Can morality exist without God cont..

[Ed1wolf]

You keep saying that like a mantra.

He told you that there are evolutionary reasons for human beings to value other human beings more than cockroaches. You might want to actually listen to what other people are telling you instead of telling them what they think.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But every species has reasons to value other members of their own species, so humans are not special in that respect. Those reasons are just the empathetic feelings that members of the same species have for each other and are incorporated into them by the random impersonal processes of evolution. That still does not mean that those feelings are objectively rational since ALL organisms act as if their own species has real objective value, even though none of them do if there is no God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But every species has reasons to value other members of their own species, so humans are not special in that respect.

So what? That's irrelevant. Maybe those species have objective reasons to value other members of their own species. Bees, for instance.

Those reasons are just the empathetic feelings that members of the same species have for each other

It isn't mere empathy that justifies bees in valuing the other members of the hive. The hive wouldn't survive without their cooperation. And it's not clear that bees can even feel empathy.

and are incorporated into them by the random impersonal processes of evolution.

Irrelevant. That doesn't make those feelings incorrect or non-useful from an objective standpoint.

That still does not mean that those feelings are objectively rational since ALL organisms act as if their own species has real objective value

I'm not certain that ALL species act that way, but if anything that would be evidence in favor of objective value, not against.

even though none of them do if there is no God.

Keep chanting that mantra.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Since evolution does not favor one species over another one, in what way other than your feelings are humans more valuable than cockroaches?

eud: Didn't you read post #486?

Human beings are a social species. We depend on ourselves and other human beings to create the values that we need to survive and thrive. We form families, communities, and even nations for mutual benefit. Unless cockroaches become a food source, they are just a pest to human beings. We benefit greatly from the existence of other thriving human beings, but not so much from cockroaches. That is an objective benefit.

But why do you think humans should survive and cockroaches can die?

ed: No, all of those values are based on the subjective valuing of humans over other species.

eud: That "subjective valuing" happens for good reasons pertaining to objective human well-being. It isn't arbitrary whim.

No, the arbitrary whim is not the fact that humans can have well being or that they strive for it, the arbitrary whim is that you are placing human well being over the well being of cockroaches or cattle. We take the lives of cattle everyday just so we can survive. Why do cattle have to die for our well being?

ed: Nothing in evolution favors humans over other species or places any special value on humans.

eud: Forget about evolution for the moment. I'm talking about human beings, not where they come from. Human beings have good reasons to favor other human beings, even if "evolution" does not.

But if two beings have the same origin, ie a common ancestor according to evolution, why does one get favored over another? There is no objective reason to favor one species over another.

ed: There is no objectively rational basis for desiring human well being.

eud: There is if you are a human being. There isn't if you are a cockroach.

Not an objectively rational basis rather it is a subjectively rational basis, it is just because you have empathetic feelings toward fellow human beings and not cockroaches. The only reason you favor humans over cockroaches just because you are a human, not any objective reason.

ed: You are not going deep enough.

eud: I'm going deeper than you are.

Not really, you are just giving objective facts about humans and human behavior. The question I am asking is why do humans favor humans over other species. It is ultimately only feelings, nothing objective if there is no God.

ed: Of course biology contains objective facts, but that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about valuing humans over other species.

eud: Noting that there are objective facts of biology that pertain to this issue is on topic.

Not really see above. Just because humans behave a certain way and have a certain biology, does not mean that they are more valuable than species that behave different ways and have a different biology.

ed: It IS a choice whether you choose to support the success of a nonhuman species, and such a choice would not be objectively wrong since there is no objective basis to value humans over non-human species.

eud: There is such an objective basis, as I have explained.

No, see above about how objective facts about human biology does not make them more valuable than other species and therefore are encouraged to survive while others are slaughtered for their food.

ed: it is a purely subjective choice or preference based on your sentimental feelings or empathy for fellow humans.

eud: That mantra again? Say it another thousand times and you just might forget everything that I have written and actually believe that it is correct.

My views are not based on sentimental feelings or empathy, but on objective facts of human nature.

All you have done is provided an account of those facts, but you have not provided any real reason why humans should be favored over other species just because their nature is different.

ed: It is not based on any inherent evolution generated superiority of humans.

eud: I never said anything about superiority. My views have nothing to do with that.

Your view seems to plainly imply that humans are superior to other animals since you favor their well being over other animals well being.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But why do you think humans should survive and cockroaches can die?

Your question is malformed.

The word "should" pertains to actions -- to values. My good as a human being is wrapped up with human survival and flourishing. It isn't wrapped up with the survival of cockroaches, at least if they are invading people's homes and causing a nuisance. It's not that I think that humans "should" survive, but that it is in my best interests that they do.

No, the arbitrary whim is not the fact that humans can have well being or that they strive for it, the arbitrary whim is that you are placing human well being over the well being of cockroaches or cattle.

That isn't arbitrary since I am a human being. As I have said before, if I were a cockroach I wouldn't have the same perspective. Human beings might as well die so I could feed off of their corpses.

We take the lives of cattle everyday just so we can survive.

You've answered your own question.

Why do cattle have to die for our well being?

They go well with a good Bordeaux. They are even bred to be food animals.

While we do not specifically have to eat beef, it is in our best interests as human beings to see that we have food sources.

But if two beings have the same origin, ie a common ancestor according to evolution, why does one get favored over another? There is no objective reason to favor one species over another.

We are the ones doing the favoring. This isn't some Commandment from on high from some non-human perspective telling the world who are the favored ones. Evolution is pretty much irrelevant here.

Not an objectively rational basis rather it is a subjectively rational basis, it is just because you have empathetic feelings toward fellow human beings and not cockroaches.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Enough with the mantra. This isn't about empathy. This is about what human beings are, how they function, and what is in their best interests.

Not really see above. Just because humans behave a certain way and have a certain biology, does not mean that they are more valuable than species that behave different ways and have a different biology.

We as human beings are more valuable to ourselves.

Your view seems to plainly imply that humans are superior to other animals since you favor their well being over other animals well being.

No, you are seeing things from a Christian perspective. This has nothing to do with some Garden of Eden style superiority. It has to do with human values.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Peter1000]

We can identify art pieces as coming from a known artist by comparing it to other works and known styles of that artist.

What other universes do we have to compare this one to, and how do we tie those stylistic characteristics back to a god that you can't even prove exists?



Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. You made the claim that those things have an inherent purpose, it's on you to prove it.

My non-acceptance of your claim because you haven't been able to demonstrate your case doesn't put a burden of proof on me.



I agree all of those things are useful things to have, but that's not what we're debating here. You are making the additional claim they were specifically created with a purpose by a conscious being (i.e. your god). You need to back your case, lets see your proof.



But that's not what was claimed, you said it was a perfect creation. Most christians I have talked with also make the claim it was a perfect creation.

If it was actually perfect, then it must have been specifically designed to fall exactly the way it did.



To expand on the above point, if it was designed specifically to fall as it did, then Adam and Eve, Satan and all that are key cogs in the plan. After all, from what I've been told everything happens according to god's plan, does it not?

If you believe the serpent in the garden was Satan, then yes, god did put him there. It must have also been part of the plan that Adam and Eve would be tempted by Satan and sin. The other alternative is that god's plan went off the rails, and therefore not everything happens to god's plan.

In short, if everything happens according to god's plan, then everything that happens is directly god's responsibility. It's his plan that governs those things.

You say: how do we tie those stylistic characteristics back to a god that you can't even prove exists?

We can prove that He exists.

Here is how it goes:

1) What is the probability that the universe just by chance came about by blind chance? I don't know what science has put that probability at, but I suspect an honest scientist would put it very, very close to zero.
2) What is the probability that the earth came into existence with all (thousands) of the attributes necessary to produce life, just by blind chance?
Again, I don't know what the probability is, but I would think an honest scientist would place that probability even closer to zero than the big bang.
3) What is the probability that lifeless elements came together and formed life, just by random chance? In this case the probability would be zero. There is no experiment, no natural occurance that has demonstrated life from non-life.

We won't even talk about the probabilities associated with evolution creating all animals from a 1 celled animal.

So if you add up all the probabilities, they would be so close to zero, that most honest scientists would admit it is zero.

Zero probability that life started on earth by blind, random chance.

Since there is a zero chance that life started by chance, what other options does one have?

The most reasonable other option would be a superior being that knows what it takes to bring forth life. Since life exists and there is a zero chance that it happened just by chance, a superior being with all knowledge, capable of establishing life is a much more feasible conclusion.

Of course we have to believe this with a powerful amount of faith, because like you say, we cannot be 100% sure that there is a superior being. But the amount of faith that is needed to believe in a superior being, is only 1/10 the amount of faith that is needed to believe that everything got started by blind chance.

Remember, blind, random chance is all that an atheist can count on. Blind, random chance. A very flimsy theory.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But why do you think humans should survive and cockroaches can die?

eud: Your question is malformed.

The word "should" pertains to actions -- to values. My good as a human being is wrapped up with human survival and flourishing. It isn't wrapped up with the survival of cockroaches, at least if they are invading people's homes and causing a nuisance. It's not that I think that humans "should" survive, but that it is in my best interests that they do.

Exactly, because you are a human you have an emotional connection to other humans because you believe that you cannot survive without them, but ultimately there is no reason why humans should survive and cockroaches be slaughtered at will.

ed: No, the arbitrary whim is not the fact that humans can have well being or that they strive for it, the arbitrary whim is that you are placing human well being over the well being of cockroaches or cattle.

eud: That isn't arbitrary since I am a human being. As I have said before, if I were a cockroach I wouldn't have the same perspective. Human beings might as well die so I could feed off of their corpses.

Exactly, if the cockroach could clearly express his feelings he would want his fellow cockroaches to survive and not humans. But ultimately there is no reason to favor one over the other. And it is arbitrary because the existence of humans is an arbitrary accident of evolution.

ed: We take the lives of cattle everyday just so we can survive.

eud: You've answered your own question.

ed: Why do cattle have to die for our well being?

eud: They go well with a good Bordeaux. They are even bred to be food animals.

While we do not specifically have to eat beef, it is in our best interests as human beings to see that we have food sources.

Only if you favor your own species, there are humans such as some members of PETA and moral relativists such as Peter Singer that favor other species in certain cases over humans.

ed: But if two beings have the same origin, ie a common ancestor according to evolution, why does one get favored over another? There is no objective reason to favor one species over another.

eud: We are the ones doing the favoring. This isn't some Commandment from on high from some non-human perspective telling the world who are the favored ones. Evolution is pretty much irrelevant here.

Exactly, it is just a choice based on your feelings that helping humans will help you to survive because you are a human. Ultimately it doesn't matter who survives. And not all humans agree that humans should be favored, see above.

ed: Not an objectively rational basis rather it is a subjectively rational basis, it is just because you have empathetic feelings toward fellow human beings and not cockroaches.

eud: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Enough with the mantra. This isn't about empathy. This is about what human beings are, how they function, and what is in their best interests.

But being concerned about those things are only important to humans that emotionally connect and feel a need for other humans in order to survive. But not all humans agree, see above and ultimately how humans function and what is in their best interests is meaningless without God in an objective sense.

ed: Not really see above. Just because humans behave a certain way and have a certain biology, does not mean that they are more valuable than species that behave different ways and have a different biology.

eud: We as human beings are more valuable to ourselves.

Exactly, subjective value not objective. Our value does not exist outside ourselves if there is no God.

ed: Your view seems to plainly imply that humans are superior to other animals since you favor their well being over other animals well being.

eud: No, you are seeing things from a Christian perspective. This has nothing to do with some Garden of Eden style superiority. It has to do with human values.
eudaimonia,

Mark

No, if you favor the survival and well being of one species over all other species than that plainly means that you consider them more valuable and superior in some way to the other species.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But every species has reasons to value other members of their own species, so humans are not special in that respect.

eud: So what? That's irrelevant. Maybe those species have objective reasons to value other members of their own species. Bees, for instance.

Well on what objective basis do your feelings about humans override the bees feelings or cattle's feelings, so you can slaughter them at will?

ed: Those reasons are just the empathetic feelings that members of the same species have for each other

eud: It isn't mere empathy that justifies bees in valuing the other members of the hive. The hive wouldn't survive without their cooperation. And it's not clear that bees can even feel empathy.

True that bees don't have feelings, but they have instinctive drives. Why do our desires emotional drives for humans to out perform bees and other animals allow us to slaughter them for food?

ed: and are incorporated into them by the random impersonal processes of evolution.

eud: Irrelevant. That doesn't make those feelings incorrect or non-useful from an objective standpoint.

Yes, it does. From an ultimate objective evolutionary perspective those feelings are meaningless. Evolution doesn't care whether bees, cows, or humans feel like they are special and deserve to survive. Our desire to survive over all other species is just an objectively irrational desire for our own species survive.

ed: That still does not mean that those feelings are objectively rational since ALL organisms act as if their own species has real objective value

eud: I'm not certain that ALL species act that way, but if anything that would be evidence in favor of objective value, not against.

Why? All those feelings cancel each other out. How do you determine which species is correct that they are the ones that deserve to survive at the expense of others?

ed: even though none of them do if there is no God.

eud: Keep chanting that mantra.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I am still waiting for your objective evidence that homo sapiens deserves to survive at the expense of other species.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Exactly, because you are a human you have an emotional connection to other humans because you believe that you cannot survive without them

I don't "believe" that I can't survive and flourish without other human beings. That is simply a fact. If I didn't benefit from the existence of other human beings, I would almost certainly die an early death, and I would also likely go balmy like someone stuck alone on a desert island. At the very least, I would be far worse off than if I were to live in the society I live in right now.

And that isn't an argument that is dependent on sentimentality. It's an objective statement about human life and its requirements.

but ultimately there is no reason why humans should survive and cockroaches be slaughtered at will.

.
.
.

I've given you the reason above.

Exactly, if the cockroach could clearly express his feelings he would want his fellow cockroaches to survive and not humans.

It wouldn't be about feelings. The cockroach (if it were intelligent) could make a much better argument than that.

And it is arbitrary because the existence of humans is an arbitrary accident of evolution.

Non sequitur. It doesn't matter how human beings came about.

Exactly, it is just a choice based on your feelings

I didn't say that, and I explicitly reject that view in my arguments.

that helping humans will help you to survive because you are a human.

That isn't based on a feeling. It is a rational philosophical judgment.

Ultimately it doesn't matter who survives.

It does to the ones who survive.

And not all humans agree that humans should be favored, see above.

I don't care what other human beings agree or disagree with, or what they feel or don't feel. What matters are the objective facts of the situation. You are making an appeal to subjectivity, which I am rejecting here.

But being concerned about those things are only important to humans that emotionally connect and feel a need for other humans in order to survive.

No, not "feel a need for other humans in order to survive", but "need other humans in order to survive (and flourish)".

ultimately how humans function and what is in their best interests is meaningless without God in an objective sense.

No, it isn't. It is entirely meaningful to human beings in an objective sense because human beings have an objective nature and objective needs, and by needs I'm not talking specifically about emotions. The existence of best interests makes human life meaningful.

Exactly, subjective value not objective.

What I am talking about is objective value in that it is rooted in objective facts of human nature, and not mere sentiment.

Our value does not exist outside ourselves if there is no God.

Yes, it does. It exists factually, instead of being a mere creation of the mind. Do you agree that the physical form of the human body is not simply a matter of feeling, desire, or opinion? In that sense, it is something "outside of ourselves" in that it pertains to the objective nature of the human body. Our value exists "outside of ourselves" in that sense, even though it pertains to human function.

How do you determine which species is correct that they are the ones that deserve to survive at the expense of others?

BOTH species are correct. And this isn't about "deserving to survive", but about what each species is justified in doing given what they are.

No, if you favor the survival and well being of one species over all other species than that plainly means that you consider them more valuable and superior in some way to the other species.

Human life is more valuable to me as a human being, but that has nothing to do with superiority over other species.

I am still waiting for your objective evidence that homo sapiens deserves to survive at the expense of other species.

Not my claim. I didn't say anything about "deserving".

Anyway, the problem here may be that you are using the word "objective" in a different way than I do, and you keep pushing me off into a category ("subjective") that my views don't actually belong in. I don't think that we are going to make much more progress.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Exactly, because you are a human you have an emotional connection to other humans because you believe that you cannot survive without them

eud: I don't "believe" that I can't survive and flourish without other human beings. That is simply a fact. If I didn't benefit from the existence of other human beings, I would almost certainly die an early death, and I would also likely go balmy like someone stuck alone on a desert island. At the very least, I would be far worse off than if I were to live in the society I live in right now.

And that isn't an argument that is dependent on sentimentality. It's an objective statement about human life and its requirements.

but ultimately there is no reason why humans should survive and cockroaches be slaughtered at will.

No, you misunderstood, I am not denying that humans cannot survive alone, but the whole desire that humans survive at all is based on the subjective belief that humans are something that is good to survive, but in actuality the universe will continue to exist with or without us and no other species other than humans cares.

ed: Exactly, if the cockroach could clearly express his feelings he would want his fellow cockroaches to survive and not humans.

eud: It wouldn't be about feelings. The cockroach (if it were intelligent) could make a much better argument than that.

No, ultimately even for the cockroach it would be about feelings or desires if they had them. The universe and no other species does not care and in fact may even want their extinction.

ed: And it is arbitrary because the existence of humans is an arbitrary accident of evolution.

eud: Non sequitur. It doesn't matter how human beings came about.

Yes, it does, if true, it proves that humans have no more objective value than any other species and do not deserve any special consideration from any objective source outside of humanity.

ed: Exactly, it is just a choice based on your feelings

eud: I didn't say that, and I explicitly reject that view in my arguments.

I know you wont admit it, but that is the fact at its root. You only care about humans because you know you would not survive without them, ie subjective reasoning, you don't want to experience or feel death.

ed: that helping humans will help you to survive because you are a human.

eud: That isn't based on a feeling. It is a rational philosophical judgment.

It is a subjectively rational judgement but not objectively rational. Outside of the human species no one cares. objective value has to be outside humanity. Otherwise it is subjective ie within the human mind. And only human minds care about the survival of humanity. Now do you understand?

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, you misunderstood, I am not denying that humans cannot survive alone, but the whole desire that humans survive at all is based on the subjective belief that humans are something that is good to survive, but in actuality the universe will continue to exist with or without us and no other species other than humans cares.

You are trying to ascribe to me positions that I haven't taken.

First, let's leave desire out of this. I'm not basing anything here on desire.

Second, I'm not basing anything on subjective belief. One may believe something (or not) that is objectively true, and it is the objective nature of things that matters, not the belief.

So, I'm not arguing that someone's subjective belief justifies that "humans are something that is good to survive". That isn't even how I would phrase that. Rather, objective reality justifies that "taking actions needed to survive is something good for human beings". We have objective reasons to prioritize those actions over those actions that benefit cockroaches.

No, ultimately even for the cockroach it would be about feelings or desires if they had them. The universe and no other species does not care and in fact may even want their extinction.

Ultimately, it is about the facts of reality, not about who cares about whom.

Yes, it does, if true, it proves that humans have no more objective value than any other species and do not deserve any special consideration from any objective source outside of humanity.

It doesn't prove any such thing. The source of value need not have anything to do with an explanation of origins. Evolution is not a replacement for God in my view.

Plus, I'm saying that the source of value has to do with human nature, which is outside of humanity in the sense that it is objective, and not merely subjective.

I know you wont admit it, but that is the fact at its root.

I have a habit of not "admitting" something I know to be false. This is a mind reading fail on your part.

You only care about humans because you know you would not survive without them, ie subjective reasoning, you don't want to experience or feel death.

Death is not something that can be experienced or felt. And while I certainly don't want to speed death along, my position is not based on this. How I may feel about death is irrelevant.

It is a subjectively rational judgement but not objectively rational. Outside of the human species no one cares. objective value has to be outside humanity. Otherwise it is subjective ie within the human mind. And only human minds care about the survival of humanity. Now do you understand?

It's clear that you are incapable of realizing that I don't fit into what you call "objective" or "subjective". I'm in a third category, but you keep trying to stuff me into your "subjective" category at every turn, even though I explicitly reject arguing within your category. I have explained in what way values are objective. They pertain to facts of human existence, which are outside of mere subjectivity as you define that term.

The discussion is pointless. This will be my last post to you on this subject in this thread.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, you misunderstood, I am not denying that humans cannot survive alone, but the whole desire that humans survive at all is based on the subjective belief that humans are something that is good to survive, but in actuality the universe will continue to exist with or without us and no other species other than humans cares.

eud: You are trying to ascribe to me positions that I haven't taken.

First, let's leave desire out of this. I'm not basing anything here on desire.

So you DON'T WANT humans to survive?

eud: Second, I'm not basing anything on subjective belief. One may believe something (or not) that is objectively true, and it is the objective nature of things that matters, not the belief.

So, I'm not arguing that someone's subjective belief justifies that "humans are something that is good to survive". That isn't even how I would phrase that. Rather, objective reality justifies that "taking actions needed to survive is something good for human beings". We have objective reasons to prioritize those actions over those actions that benefit cockroaches.

But how do you know that surviving is good for humans? Some people think that humans are the main culprits in destroying the earth. Maybe it is better that we go extinct. How do you determine which is the correct good?

ed: No, ultimately even for the cockroach it would be about feelings or desires if they had them. The universe and no other species does not care and in fact may even want their extinction.

eud: Ultimately, it is about the facts of reality, not about who cares about whom.

The facts of evolutionary reality is that some species survive and some go extinct, with no qualitative judgement about which does which. So why strive to survive?

ed: Yes, it does, if true, it proves that humans have no more objective value than any other species and do not deserve any special consideration from any objective source outside of humanity.

eud: It doesn't prove any such thing. The source of value need not have anything to do with an explanation of origins. Evolution is not a replacement for God in my view.

Nevertheless it supposedly determines who goes extinct and who survives.

eud: Plus, I'm saying that the source of value has to do with human nature, which is outside of humanity in the sense that it is objective, and not merely subjective.

But how do you determine who is living out human nature correctly? Gandhi or Hitler or Stalin? Maybe Jeffrey Dahmer?

ed: I know you wont admit it, but that is the fact at its root.

eud: I have a habit of not "admitting" something I know to be false. This is a mind reading fail on your part.

Do you WANT humans to survive or not? If you do, that is a feeling or desire. Irrespective if it is based on human nature. It is generally human nature to want humans to survive, but without God there is no rationally objective basis

ed: You only care about humans because you know you would not survive without them, ie subjective reasoning, you don't want to experience or feel death.

eud: Death is not something that can be experienced or felt. And while I certainly don't want to speed death along, my position is not based on this. How I may feel about death is irrelevant.

Well maybe I should have said dying, dying can be experienced or felt, you do not want to experience dying, so you try to survive with the help of other humans.

ed: It is a subjectively rational judgement but not objectively rational. Outside of the human species no one cares. objective value has to be outside humanity. Otherwise it is subjective ie within the human mind. And only human minds care about the survival of humanity. Now do you understand?

eud: It's clear that you are incapable of realizing that I don't fit into what you call "objective" or "subjective". I'm in a third category, but you keep trying to stuff me into your "subjective" category at every turn, even though I explicitly reject arguing within your category. I have explained in what way values are objective. They pertain to facts of human existence, which are outside of mere subjectivity as you define that term.

The discussion is pointless. This will be my last post to you on this subject in this thread.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, you have not proven that there is an objective human nature. is it based on popularity? Or majority vote or people you admire? See above about whether Gandhi or Hitler represent human nature the best. How do you know which it is?