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by JS357I am looking for some people's thoughts HOW this process of Evolution (a Biological process) is responsible for the abstractions of Morality, Right, Human Dignity, all that good transcendent stuff.
Are you suggesting that naturalism as a methodology cannot satisfactorily explain morality? If so, what about it is unsatisfactory? Perhaps it is being stretched beyond its limits.
i am told the process even has no purpose. I am told that there is no "good" purpose in Blind Watchmaker style evolution. What does Evolution then give us? Is it just a purely subjective preference to survive ?
Why should human beings survive over anything else ?
How did Evolution bestow this "worth" and "value" to mankind that this species is so that the "good" of its survival should take place ?
Come on now. I have enough out here now to get myself into plenty of trouble. Give us some explanation.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipI mean, naturalistic (non-supernatural) psychology takes as subject matter, ideas, as real, studiable things. How did the idea of moral absolutes arise? This can be studied at a level higher than the physics of matter, and can be studied without denying that certain moral ideas that are believed to be absolutes, may be true about the universe. For example, some people believe in karma, cosmic justice. We can make hypotheses about what we see happening in the natural world and see if it exhibits karma or not, or if there are reasons explaining when and how it happens and when it doesn't. What naturalism cannot do is find evidence for or against the existence of a non-naturalistic fudge factor that squares everyone's karma account. Naturalism "doesn't go there."
You're too tough JS357. I can't deal with you today!
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipBut you will not accept anyone else's definition of 'morality" so it is impossible to talk about it within a common frame of reference. Why don't you start with your defnition of morality?
I am looking for some people's thoughts HOW this process of Evolution (a Biological process) is responsible for the abstractions of Morality, Right, Human Dignity, all that good transcendent stuff.
i am told the process even has no purpose. I am told that there is no "good" purpose in Blind Watchmaker style evolution. What does Evolution then give us? ...[text shortened]... now. I have enough out here now to get myself into plenty of trouble. Give us some explanation.
Originally posted by sonshipPlease see the other thread for a description of the notional error that you keep making. Providing etiological explanation of the human moral faculty should not be confused with providing a meta-ethical account.
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?
How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by LemonJello
Please see the other thread for a description of the notional error that you keep making. Providing etiological explanation of the human moral faculty should not be confused with providing a meta-ethical account.
. Providing etiological explanation of the human moral faculty should not be confused with providing a meta-ethical account.
Just provide the etiological explanation of the human moral faculty by means of evolution. You said that it was the obvious alternative to the nature of God. If I am not quoting exactly, I am close enough.
So your origin of the moral faculty by means of Evolution you can talk about here.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipMorality is not a physical, tangible thing; it's an idea. As humans evolved, their ability to reason also evolved. Humans, over countless generations, started to realize some practices were best for both the individual and the whole, and gradually, though trial and error, developed moral concepts.
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?
How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by vivifySo therefore no action can be deemed to be intrinsically wrong?
Morality is not a physical, tangible thing; it's an idea. As humans evolved, their ability to reason also evolved. Humans, over countless generations, started to realize some practices were best for both the individual and the whole, and gradually, though trial and error, developed moral concepts.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by JS357An intrinsically immoral act is by its very nature, immoral. If an action is not intrinsically wrong it means that some people may label it as wrong according to their subjective opinion and another group of people may feel the action is not wrong.
What does "intrinsically wrong" mean that differentiates them from wrongs that are not intrinsically wrong? Or are all wrongs intrinsically wrong?