How do Naturalists/Materialists account for the immateriality of morals, laws of logic or information?

[stevevw]

I don't see that as a problem. If you treat morality as something trancedendant then it might. But it's a practical matter. What works is good. What doesn't is bad.

Then the argument becomes what is good and what is bad, to what objective standard do we ground this in. That leads to measuring morals by scientifically and logically according to material ideas of objectivity which ends with the 'is/ought' problem. By making moral truths like laws inherent in the universe through conscious experience we overcome that problem.

It then becomes a case of supporting these non physical/material truths but not through empirical science alone but through our conscious experience which is directly connected to these transcendent moral truths because it is through our lived experience that we know morality. It is a better measure than science because its direct and science is a mental concept that is indirect when it comes to conscious experience.

But that doesn't mean we cannot reason our morals as we are rational beings as well. Its when rationality and our conscious experience lines up to make a true representation of what is happening that we can know these moral truths.

Is lying morally bad? If the lie is going to cause a problem then we ought not tell it. If it solves a problem then we should.

I think the point is we can pose moral dilemmas all day long but that doesn't mean there is not a moral truth to be found in each and every situation. As morality is also circumstantial when can find the moral truth in most if not all situations because objective morals are not absolute. But if the issue is more complex and it seems there is no answer that doesn't mean there is no determination. It just means we have to think about it more.

So that means we look at each situation on its own merits and this may lead to lying being the moral thing to do. Usually that's because a greater moral truth comes into play. In some situations you may be more intimate with the person so your moral responsibility will be different to someone who is not intimate. It may be you have more knowledge so then your moral responsibility is greater.

So if you know the lie is going to hurt that person in a way that brings greater harm than the lie represented in the original case then you know its not the best way to behave morally. If you didn't know and harm is done how can you be held responsible. The ultimate wrong is taking a life without justification. So obviously if a lie saves life then its ok to lie. I don't even think its a lie as I thought a lie was about knowingly lying for personal and selfish gain.

The beauty to seeing things this way is that I think it accommodates subjective conscious experience and yet can still hold that there is a moral truth to all moral situations. It also lays responsibility back on the knowledge a person has which seems to relate to the idea that knowledge and Mind is fundamental just as QM seems to point to.

 

[Bradskii]

Then the argument becomes what is good and what is bad, to what objective standard do we ground this in.

We consider would happen to society if an act was deemed acceptable. If everyone lied, then it would collapse. The majority of us mostly telling the truth allowed societies to grow. So generally speaking lying is objectively bad and telling the truth has an evolutionary advantage. But we should allow for exceptions that will prove that rule, as you note below.

So that means we look at each situation on its own merits and this may lead to lying being the moral thing to do. Usually that's because a greater moral truth comes into play.

Yes. Not hurting someone's feelings uneccassarily would be a bad thing. So if your young daughter asks you what you think of her atrocious painting, you lie.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
How does this refute anything Ive said thus far?

Because if consciousness cannot be reduced to physical processes like the brain then it negates any claim that conscious experiences like joy is caused by physical brain activity.

Consciousness is defined as the ability to be aware and respond to one’s surroundings.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Yes and mindless and unconscious matter like the physical brain or any physical object cannot be aware of itself and have sensations and thoughts of surroundings.

You can’t be suggesting the brain has nothing to do with this…… are you?

If consciousness is beyond brain then consciousness will have a physical effect on the brain as we find because the brain will be like a receiver and transmitter of consciousness. Just like a physical radio box and its wring are the physical receiver of radio waves and have physical activity associated with facilitating those radio waves. But the radio box and wring don't create radio waves just like the brain doesn't create consciousness.

My question was not restricted to science, I’m talking about anything real.

I would first have to know what you think is 'real' in the world. Objective science cannot transcend the objective world. But in the overall scheme of reality assuming that its made up of something more than objective world we perceive are there other types of truths or laws or realness that we can know that are not like objective physical truths or laws but laws and truths nonetheless as far as reality is concerned.

No they are not. Laws of Nature are consistent regardless of who observes them because they are objective.

So what if in the overall scheme of things what we observe and call the laws of nature are just a representation of some surface reflection we think is real. Then objective reality (though correct) would only be a measure of something perhaps a mass illusion of something more fundamental. Though consistent they are not a true measure of what is actually happening.

Then on the other hand every doesn't always agree because from their point of view things are different and we cannot make any proper determination. Like with perceiving colors, noise and issues like climate change. But that is no different to these transcendent truths like justice, truth and kindness. We all experience these truths the same, we have learnt from our experience that they are like laws because they help us navigate this world just like objective laws do.

Justice, beauty, kindness and Truth will often vary from person to person because they are subjective.

Actually the principle of things like justice and kindness don't change. Only the views and opinions of how and when these should be applied changes. So these moral principles stand by the fact that they exist and are given their status by humans no through subjective unreasoning but through direct lived experience of them.

We give science its status to account for a certain aspect of the world. We also give certain moral truth status for other aspects of the world in a more transcendent way.

If you consider human thought to be this force you speak of, I will agree with you.

Okay; you’re talking about stuff based on human thought. Thoughts are not real and by themselves have no influence the material world. However; they can motivate material beings to change the material world

But if we say that Mind is fundamental then thoughts are all we have, that would be the only real thing. Mind is more or less in the drivers seat and the physical is afterwards. I think we do have reasons to think that mind can influence reality from QM and everyday experience. but I think this area is the subject of further investigation.

That’s not what I said. I said it is natural for humans to feel empathy for one another. Because humans are evolved beings, our empathy is the result of evolution

But that is circular as your assuming evolution is the cause and original of morals like empathy.

Empathy being natural has nothing to do with whether it is beneficial for evolution or not.

Of course it does for the material naturalistic view because empathy is explained by evolution as being something that helps survival of human species.

The reason I believe empathy is natural for us is because humans need to be around each other; and empathy is one of the human traits required in order for us to enjoy being around each other.

I agree this is one reason we can turn to for why empathy is important. But I am not sure that you can say this is the result of some natural cause as its not grounding this in anything natural as far as a material cause like evolution. Its giving some transcendent status to empathy beyond any naturalistic basis.

 

[stevevw]

We consider would happen to society if an act was deemed acceptable. If everyone lied, then it would collapse. The majority of us mostly telling the truth allowed societies to grow. So generally speaking lying is objectively bad and telling the truth has an evolutionary advantage. But we should allow for exceptions that will prove that rule, as you note below.

I agree that's a good reason. But is that reason just about a survival benefit or something more that matters to us. I don't think a survival advantage works as a moral as there are a few ways of arguing other behavior is good for survival. Like if there was not enough food for everyone to survive then lying to people would be beneficial to lie like they did to the Jews going on the trains to the gas chambers to get rid of people to make the food last longer.

I think morals transcend any naturalistic explanation as humans are capable of justifying anything if it means living and dying or gaining an advantage to get ahead and survive. I think if we are to have moral truths that stand like laws then they have to be incorruptible.

One truth we have discovered through experience is equality regardless of race, belief, or status. Kings were seen as higher human like god and then we realized as far as being human we all have natural born rights. But this truth is not grounded in anything physical.

This idea of equality transcends material explanations. As you say it comes from living out the mora. But living out the moral is our direct conscious experience. So there is a direct connection and this is what we ground these truths in. We have derived these truths over 1,000s of years through telling stories and passing them down. All stories express these truths and these come from a deeper part of us that connects with these transcendent truths and cannot be understood by logic and science.

Yes. Not hurting someone's feelings unnecessarily would be a bad thing. So if your young daughter asks you what you think of her atrocious painting, you lie.

Yeah and we take into consideration the age and where they are at and where you are at in yourself. But generally young people don't understand constructive criticism and that also depends on the relationship between older people as people can take it the wrong way. That is why I think its important that each situation is seen in its own context so that the moral truth can be found as to how we should act. That is individual but I think each individual can find that truth within that situation about how best to behave.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because if consciousness cannot be reduced to physical processes like the brain then it negates any claim that conscious experiences like joy is caused by physical brain activity.

(Ken)
Just because the brain is physical, doesn’t mean everything it does has to be physical.

Yes and mindless and unconscious matter like the physical brain or any physical object cannot be aware of itself and have sensations and thoughts of surroundings.

If consciousness is beyond brain then consciousness will have a physical effect on the brain as we find because the brain will be like a receiver and transmitter of consciousness. Just like a physical radio box and its wring are the physical receiver of radio waves and have physical activity associated with facilitating those radio waves. But the radio box and wring don't create radio waves just like the brain doesn't create consciousness.

That’s a bit like saying legs cannot walk, or eyes cannot see. Eyes and legs are a part of me, and with the cooperation of everything else that is me, I can walk and see using my legs and eyes. the same goes with the brain that is also a part of me; it requires the cooperation of everything else that is me in order to get things done.

I would first have to know what you think is 'real' in the world.

That which had it’s existence substantiated.

Objective science cannot transcend the objective world. But in the overall scheme of reality assuming that its made up of something more than objective world we perceive are there other types of truths or laws or realness that we can know that are not like objective physical truths or laws but laws and truths nonetheless as far as reality is concerned.

Why would you assume something like that? Why make such a leap of logic? Why not just admit there are some things you just don’t have answers for?

So what if in the overall scheme of things what we observe and call the laws of nature are just a representation of some surface reflection we think is real. Then objective reality (though correct) would only be a measure of something perhaps a mass illusion of something more fundamental. Though consistent they are not a true measure of what is actually happening.

True! If that were the case, we would be wrong. But in the real world, we have no choice but to believe what appears to be real, IS real. We can’t go around under the assumption that what appears real is fake because if that is the game you gonna play, nothing will ever get done.

Then on the other hand every doesn't always agree because from their point of view things are different and we cannot make any proper determination. Like with perceiving colors, noise and issues like climate change. But that is no different to these transcendent truths like justice, truth and kindness. We all experience these truths the same, we have learnt from our experience that they are like laws because they help us navigate this world just like objective laws do.

I disagree. If everybody experienced justice, truth, or kindness the same; we would all agree on which actions constitutes justice, truth, and kindness; but we all don’t.

Actually the principle of things like justice and kindness don't change. Only the views and opinions of how and when these should be applied changes. So these moral principles stand by the fact that they exist and are given their status by humans no through subjective unreasoning but through direct lived experience of them.

We give science its status to account for a certain aspect of the world. We also give certain moral truth status for other aspects of the world in a more transcendent way.

I suspect you’ve missed my point. My point is; those actions we call “kindness” or “justice” are not agreed upon by everyone. What one person calls kindness, another person might call cruel. What one person calls justice, another person might call unfair. It’s not a matter of how or when those actions should be applied, but whether they should be applied at all!

But that is circular as your assuming evolution is the cause and original of morals like empathy.

Human evolution is the cause of current human morals. What’s circular about that?

Of course it does for the material naturalistic view because empathy is explained by evolution as being something that helps survival of human species.

I disagree. Materialists are not required to have that line of thinking.

I agree this is one reason we can turn to for why empathy is important. But I am not sure that you can say this is the result of some natural cause as its not grounding this in anything natural as far as a material cause like evolution. Its giving some transcendent status to empathy beyond any naturalistic basis.

It’s grounded in the fact that humans are by nature, social creatures.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree that's a good reason. But is that reason just about a survival benefit or something more that matters to us. I don't think a survival advantage works as a moral as there are a few ways of arguing other behavior is good for survival. Like if there was not enough food for everyone to survive then lying to people would be beneficial to lie like they did to the Jews going on the trains to the gas chambers to get rid of people to make the food last longer.

A moral position started off being 'good' because it was a survival advantage (so lying to people to make the food last longer would be applicable). But aspects of the evolutionary process sometimes counter each other depending on circumstances. It's personally advantageous to keep your food for yourself. But in certain conditions it's better to share. So reciprocal altruism wins out on selfishness - somtimes. The ability for empathy prompts this. Plus some conditional thinking; If I do this then...

I think morals transcend any naturalistic explanation as humans are capable of justifying anything if it means living and dying or gaining an advantage to get ahead and survive. I think if we are to have moral truths that stand like laws then they have to be incorruptible.

There are no moral truths. There is just what we deem acceptable and unacceptable. We then call that 'morality'. And that is often determined by what works.

One truth we have discovered through experience is equality regardless of race, belief, or status. Kings were seen as higher human like god and then we realized as far as being human we all have natural born rights. But this truth is not grounded in anything physical.

Of course it is. We can see who is better suited to run a society. We can see the physical results. So we have generally decided to choose our leaders as opposed them being in that position by an accident of birth. And we're not all equal. But we have discovered that the differences between us are not determined by how we look. And we have determined that equality of opportunity produces the best results.

This idea of equality transcends material explanations.

Nonsense. The differences between any two individuals from an ethnic group will be greater than the differences between those two ethnic groups. The idea that some of us were better than others was what 'transcended material explanations' (and was even thought to be divinely ordained). You have it the wrong way around.

That is why I think its important that each situation is seen in its own context so that the moral truth can be found as to how we should act. That is individual but I think each individual can find that truth within that situation about how best to behave.

Exactly. This 'one size fits all' perception of morality doesn't work. There are no moral rules as such. They are moral guidelines. To be applied as the cirumstances dictate.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Then the argument becomes what is good and what is bad, to what objective standard do we ground this in. That leads to measuring morals by scientifically and logically according to material ideas of objectivity which ends with the 'is/ought' problem. By making moral truths like laws inherent in the universe through conscious experience we overcome that problem.

No you don't.

Suppose we grant that such inherent "moral laws" exist. Why *ought* we follow them?

I submit that you cannot answer this question without appealing to value judgement. Values are necessarily subjective. "Objective value" is an oxymoron.

 

[Neutral Observer]

If consciousness is beyond brain then consciousness will have a physical effect on the brain as we find because the brain will be like a receiver and transmitter of consciousness. Just like a physical radio box and its wring are the physical receiver of radio waves and have physical activity associated with facilitating those radio waves. But the radio box and wring don't create radio waves just like the brain doesn't create consciousness.

So you're saying that we're parasites who've evolved to feed off of some universal consciousness?

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
Just because the brain is physical, doesn’t mean everything it does has to be physical.

Are you saying the brain can produce non material phenomena. If so does that have any causal effect on the world.

That’s a bit like saying legs cannot walk, or eyes cannot see. Eyes and legs are a part of me, and with the cooperation of everything else that is me, I can walk and see using my legs and eyes. the same goes with the brain that is also a part of me; it requires the cooperation of everything else that is me in order to get things done.

The question is what is 'me' and how does this come about from things that are not aware of 'me the subject' that can turn a seeing apparatus into something that can know its a seeing apparatus and its place in the world. Normally we would view say artificial devices like the visual camera that sees or the mechanical operations and program that allows the legs of robots to walk as not having any sense of 'me' or what its like to be a camera or robot walking. The idea of self seems to transcended the purely physical.

That which had it’s existence substantiated.

Substantiated in what way.

Why would you assume something like that? Why make such a leap of logic? Why not just admit there are some things you just don’t have answers for?

Its not a case of having answers for but how we can know what is real or not. When you say "Why make such a leap of logic" you are presupposing a certain way to measure reality that is no itself a proven way to know reality. That is the point of what I am saying and asking what you mean by reality and how we should know it.

We as humans know there are real things besides the physical world that influence reality (if reality is the total measure of all things and not just the physical/material). So making a claim that we should only know reality through logic and science is more a belief than anything else.

True! If that were the case, we would be wrong. But in the real world, we have no choice but to believe what appears to be real, IS real. We can’t go around under the assumption that what appears real is fake because if that is the game you gonna play, nothing will ever get done.

But the real world as you term it because it may not be real in any metaphysical sense but just real as a surface reflection. And the objective world works within that interface of reality. We can acknowledge that on one level reality works to this conceptualized idea we perceive is real as far as navigating that interface but that this may only be a surface reflection of something deeper going on in fundamental reality. WE already do that with QM.

I disagree. If everybody experienced justice, truth, or kindness the same; we would all agree on which actions constitutes justice, truth, and kindness; but we all don’t.

This is a misconception. First we all do agree. We have tried and tested these moral truths throughout our history and they have objective foundations for various reasons but mostly because of our experience of them. Second the idea that just because something is an objective truth doesn't mean everyone should agree with them.

This happens in science where people for various reasons disagree with scientific facts. It wasn't just because we experienced these moral truths. We actually embodied these transcendent truths and made them part of the physical world.

I suspect you’ve missed my point. My point is; those actions we call “kindness” or “justice” are not agreed upon by everyone. What one person calls kindness, another person might call cruel. What one person calls justice, another person might call unfair. It’s not a matter of how or when those actions should be applied, but whether they should be applied at all!

I disagree. The idea of justice and kindness in principle what they represent in themselves and not what people represent them as. We have already agreed on what justice represents in universal declarations like Human Rights and other laws and Constitutions. We did this because we have lived experience of the horrors of 'unjust' people and found out the hard way. Those who don't agree with this truth of 'justice' are regarded as enemies of a just world and we treat them as such.

Human evolution is the cause of current human morals. What’s circular about that?

Because your assuming evolution is the cause when there is no conclusive evidence. You haven't connected the dots between claiming evolution is the cause and showing how it actually is the cause.

I disagree. Materialists are not required to have that line of thinking.

True as theist's can support evolution. But I think its more about what empathy is being grounded in. One is naturalistic and the other is more transcendent like supernatural. So already we have a fundamental difference is ultimate grounding. I think the natural material view is going to look for ideas like evolution, abstract ideas being epiphenomenal from a physical/material basis.

Whereas the transcendent view is that these abstract ideas are of something different that cannot be reduced to material/physical aspects in the first place and speak of some other force or influence in the world. This difference has been debated for millennia. But if you want to take the naturalistic position then I don't think you can start proposing some non material nature which is beyond the science as you may as well claim all sorts of things. It bypasses the very idea of science and makes a leap into something completely different in nature.

It’s grounded in the fact that humans are by nature, social creatures.

I think this is a good point actually. But to me introducing the social aspect of morality opens up all sorts of Hard problems for the naturalistic view. Social and cultural aspects bring up questions about the role of the individual and group in influencing the world. That sort of aspect is hard to explain in naturalistic terms as its a qualitative thing that's hard to measure on purely reductivism and material terms.

 

[stevevw]

So you're saying that we're parasites who've evolved to feed off of some universal consciousness?

That's a pretty cynical way of looking at it. I would say that because if consciousness is fundamental to the universe then its not something that is different that we need to latch onto but rather its something we can tap into naturally as humans or maybe is always there.

 

[Bradskii]

This is a misconception. First we all do agree. We have tried and tested these moral truths throughout our history and they have objective foundations for various reasons but mostly because of our experience of them. Second the idea that just because something is an objective truth doesn't mean everyone should agree with them.

Then let's look at justice, truth, or kindness.

Is it just or unjust to send someone to the gallows for murder? Or is taking a life unjust?

Is it true that God exists and He sent His son to save us? Or do Muslims have the truth?

If either my dog or my grandparent is dying in pain, is it kinder to euthanise them or to let them suffer?

 

[Ken-1122]

Are you saying the brain can produce non material phenomena. If so does that have any causal effect on the world.

(Ken)
Yes! Thoughts are non material produced by the brain and they have a huge effect on the world.

The question is what is 'me' and how does this come about from things that are not aware of 'me the subject' that can turn a seeing apparatus into something that can know its a seeing apparatus and its place in the world. Normally we would view say artificial devices like the visual camera that sees or the mechanical operations and program that allows the legs of robots to walk as not having any sense of 'me' or what its like to be a camera or robot walking. The idea of self seems to transcended the purely physical.

The idea of “self” is based on human thought, and thoughts transcend the purely physical.

Substantiated in what way.

Empirical evidence.

Its not a case of having answers for but how we can know what is real or not. When you say "Why make such a leap of logic" you are presupposing a certain way to measure reality that is no itself a proven way to know reality.

But that is the only way we know to determine what is real; anything else requires a leap of logic.

We as humans know there are real things besides the physical world that influence reality (if reality is the total measure of all things and not just the physical/material). So making a claim that we should only know reality through logic and science is more a belief than anything else.

So what (outside of thoughts) exist outside the physical world?

But the real world as you term it because it may not be real in any metaphysical sense but just real as a surface reflection. And the objective world works within that interface of reality. We can acknowledge that on one level reality works to this conceptualized idea we perceive is real as far as navigating that interface but that this may only be a surface reflection of something deeper going on in fundamental reality. WE already do that with QM.

But the only alternative is to go around makin’ stuff up! The way I see it, providing a wrong answer does more damage than admitting you have no answer at all.

This is a misconception. First we all do agree. We have tried and tested these moral truths throughout our history and they have objective foundations for various reasons but mostly because of our experience of them.

Can you provide an example? Would you consider the idea that men can have babies, because the only thing that separates men from women is what goes on inside of their heads, a moral truth that we were previously unaware of?

Second the idea that just because something is an objective truth doesn't mean everyone should agree with them.

Let me guess; I will bet YOUR personal beliefs just so happen to align perfectly with objective truth, is that accurate? Yeah; there are those who will disagree with objective truth, but not you, your views align perfectly with objective truth thus anybody who might disagree with you on any moral issue is objectively wrong; is that an accurate description of your claim? If not, perhaps you can provide an example of an objective truth that you disagree with.

I'll respond to the rest later

 

[expos4ever]

Your take on evolution is correct. What works is selected for. What doesn't is filtered out.

I agree but would add the following qualification based on my understanding of the theory of evolution (which may be faulty): it is what works to promote reproduction that is selected for, not what works more generally. This is why I think that evolutionary arguments only go so far re explaining how our sense of morality may have developed.

 

[expos4ever]

I think yes these abstract and transcendent ideas like moral truths such as empathy if universal truth like laws did pop into our Minds like we discovered them or awakened to them rather than they grew out of some non moral or mindless substance which could not be capable of having this in the first place. All this does is create more Hard problems I think for the materialist view.

I want to focus on this part of what posted: rather than they grew out of some non moral or mindless substance which could not be capable of having this in the first place

Underneath this statement there appears to be a substantial assumption: that moral laws either are, or are caused by, a "substance". Having made this assumption, and I believe an assumption it is, you then conclude that it appears inconceivable that moral laws could arise by the mechanism that posters like Bradski and I are proposing. But all sorts of things are real but are not "substance", nor derivative of substance. Take the concept of "information" - there is a whole body of theory that has developed around information. Surely information can be thought of as "existing" even if it is not, in and of itself, a substance or in any way caused by substance.

 

[Neutral Observer]

That's a pretty cynical way of looking at it.

Okay, then let me characterize consciousness another way... as qualia. I would argue that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon much like color or taste, which do indeed have an underlying cause, but none-the-less cannot be fully explained or appreciated by means of that cause alone. For example a scientist may explain that the color "red" is nothing more than the brain's representation of a specific wavelength of light. There's a direct correlation between the two. Yet the qualia of "redness" is a purely conscious phenomenon. That photon of light isn't red. The mind/brain imparts that underlying photon with the quality of redness.

The same may be true of consciousness, that there is indeed an underlying cause... be it simply the underlying coherency of reality. But like the photon that isn't actually red, that coherency isn't actually conscious until it's given that quality by the human mind. I think that your mistake lies in projecting the effect of an emergent phenomenon onto the cause of that emergent phenomenon, rather than accepting, that as with redness it's the human mind that's responsible for the quality of consciousness, even if there is indeed an underlying cause.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree but would add the following qualification based on my understanding of the theory of evolution (which may be faulty): it is what works to promote reproduction that is selected for, not what works more generally. This is why I think that evolutionary arguments only go so far re explaining how our sense of morality may have developed.

It's a negative process actually. It filters out those that aren't as efficient at reproduction. Leaving those who are a little better.

Sharing the workload or sharing food is beneficial for survival. So those that had a tendency not to share were filtered out. I don't think that I could be convinced that there was some existing moral law that had been waiting around for mankind to arrive that would prompt some of the more enlightened members to obey it and therefore doom the others to being excluded from the gene pool. It was just what worked and what didn't. And that which worked was termed 'good'. So being selfless turned out to be good. And being selfish was not.

I think that at some point, people thought this through rather than the process being entirely automatic and realised that being altruistic was beneficial and therefore good and hey, we ought to do it. When what they should have realised is that they had always been doing it. It was one of the reasons why they were there. So they should have said 'acting like this seems to have worked so we should keep doing it.'

 

[Bradskii]

Let me guess; I will bet YOUR personal beliefs just so happen to align perfectly with objective truth, is that accurate? Yeah; there are those who will disagree with objective truth, but not you, your views align perfectly with objective truth thus anybody who might disagree with you on any moral issue is objectively wrong; is that an accurate description of your claim? If not, perhaps you can provide an example of an objective truth that you disagree with.

I've lost count of the number of times I have asked this question in this and other forums. Guess how many times I've received an answer...

 

[eleos1954]

In the evolutionary sense, what got us here. In any other sense, you do. And I do. If we disagree then we put forward our arguments to see who is correct.

it isn't that simple .... we often have to just agree to disagree ... because both believe they are "correct" .... there is indeed information gathered but then there is interpretation of the information .... and really .... we don't have indisputable facts about a lot of things .... so there is no "correct".

 

[Bradskii]

it isn't that simple .... we often have to just agree to disagree ... because both believe they are "correct" .... there is indeed information gathered but then there is interpretation of the information .... and really .... we don't have indisputable facts about a lot of things .... so there is no "correct".

Then we agree to disagree. That's the case whether there are what you might claim are divinely ordained moral laws or not. And I might ask if you accept those laws without question or whether you go through the same process as I do in determining if they are valid or not.

 

[Ken-1122]

I disagree. The idea of justice and kindness in principle what they represent in themselves and not what people represent them as. We have already agreed on what justice represents in universal declarations like Human Rights and other laws and Constitutions.

(Ken)
There are some things we have agreed upon, but there are a lot of things we have not, because these ideas are completely subjective and often vary from person to person. Yeah; everybody agrees there should be justice, but what constitutes justice is what is often not agreed upon

Because your assuming evolution is the cause when there is no conclusive evidence. You haven't connected the dots between claiming evolution is the cause and showing how it actually is the cause.

I said HUMANS are the cause, and humans are evolved beings. Do you see the difference?

True as theist's can support evolution. But I think its more about what empathy is being grounded in. One is naturalistic and the other is more transcendent like supernatural. So already we have a fundamental difference is ultimate grounding. I think the natural material view is going to look for ideas like evolution, abstract ideas being epiphenomenal from a physical/material basis.

Whereas the transcendent view is that these abstract ideas are of something different that cannot be reduced to material/physical aspects in the first place and speak of some other force or influence in the world. This difference has been debated for millennia. But if you want to take the naturalistic position then I don't think you can start proposing some non material nature which is beyond the science as you may as well claim all sorts of things. It bypasses the very idea of science and makes a leap into something completely different in nature.

Do you think those with the transcendent view express empathy differently than the way materialists express it? If not, how is it different?

I think this is a good point actually. But to me introducing the social aspect of morality opens up all sorts of Hard problems for the naturalistic view. Social and cultural aspects bring up questions about the role of the individual and group in influencing the world. That sort of aspect is hard to explain in naturalistic terms as its a qualitative thing that's hard to measure on purely reductivism and material terms.

I have this naturalist view, and it poses no problems for me.