Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevevw" data-source="post: 75131806" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>But that is not the point I am saying. The question is why and not how. Why are happiness and misery the measures of morality? Even if we can recognize this and measure it. Why do these particular qualities equate to right and wrong morally? </p><p></p><p>I would say as you eluded to that most atheists would say it is to endure IE survive. But who said human survival is a moral issue. This is more about a sociobiological issue in evolution that species want to survive to pass their DNA on rather than a moral issue. But that is committing the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is trying to invalidate something by explaining how it came about in that because we can explain how evolution accounts for moral values it also explains why (why something is morally right or wrong). You can’t substantiate a view of naturalistic morality by explaining how it came about. Nor can you invalidate that objective moral values are real metaphysically. </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #00b3b3"><em>The establishment of a relationship between evolution and morality cannot be done at the cost of compromising moral specificity, that is, by means of indistinctness between justifying and explaining or by means of indistinctness between moral and non-moral duty. In this sense, it seems to us that it is difficult for the project of evolutionary ethics to rid itself of the problem of the naturalist fallacy in its form of derivational fallacy or even genetic or definition fallacy.</em></span></p><p><span style="color: #00b3b3"><em><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251820637_The_problem_of_the_naturalist_fallacy_for_evolution_ary_ethics/fulltext/029468c20cf2be8553c4d53a/The-problem-of-the-naturalist-fallacy-for-evolution-ary-ethics.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251820637_The_problem_of_the_naturalist_fallacy_for_evolution_ary_ethics/fulltext/029468c20cf2be8553c4d53a/The-problem-of-the-naturalist-fallacy-for-evolution-ary-ethics.pdf</a></em></span></p><p><span style="color: #00b3b3"></span></p><p> Once again who said that human endurance is a moral obligation. Why humans and not rats. That is a form of speciesism. But even so, I agree that we know intuitively that there are certain moral values but that doesn't mean they were created and have a naturalistic origin. It doesn't work that way for non-theistic. Morality has to be metaphysically based outside humans, but also be rational, unchangeable, and personal. This can only point to a personal transcendent source. </p><p></p><p> The Christian moral on this would be to not destroy God's creation and not to make money and this world your God. Just because some who claim to be Christian don't follow these values doesn't mean those Christian values are not objective. That is why as mentioned earlier God is the perfect ultimate moral lawgiver. Through Jesus, we see clear teachings for example related to this issue Jesus said. </p><p></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Matthew 6:24 </span></p><p><span style="color: #00b3b3"><em>No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.</em></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 75131806, member: 342064"] But that is not the point I am saying. The question is why and not how. Why are happiness and misery the measures of morality? Even if we can recognize this and measure it. Why do these particular qualities equate to right and wrong morally? I would say as you eluded to that most atheists would say it is to endure IE survive. But who said human survival is a moral issue. This is more about a sociobiological issue in evolution that species want to survive to pass their DNA on rather than a moral issue. But that is committing the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is trying to invalidate something by explaining how it came about in that because we can explain how evolution accounts for moral values it also explains why (why something is morally right or wrong). You can’t substantiate a view of naturalistic morality by explaining how it came about. Nor can you invalidate that objective moral values are real metaphysically. [COLOR=#00b3b3][I]The establishment of a relationship between evolution and morality cannot be done at the cost of compromising moral specificity, that is, by means of indistinctness between justifying and explaining or by means of indistinctness between moral and non-moral duty. In this sense, it seems to us that it is difficult for the project of evolutionary ethics to rid itself of the problem of the naturalist fallacy in its form of derivational fallacy or even genetic or definition fallacy.[/I] [I][URL]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251820637_The_problem_of_the_naturalist_fallacy_for_evolution_ary_ethics/fulltext/029468c20cf2be8553c4d53a/The-problem-of-the-naturalist-fallacy-for-evolution-ary-ethics.pdf[/URL][/I] [/COLOR] Once again who said that human endurance is a moral obligation. Why humans and not rats. That is a form of speciesism. But even so, I agree that we know intuitively that there are certain moral values but that doesn't mean they were created and have a naturalistic origin. It doesn't work that way for non-theistic. Morality has to be metaphysically based outside humans, but also be rational, unchangeable, and personal. This can only point to a personal transcendent source. The Christian moral on this would be to not destroy God's creation and not to make money and this world your God. Just because some who claim to be Christian don't follow these values doesn't mean those Christian values are not objective. That is why as mentioned earlier God is the perfect ultimate moral lawgiver. Through Jesus, we see clear teachings for example related to this issue Jesus said. [COLOR=#00b3b3][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000]Matthew 6:24 [/COLOR] [COLOR=#00b3b3][I]No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.[/I][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
Top
Bottom