Evidence for God from Science

The Protector wrote:Spock,

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. In some ways I think I understand your argument better, but in others I’m afraid I’m still not quite clear on where you stand. Please allow me to address the points you’ve made in your reply. If you feel you have addressed them elsewhere and I either missed them or didn’t quite understand them, then please accept my humble apologies and simply direct me to the relevant post (or copy and paste if you’re feeling particularly generous)

Hey there Protector,

I very much appreciate your respectful tone and desire for rational discourse. I would ask in return for your patience regarding any imperfections in my attempts to answer your excellent probing questions.

The Protector wrote: This is what I thought, but it has me a bit confused. You had argued that the Golden Rule establishes objective morality without the need for God (obviously, please correct me if I’ve misstated your position). Here, though, you acknowledge that the GR is merely a measure of the morality of certain acts that one may perform, and that implies it is measuring something that exists (or perhaps “carries value” or “has meaning” would be better if we don’t want to speak of abstractions as “existing?”) apart from either the measure itself or man’s recognition thereof; after all, heat (that is, variations in energy, molecular motion) exists wholly apart from either the thermometer or man’s recognition of it (I know there are philosophers who would dispute this claim, but it seems we agree here). To sum, then, the GR does not establish morality, it merely is presumed to discern it—or at any rate discern the degree to which an act is moral. But the moral argument at issue is not that morals cannot be discerned without God, the argument is that objective morals (objective in the absolute sense) cannot exist (or “have meaning?”) in the absence of God. That you presume the GR allows you to discern the moral value of a given act does not in any way demonstrate that this moral value exists (or can exist) in the absence of God, does it? After all, Craig does not say that people cannot discern moral values and duties without God—indeed, you’ve criticized him for saying that people can discern them too readily! But this discernment—this taking measure of—is really all you say the GR does here, is it not?

There are a number of points that need clarification.

Protector: "you acknowledge that the GR is merely a measure of the morality of certain acts"

Your use of the word "merely" implies that the GR serves only as a test for what is moral and nothing else. That is not correct. I assert that the GR plays a central role in our understanding of what we mean by "moral." I assert that it, in conjunction with self-love, is a rational explanation of our moral intuitions. So the question is this: Does my moral theory account for all of our moral intuitions? This is why my theory is testable. All a challenger needs to do is to present a valid moral intuition that is not rationally explained by the two principles I propose and my theory will be falsified.

Protector: "that implies it is measuring something that exists (or perhaps “carries value” or “has meaning” would be better if we don’t want to speak of abstractions as “existing?”) apart from either the measure itself or man’s recognition thereof"

It is good that you seem to recognize the problem with the word "exists." It is a vortex of endless dispute. So the first question is this: Do we need to settle the question of what it means for an abstract object to "exist" before we can understand theories based upon them? If so, then all mathematics crumbles to dust because we have exactly the same problem with answering questions about the "existence" of abstract numbers. What makes an equation like 1 + 2 = 3 true? Is its truth independent of human opinion? I think so. Does that mean that it "exists" independently of humans? I don't know. I don't even know what it means for abstract objects to "exist." That sounds like a category mistake naively drawn from a false analogy of what we mean when speaking of physical objects existing. I say "category mistake" because any physical thing that exists has a property of "whereness" which simply does not apply to abstract objects. Whitehead and Russel wrote three volumes of impenetrable philosophical discourse trying to give a philosophical ground to mathematics. Obviously, we don't need the answer to such questions in order to successfully use the theory. The only reason this issue has come up at all with respect to morality is because theists think they can use it to prove theism. I think that their whole program is blatantly absurd. We cannot establish the actual existence of God with such metaphysical speculations woven from ambiguous words that we don't even understand!

Protector: "To sum, then, the GR does not establish morality, it merely is presumed to discern it—or at any rate discern the degree to which an act is moral."

I see no meaningful distinction between "establishing the existence of X" and the "ability to measure X." Is there any other topic where we would make such a distinction?

Protector: "the argument is that objective morals (objective in the absolute sense) cannot exist (or “have meaning?”) in the absence of God."

You have introduced an undefined concept of "objective in the absolute sense." Your comment is based on a presumed understanding of what it means for abstract objects to "exist" but as I showed above, that concept is not understood even for something as lucid as numbers.

Protector: "After all, Craig does not say that people cannot discern moral values and duties without God—indeed, you’ve criticized him for saying that people can discern them too readily!"

My complaint was never that Craig says "people can discern them too readily" but rather his appeal to that intuition as the only support for his second premise. It's is fine to appeal to something as "obvious" as a motivation for further investigation, but it is logically fallacious to base his argument on such an unsupported appeal.

Protector: "this discernment—this taking measure of—is really all you say the GR does here, is it not?"

No, it is not. My argument is that we have a complete explanation of our moral intuitions based on the truth of two principles:

1) Self-love: All rational beings desire what is best for themselves. The axiom is "self loves self."

2) The Golden Rule: This is the principle of moral symmetry, justice, fairness. We can objectively determine if something is fair. This principle is founded upon the principle of indifference. We have no objective a priori reason to prefer one over another. Any morally valid statement must be symmetric under an interchange of the agent and the person affected by the agent. This is how we teach children morality. We ask them "How would you feel if I did that to you?".

The Protector wrote: Also, while a measure may in itself be objective, it does not necessarily follow that what is being measured is an objective construct. What reason do we have for supposing that “moral value” is akin to temperature and the GR to a thermometer in this regard, as opposed to, say, being analogous to “cognitive ability” and an Intelligence test?

If we can objectively measure something, then it functions as an "objective reality" regardless of our ability or inability to articulate the philosophical grounds for its "existence." Again, we are turning on the pole of an unsolved philosophical riddle - the meaning of the "existence" of abstract objects like numbers and moral values.

The Protector wrote: Moreover, a thermometer is a quantitative test (albeit of man-made interval units), but it seems to me that a measure of moral value would be dealing with qualitative data, would it not? It would be akin to a thermometer with two labels: “Hot” and “Cold;” such a thermometer would tell us very little about the temperature, except inasmuch as it might be perceived by the person who designed the thermometer. So too with a measure with outcomes labeled “Moral” and “Immoral.” Does that make any sense?

That's a central reason why some folks reject the "objective" existence of moral values. How do they differ from aesthetic values which probably are not objective? Or are aesthetic value objective? The fact that we have no certain answers to such questions exposes yet again the futility of trying to prove God from such ambiguous philosophical speculations.

The Protector wrote: If the GR is merely a test or measure of the morality of human actions, do you hold that humans have moral duties?

No, I do not believe in moral "duties" because the concept of duty implies a legislative agent. I have no moral intuitions based on such a concept. Something is morally right or wrong because of what it is, not because someone said so. This is how Craig not-so-secretly imports his conclusion into his second premise and so begs the question.

The Protector wrote: I did not realize you were the husband of whom Butterfly has spoken so highly! I pray you are both blessed with many more happy years together.

Thank you for your kind words. My best wishes to you and yours.

The Protector wrote: To your point: I apologize for not realizing that “prefer” is commonly used in this way; as I said before, I have no training in philosophy or formal logic, and I appreciate your patience with me as I struggle with these concepts. Even so, when you apply it to human actions and morality, it seems to me that the implication must be the use of “prefer” in the more common sense of the word: that is, to desire a given outcome (or outcomes) over others—to find them “preferable.” To say that one expects no single outcome over any others is to say that no particular pattern of outcome is anticipated, but rather one anticipates (over the long run) observing all outcomes in equal frequency. If we are consistent in our usage of the word “prefer,” then when we continue the analogy and apply this to human actions by saying that, since we are all human, we should prefer no one human face over the other would be to say that we do not expect any one human face over any other. This doesn’t make much sense to me. Coupled with all the stuff about symmetry in physics, it strikes me that you are trying to draw an ought from an is, but this may just reflect my poor knowledge of physics. I hope that you might be so kind as to elaborate and clarify these points for me.

When I said "prefer" I meant it in the sense that no individual should have special rights or considerations, all things being equal. I am using the word "prefer" in a moral sense. We shouldn't have double standards.

As for the "is/ought" problem - I addressed that in an earlier post today where I explained that I think it is a confusion that is not relevant to the discussion.

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote: What is love (baby don't hurt me)? That is, as you are using it here.
All philosophy and science requires primitive concepts that cannot be defined in terms of other words else we would fall into an infinite regress or self-referential loop. I think love is the proper "primitive concept" and that morality is the logic of love. Here is how the wiki explains it:

In mathematics, logic, and formal systems, a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously defined concepts, but is only motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience. In an axiomatic theory or other formal system, the role of a primitive notion is analogous to that of axiom. In axiomatic theories, the primitive notions are sometimes said to be "defined" by one or more axioms, but this can be misleading. Formal theories cannot dispense with primitive notions, under pain of infinite regress.

Okay, so you are simply asserting it. But what is it? Where does it come from? I mean, you’ve denied that abstractions “exist,” so is love merely a concept that has sprung from the minds of mankind? Something else?

As explained, we must begin somewhere. Love is the correct primitive concept. Craig begins with the concept of "objective morality" as the primitive concept. I think that is an error because morality can be reduced to and explained in terms of love. The explanation is very satisfying and coheres completely with our moral intuitions. This contrasts with Craig's theory of Divine Command which is totally arbitrary, meaningless, and contrary to our moral intuitions which state that morality is based on the nature of the action and its effect on others and so has nothing to do with what anyone says. Indeed, Craig's argument is contrary to the concept of objective morality because he says that morality is dependent entirely upon the God's arbitrary commands. If God's commands are not arbitrary, then they are based on the objective goodness of the things he commands in which case moral values would NOT be based on God's commands. A Thomist approach is to say that values are grounded in God's nature AND they form the basis of his commands, but I see no need for such speculations since we have a perfectly good and complete theory of morality given by the two principles of Self-love and the Golden Rule.

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote: Why is love "good?" By what standard?
Would you ever ask that question of Jesus? If not, why not? If so, what do you think his answer would be?

You’ve made similar replies to other people here, and I must say this is quite a trick. We ask questions to try to better understand your perspective from an atheistic position, and instead of responding you take us to task for not displaying a better Christian understanding of these things. If I was a less charitable man I might call this a “rhetorical ploy.” Obviously I would not ask this of Jesus Christ, because I believe he is the living God. I ask this of you because you believe there is no God. While I cannot presume to know what Christ would say in reply, my best guess would be something similar to what he said to the Rich Young Ruler who addressed him as “good teacher.”

It is no trick - unless by trick you mean a call to intellectual integrity. We are discussing the most important issues in life. Neither rhetorical tricks nor accusations of such have any place in a serious discussion like this. Is it a trick for me to appeal to what you believe? If I were in your shoes I would be delighted every time anyone brought up my Lord Jesus Christ who is the paragon of all truth and virtue! Indeed, that is what I would pray for.

You accuse me of a "rhetorical trick." OK - if it was a "trick" then what was I trying to accomplish with my trick? The question was asked in all sincerity. I was appealing to your understanding that "love" is a primitive concept, even if defined by Christ.

Now you said "I ask this of you because you believe there is no God." Where did you get that idea? I reject theism of the kind taught in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) because I don't think it is true, but I do not assert that "there is no God" of any kind because such knowledge is beyond me. Besides, I am inclined towards something like the Perennial Philosophy which sees Mind or Consciousness as the Ground of Being. Perhaps there is only one "Self" that we all are part of. I am not committed to any metaphysical system because I don't have any certain knowledge about such things.

Christ may indeed have answered that "God alone is love" in analogy with "God alone is good" but that doesn't help us define "love" any more than it helps us define "good." Both concepts must exist independently of our God-concept or they won't function as predicates and the statements would be reduced to the tautological "God alone is God" with no content.

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote: Why must a true moral theory "cohere with love?"
Because moral theory is the logic of love. Could a person with no love have any authentic moral intuitions?

“Morality is the logic of love” is a seductive phrase, but I’m not sure what reason you have for positing it, and I certainly don’t see how it answers my question. In response to my question, “Why must a moral theory ‘cohere with love’,” this response is essentially equivalent to, “Because a moral theory must cohere with love.” What does it mean for a moral intuition to be “authentic?” I imagine your question here is rhetorical and you would answer that love makes a person’s moral intuitions authentic. But why? On your view, as an atheist, what logical reason do you have to believe this? What has led you to this conclusion?

When I say that morality is the logic of love, I mean that as a description of my moral theory which is based on the concept of love with that love being modulated through the logic of the Golden Rule.

1) Self-love: All rational beings desire what is best for themselves. The axiom is "self loves self."

2) The Golden Rule: This is the principle of moral symmetry, justice, fairness. We can objectively determine if something is fair. This principle is founded upon the principle of indifference. We have no objective a priori reason to prefer one over another. Any morally valid statement must be symmetric under an interchange of the agent and the person affected by the agent. This is how we teach children morality. We ask them "How would you feel if I did that to you?".

Any moral theory must "cohere with love" because love is the root of our moral intuitions. A person without love is "morally handicapped" to use Craig's phrase.

The Protector wrote: And what is this about “moral intuitions?” Weren’t you critical of Craig for citing moral intuitions? Perhaps you explained this already and I’ve just forgotten (again, simply let me know if that is the case), but what role do “moral intuitions” play in your theory of moral values?

I am critical of Craig for asserting that our moral intuitions are sufficient as a basis for the second premise of his syllogism that proves God.

The "role" that moral intuitions play in my theory is that they are what my theory is designed to explain. I assert that my theory accounts for and explains all our moral intuitions. This makes for an easy test to see if my theory is true. All you need to do is state a moral intuition that cannot be explained by my theory.

The Protector wrote: Whose moral intuitions?

Everyone's.

Thanks again for the great post. It really helps to have such probing questions stated so clearly.

All the very best,

Spock

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
I would choose to give the murderer a life sentence. Taking a life does not bring back the life of the victim, so if perchance the murderer can in someway do something with his life that could benefit humanity no matter how small, I would choose that. A life for a life benefits no one.

So you would send him to prison even though he would not have you do that unto him?
You, see, if the GR is taken subjectively, even objectively in the weak sense, one will have to import other moral values. And so then, how do we decide which one's to follow and when? It can't be the GR itself, because it just insists that we follow our desire how we would be treated.

I'm not quite sure what your getting at, but I think if I were a murderer I would rather have life in prison than execution.

jlay wrote:What's best for society? What's best for the victim's family? Those are all just personal values.

Yes, those are just personal values, just like the decision of whether to execute the murderer, or give him life in prison.

Oh the glory of God - eternal life sentence in God's eternal prison?

How about a life sentence in a Turkish Prison? Where the prison is located as not made known to you - you base things only from a modern Liberal American perspective... Can't see out of this liberal box can you?

Butterfly wrote:I'm not quite sure what your getting at, but I think if I were a murderer I would rather have life in prison than execution.

-
-
-

Hi Spock.

RickD wrote:

Spock asked:
First and foremost is your presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God.


I'm not sure if this is a question, or an assumption, because you ended the sentence with a period. I'm going to assume it's a question. No, I don't believe the bible is the Word of God. I believe Jesus Christ is the Word of God.

John 1:1-5 nasb 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Spock wrote:
Excellent. This brings some clarity. I had presumed you presumed the Bible is the Word of God.

So what is your position on the Bible? Is it a mix of truth and falsehood? Is it authoritative in any sense?

Spock, I believe the bible is the written word of God. I have seen nothing other than possible translation errors, that has shown me otherwise.

Spock wrote:
I presume the "false assumption" is that the Bible is the "Word of God." You will need to explain what you think the Bible is and how it relates to your beliefs. Is it the root source of your beliefs? If not, then what is?

Spock, The bible isn't the "root source" of my "beliefs". God, through the work of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is the "root source" of my beliefs, or my faith. Like I said before, the bible points toward our need for faith in Jesus Christ.

Could your reject the Bible as largely false without harming your beliefs?

No. God's indwelling Holy Spirit, witnesses to my spirit, that the bible is the written word of God.

Spock wrote:
I don't see how my question is anything like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?".

It's because you asked me: "Why do you put your faith in fallible men?".
Since I don't put my faith in infallible men, I can't answer your question.

As far as I can tell, your faith is based entirely on a tradition that has been handed down to you by fallible men. Are you saying you have some other source of your beliefs, such as a direct revelation from God? It would help if you explained yourself since your comments don't make any sense to me as yet.

Spock, this is what troubles me. My faith is in God. The Living God. The God who indwells me. If you were a Christian for 15 years like you claimed, you'd understand this. Was your faith really in God? Or, just in the religion of Christianity?

The "false idol" is not the Bible per se, but rather the doctrines you believe concerning the Bible. It feels like you are equivocating. Yes, of course I understand that the Holy Spirit is supposed to give witness to the believer, but most fundamentalist / evangelical believers also claim that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible so that the original manuscripts were inerrant. This is the official position of Rich Deem who owns this site. It would be very helpful if you would state your position on the Bible since it seems you presume it is authoritative, which would explain why you seem to feel such a powerful need to prove that it contains no attributions of immorality to God. This really needs to be clarified.

Spock, I have no reason to believe the bible that I read, isn't inspired by God. I haven't read the original manuscripts, so If I claim that I believe the originals are inerrant, then you'll argue that how would I know, other than believing someone said so. The bible I read, lines up with the God I believe in. Just like the nature I see, lines up with the bible I read. I see no immoralities of God in the bible. All I see is you and Butterfly making errors in your judgement of the God I know.

As for the Holy Spirit - the problem there is that there is no way to discern between your own feelings and the Holy Spirit.

Again, this troubles me. If you were really a believer like you said you were, for as long as you said, I can't see how you would even make this statement.

Folks who believe radically different things all claim to have the same Holy Spirit, so we know that humans err on this point. How is a person supposed to discern between their own feelings and the Holy Spirit? If there is no objective test, then it all reduces to subjective feelings and your reference to it means nothing. Now when I was a Christian, I strongly believed I had the Holy Spirit. But when I look back and reflect on the reasons, I see that they are all entirely subjective and can easily be explained psychologically, just like the "burning of the bosom" that Mormon's use to justify their beliefs.

It is evident to me from what you wrote here, and from the "new-age" garbage you and Butterfly have on your websites, that you don't believe there's a false holy spirit. This spirit is the one who is deceiving you now.

RickD wrote:Richard, if you were ever saved, you can't lose that salvation. If you were saved, you had the God of the bible indwelling you. That is a personal relationship with the Living God, that no other mere religion can have. It is only found in faith in Jesus Christ. Were you really saved? Or, were you just merely following Christianity, as a religion?

Spock wrote:
This is what I mean by "false interpretation." Where in the world did you get the idea that a person is "saved" by believing something about Jesus? From the Bible, of course.

Spock, before I ever read the bible, the Holy Spirit convicted me, that salvation is through belief in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, all your beliefs are defined by the Bible, unless you are saying that you have received special revelation that "just happens" to align with what was written in the Bible. I don't see how you could say that your beliefs are not founded and defined by your interpretation of the Bible.

Spock, my faith is "defined" by God who indwells me. And like I said before, the bible witnesses to Him. Just like nature witnesses to God.

As for your question if I was "really saved." Please tell me how anyone could know. Please tell me how I could possibly answer that question. Is there an objective test of any kind that would answer it? If not, why do you think that you are really saved? How do you know?

It's actually very simple: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Romans 10:9-13 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

The Protector wrote:...You’ve made similar replies to other people here, and I must say this is quite a trick. We ask questions to try to better understand your perspective from an atheistic position, and instead of responding you take us to task for not displaying a better Christian understanding of these things. If I was a less charitable man I might call this a “rhetorical ploy.” Obviously I would not ask this of Jesus Christ, because I believe he is the living God. I ask this of you because you believe there is no God. While I cannot presume to know what Christ would say in reply, my best guess would be something similar to what he said to the Rich Young Ruler who addressed him as “good teacher.”

Hi Protector,

You picked up on the tactic the left employ's straight from 'Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals: book written by community organizer Saul D. Alinsky. In it he posits these 12 rules

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Notes:
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

If you look at Rules 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11 are being employed by Spock and Butterfly.

The idea is to destroy the existing social order of any established institution at all cost and remold all into the left's vision of Utopia - ends justify the means.

These are all clear violations of human derived GR.

William Lane Craig posits that human beings have the ability to create their own morals but goes on showing how Human beings cannot live up to their own sets of subjective morals. We clearly demonstrated this principle on this thread. Butterfly and Spock are incapable of living to their own GR and thus their premise about Human derived Gold Rules is simply moot.

Below is another purpose of RfR that is likewise interesting and can clarify Spock's and Buttefly's purpose and comments a bit further:

Article by Phyllis Schalfly titled "Alinski's Rules: Must Reading In Obama Era," posted at Link and quoted from:

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

"Alinsky's second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his 'tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends' is: 'you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.' He doesn't ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that 'Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.'...

"The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were:

• ego ("reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God"),
• curiosity (raising "questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern"),
• irreverence ("nothing is sacred"; the organizer "detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality"),
• imagination ("the fuel for the force that keeps an organizer organizing"),
• a sense of humor ("the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule"), and an
• organized personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only "as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved.'...

"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"

-
-
-

Hello again Spock. Thank you for your cordial response.

Spock wrote: Protector: "you acknowledge that the GR is merely a measure of the morality of certain acts"

Your use of the word "merely" implies that the GR serves only as a test for what is moral and nothing else. That is not correct. I assert that the GR plays a central role in our understanding of what we mean by "moral." I assert that it, in conjunction with self-love, is a rational explanation of our moral intuitions. So the question is this: Does my moral theory account for all of our moral intuitions? This is why my theory is testable. All a challenger needs to do is to present a valid moral intuition that is not rationally explained by the two principles I propose and my theory will be falsified.

It will be rather difficult to find a “valid moral intuition that is not rationally explained by the two principles” you present, given that you’ve defined such a thing out of existence. For example, on page 13 of this thread, you said,

Spock wrote: Again, we understand that Vikings were immoral because they violated the Golden Rule.

If you define immoral behavior as that which violates the Golden Rule, then how are we to find a “valid moral intuition” that violates your two principles (one of which being the Golden Rule)? Your theory is unfalsifiable. Your use of the word “explanation” here is therefore confusing. Your theory is either a definitional proposition or a causal hypothesis; it is not both.

Spock wrote: Protector: "To sum, then, the GR does not establish morality, it merely is presumed to discern it—or at any rate discern the degree to which an act is moral."

I see no meaningful distinction between "establishing the existence of X" and the "ability to measure X." Is there any other topic where we would make such a distinction?

There’s an old joke among psychologists:

Q: What is “Intelligence?”

A: It’s what Intelligence tests measure.

Yes, we can all understand that something exists that we might call “cognitive faculties” or “Intelligence,” and we can see that some people exhibit more of it than others, and we therefore have reason to develop ways to measure it. Our measure only serves as a proxy, though, and is entirely dependent on what the test-maker views as an exhibition of intelligence. What the WAIS-IV measures, for example, is really the ability to manipulate blocks, define words, solve visual puzzles, etc. We only say that it measures “Intelligence” because we infer that these abilities reflect the underlying construct of “intelligence;” that is, we trust that the test-maker’s definition of “intelligence” is valid, and we consent to it. There are plenty of professionals, however, who acknowledge that the WAIS-IV and similar tests are reliable instruments, but deny that they are valid even while agreeing that there is something there to be measured (to say nothing of those who question the construct validity of “intelligence” itself). These tests (especially the Wechslers) have become the gold standard for measuring intelligence because they have been accepted by most people as such, and they are accepted as such because they correlate well with other measures such as school performance, job performance, etc. But that’s just it—they have been accepted as valid measures not because they are valid in and of themselves, but because they appear to coincide with outside standards—there appears to be good convergent validity. The basis for all of this, though, is that the construct of intelligence is “obvious,” and “we all know” it exists; we don’t know it exists because we’ve conceived of ways (ostensibly) to test for it.

I’m sure you can see where I am going with this. Again, you have defined moral behavior as that which coheres with the Golden Rule. Most people accept the Golden Rule as a good guide to behave morally, and even as a good test for the morality of behavior. It may even be true that people tend to accept it as such because they love themselves. But it does not follow necessarily that those with different moral codes, or tests of moral goodness, are inherently incorrect about the validity of their measures, even if they are in the minority; that they fail your moral test does not mean that they fail to be valid tests of morality themselves, unless your moral test coincides with a relevant outside standard--and your test is not absolutely superior unless the standard to which it appeals is absolute. Ultimately, the basis for these “codes” or “rules” or “tests” is the underlying construct of “morality,” which “we all know” of as “obvious” and “self-evident.” We come up with these codes or tests because we discern that there is something there to be tested or codified; if it is the other way around--if morality is discerned only because we have codified it, then there is no reason (other than consequentialist) to favor one over the other.

Spock wrote: My complaint was never that Craig says "people can discern them too readily" but rather his appeal to that intuition as the only support for his second premise. It's is fine to appeal to something as "obvious" as a motivation for further investigation, but it is logically fallacious to base his argument on such an unsupported appeal.

There are a couple of things to address here.

First, Craig’s appeal is in reference to the “moral sense” exhibited almost universally by mankind (which you yourself have noted). You criticize him for not going further as you have, but his point is not establishing that a common moral code exists among all men everywhere, only that pretty much everyone has sense that certain things are right and certain things are wrong; that there exists a moral good. People may differ on what that good is, but they tend to have in common this belief in a moral good. While I’ve not read much of Craig, I’ve read enough to know that he brings up the point made by William Sorley, that we have no more reason to doubt this “moral sense” than we do to doubt our other senses—that our perception may be imperfect and vary from person to person, but almost universally we acknowledge that there is something to be perceived.

Second, while you are certainly free to challenge this argument (and I personally find it among the least convincing of the arguments Craig defends), that really isn’t what you’ve been doing here. The premise you are criticizing here is “Objective moral values and duties do exist” (objective as Craig defines it), but with all this stuff on your theory and the golden rule, you have really not challenged this premise! Indeed, you have been working to strengthen it! The premise you challenge is the first one: “If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.”

Spock wrote: That's a central reason why some folks reject the "objective" existence of moral values. How do they differ from aesthetic values which probably are not objective? Or are aesthetic value objective? The fact that we have no certain answers to such questions exposes yet again the futility of trying to prove God from such ambiguous philosophical speculations.

Well, at least it seems we’re on the same page here with regard to what we mean by “objective.” But here you give up the game on this whole thread: Have you not all but said that we CANNOT determine whether or not some moral values are objectively true? Here you finally DO deny Craig’s second premise, but where does that leave your project with the golden rule? If its moral value is not objectively true (in the sense we are using it here)—if it is basically just a thermometer that reads “hot” and “cold,” then what is the point?

Spock wrote: No, I do not believe in moral "duties" because the concept of duty implies a legislative agent. I have no moral intuitions based on such a concept. Something is morally right or wrong because of what it is, not because someone said so. This is how Craig not-so-secretly imports his conclusion into his second premise and so begs the question.

So we are not impelled to, say, help the sick or the poor on your morality? I think we may be talking past each other here.

Spock wrote:
When I said "prefer" I meant it in the sense that no individual should have special rights or considerations, all things being equal. I am using the word "prefer" in a moral sense. We shouldn't have double standards.

Thank you for clarifying. Note that this use of the word “prefer” is much different from the use that is synonymous with “expect.” We expect or anticipate seeing one side of a die no more often than any other; conversely, we may have all sorts of reasons to prefer one side over the others, like if we are playing craps or something. By the same token, people have always had reason to prefer one individual person over another; indeed, based in self-love, most people prefer themselves to others, most people prefer their friends and family to strangers, etc.

You say that, “no individual should have special rights or considerations, all things being equal.” Okay, but this is a moral proposition. Unless one has reason to think that all individuals are equal there is no reason to treat them as such, and the claim that there is something inherently valuable in being a human being (and therefore we all hold equal value in this regard) is a metaphysical one; you are smuggling in outside morality to justify your “objective moral standard.” You can’t learn that all people are equal from dice any more than you learn that all cars are equal from dice; yes, all cars are equal inasmuch as they are all cars, but the decision to judge cars in on this basis is external. To this you say:

Spock wrote: As for the "is/ought" problem - I addressed that in an earlier post today where I explained that I think it is a confusion that is not relevant to the discussion.

Wikipedia wrote: Ethical naturalists contend that moral truths exist, and that their truth value relates to facts about physical reality. Many modern naturalistic philosophers see no impenetrable barrier in deriving "ought" from "is", believing it can be done whenever we analyze goal-directed behavior. They suggest that a statement of the form "In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C" exhibits no category error and may be factually verified or refuted. "Ought"s exist, then, in light of the existence of goals.

Yes indeed, but what are the goals? Why are those the goals? Who says? You’ve already said there are no moral duties, haven’t you? Unless you are suggesting some sort of Aristotelian teleology here (I hope I’m using that term right), I’m not sure how this helps your argument.

Spock wrote: A Thomist approach is to say that values are grounded in God's nature AND they form the basis of his commands, but I see no need for such speculations since we have a perfectly good and complete theory of morality given by the two principles of Self-love and the Golden Rule.

This is actually precisely the position Craig holds, and I’ve heard him say it several times. Are you sure you’ve read him enough to understand his argument? Also, for the record, I have heard him address some non-materialist atheist accounts for objective morality, such as a sort of moral Platonism, though I don’t remember where it was so I’m afraid I can’t refer you to it.

Spock wrote: It is no trick - unless by trick you mean a call to intellectual integrity. We are discussing the most important issues in life. Neither rhetorical tricks nor accusations of such have any place in a serious discussion like this. Is it a trick for me to appeal to what you believe? If I were in your shoes I would be delighted every time anyone brought up my Lord Jesus Christ who is the paragon of all truth and virtue! Indeed, that is what I would pray for.
You accuse me of a "rhetorical trick." OK - if it was a "trick" then what was I trying to accomplish with my trick? The question was asked in all sincerity. I was appealing to your understanding that "love" is a primitive concept, even if defined by Christ.

BAH! You’re doing it again! This was not a “call to intellectual integrity.” If you were a Christian for 15 years (and I don’t doubt that you were), then you already knew the answer to the question. And then you try to take me to task again for not being a better Christian witness! Even if not a trick, then it’s certainly disingenuous. You are on a Christian forum, we are discussing God, you were a Christian for 15 years and you know the Bible front to back but ultimately rejected Christ—what more is to be said? You act as if we’ve just met for coffee and this is the first time anyone has mentioned God.

While I don’t ascribe to you the nefarious motives suggested by B.W., I saw this as an attempt to dodge the question--which (whether it was really on purpose or not, I really don’t know) you ultimately did:

Spock wrote: Christ may indeed have answered that "God alone is love" in analogy with "God alone is good" but that doesn't help us define "love" any more than it helps us define "good." Both concepts must exist independently of our God-concept or they won't function as predicates and the statements would be reduced to the tautological "God alone is God" with no content.

Leaving aside the rest for now, the question being replied to here was not “What is love?” The question was “why is love good--by what standard?” This sort of gets to the heart of the matter, does it not?

Spock wrote: Now you said "I ask this of you because you believe there is no God." Where did you get that idea? I reject theism of the kind taught in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) because I don't think it is true, but I do not assert that "there is no God" of any kind because such knowledge is beyond me. Besides, I am inclined towards something like the Perennial Philosophy which sees Mind or Consciousness as the Ground of Being. Perhaps there is only one "Self" that we all are part of. I am not committed to any metaphysical system because I don't have any certain knowledge about such things.

Now this is interesting indeed. Do you think you could elaborate more here? Perhaps if you could say more about what it is you DO believe, it would give us a better understanding for why you reject Craig’s first premise as assuming a false dichotomy between theism and materialism. Do you concede, at the very least, that materialism implies moral nihilism?

Spock wrote:

The Protector wrote: Whose moral intuitions?

Everyone's.

If everyone in the entire world held moral intuitions that did not cohere with your theory—that did not cohere with the golden rule—would your theory not test for or explain objective morality?

Now, going back to the two principles of your theory:

Spock wrote: 1) Self-love: All rational beings desire what is best for themselves. The axiom is "self loves self."

2) The Golden Rule: This is the principle of moral symmetry, justice, fairness. We can objectively determine if something is fair. This principle is founded upon the principle of indifference. We have no objective a priori reason to prefer one over another. Any morally valid statement must be symmetric under an interchange of the agent and the person affected by the agent. This is how we teach children morality. We ask them "How would you feel if I did that to you?".

How do we objectively determine if something is fair? Shall we have a discussion on the truth value of “objective fairness?” What does it mean to be “fair,” and how does this differ from “moral?”

As always,
Respectfully yours

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote: Your use of the word "merely" implies that the GR serves only as a test for what is moral and nothing else. That is not correct. I assert that the GR plays a central role in our understanding of what we mean by "moral." I assert that it, in conjunction with self-love, is a rational explanation of our moral intuitions. So the question is this: Does my moral theory account for all of our moral intuitions? This is why my theory is testable. All a challenger needs to do is to present a valid moral intuition that is not rationally explained by the two principles I propose and my theory will be falsified.

It will be rather difficult to find a “valid moral intuition that is not rationally explained by the two principles” you present, given that you’ve defined such a thing out of existence. For example, on page 13 of this thread, you said,

Spock wrote: Again, we understand that Vikings were immoral because they violated the Golden Rule.

If you define immoral behavior as that which violates the Golden Rule, then how are we to find a “valid moral intuition” that violates your two principles (one of which being the Golden Rule)? Your theory is unfalsifiable. Your use of the word “explanation” here is therefore confusing. Your theory is either a definitional proposition or a causal hypothesis; it is not both.

Hey there Protector,

It looks like you misunderstood how to test my theory. Or are you saying that you have a valid moral intuition that the Vikings were not immoral when they raped and pillaged? Of course not.

The purpose of my theory is to explain our moral intuitions in terms of two axioms and two ontological entities - Self and Love - that are taken as primitive concepts:

1) Self love: Self loves Self because Self is one.
2) Reflective love: Self views Other reflectively as Self. This is the Golden Rule: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This is the principle of moral symmetry, justice, fairness. It is founded in objective symmetry as are the greatest theories of physics. There is no objective reason to prefer one over another. It is the same principle we use in the foundation of probability theory which predicts and explains objective statistics.

This is an exceedingly parsimonious axiomatic theory with great explanatory power built upon the same principles that have unlocked the objective laws of physics. And though my formulation in terms of symmetry may be novel, the axioms themselves have been known for a long time. Here is how psychologist Erich Fromm explained it in his book The Art of Loving which has been rightly hailed as one of the most important books of the 20th century:

The Art of Loving wrote: These questions arise: Does psychological observation support the thesis that there is a basic contradiction and a state of alternation between love for oneself and love for others? Is love for oneself the same phenomenon as selfishness, or are they opposites? Furthermore, is the selfishness of modern man really a concern for himself as an individual. with all his intellectual, emotional, and sensual potentialities? Has “he” not become an appendage of his socioeconomic role? Is his selfishness identical with self-love or is it not caused by the very lack of it?

Before we start the discussion of the psychological aspect of selfishness and self-love, the logical fallacy in the notion that love for others and love for oneself are mutually exclusive should be stressed. If it is a virtue to love my neighbor as a human being, it must be a virtue---and not a vice---to love myself since I am a human being too. There is no concept of man in which I myself am not included. A doctrine which proclaims such an exclusion proves itself to be intrinsically contradictory. The idea expressed in the Biblical “Love thy neighbor as thyself!” implies that respect for one’s own integrity and uniqueness, love for and under*standing of one’s own self, can not be separated from respect for and love and understanding of another individual. The love for my own self is inseparably connected with the love for any other self.

We have come now to the basic psychological premises on which the conclusions of our argument are built. Generally, these premises are as follows: not only others, but we ourselves are the “object” of our feelings and attitudes; the attitudes toward others and toward ourselves, far from being contradictory, are basically conjunctive. With regard to the problem under discussion this means: Love of others and love of ourselves are not alternatives. On the contrary, an attitude of love toward themselves will be found in all those who are capable of loving others. Love, in principle, is indivisible as far as the connection between “objects” and one’s own self is concerned. Genuine love is an expression of productiveness and implies care, respect, responsibility, and knowledge. It is not an “affect” in the sense of being affected by somebody, but an active striving for the growth and happiness of the loved person, rooted in one’s own capacity to love.

From this it follows that my own self, in principle, must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one’s own life, happiness, growth, freedom, is rooted in one’s capacity to love, i.e., in care, respect, responsibility, and knowledge. If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself too; if he can love only others, he can not love at all.

I found this quote just yesterday as I was researching for my thesis. Needless to say, I was quite pleased to find such intuitions are neither unique to me nor new. Fromm wrote his book 56 years ago in 1956.

It is true that my theory "defines immoral behavior as that which violates the Golden Rule." That's the whole point. I designed the theory to explain why we have the moral intuitions we do and why they are objectively true. It is my assertion that all our moral intuitions can be explained by the two principles. This is easy to falsify - all you have to do is find a valid moral intuition that cannot be explained by, or that contradicts my theory. As I have reflected on this, I have found a common feature of the counter-examples I might expect from Christians. The putative "moral intuitions" that contradict my theory are not native intuitions but rather learned social and religious customs. For example, consider polygamy. It is moral by my theory. But cultures differ. There is no indication that folks in the OT thought it was immoral, whereas many Christians probably think it is. And conflicting views are found in many cultures. So which is it? There is no moral consensus because there is no fundamental moral intuition that speaks of it at all. It's just social customs. Now if I am wrong, you can give objective reasons to prove that polygamy is immoral. That would falsify my theory.

It is important for this point of clarification to stand out, so I will answer the rest of your comments in another post.

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote: No, I do not believe in moral "duties" because the concept of duty implies a legislative agent. I have no moral intuitions based on such a concept. Something is morally right or wrong because of what it is, not because someone said so. This is how Craig not-so-secretly imports his conclusion into his second premise and so begs the question.

So we are not impelled to, say, help the sick or the poor on your morality? I think we may be talking past each other here.

We are impelled by love, not an external command given by a legislative authority.

I don't understand how you could ask that question given that you know my theory is based on the Golden Rule.

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote: As for the "is/ought" problem - I addressed that in an earlier post today where I explained that I think it is a confusion that is not relevant to the discussion.

Wikipedia wrote: Ethical naturalists contend that moral truths exist, and that their truth value relates to facts about physical reality. Many modern naturalistic philosophers see no impenetrable barrier in deriving "ought" from "is", believing it can be done whenever we analyze goal-directed behavior. They suggest that a statement of the form "In order for agent A to achieve goal B, A reasonably ought to do C" exhibits no category error and may be factually verified or refuted. "Ought"s exist, then, in light of the existence of goals.

Yes indeed, but what are the goals? Why are those the goals? Who says?

Morality is the logic of love. Love is the beginning and the end of my theory. That is its goal.

Who says? I say. Don't you?

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote: Christ may indeed have answered that "God alone is love" in analogy with "God alone is good" but that doesn't help us define "love" any more than it helps us define "good." Both concepts must exist independently of our God-concept or they won't function as predicates and the statements would be reduced to the tautological "God alone is God" with no content.

Leaving aside the rest for now, the question being replied to here was not “What is love?” The question was “why is love good--by what standard?” This sort of gets to the heart of the matter, does it not?

Yes indeed - this is the very heart and soul of the theory I propose! Please read my theory again. It is based on love as an ontologically primitive concept. We cannot explain it in terms of anything else. All humans have an ability to love. To see this, answer this question: What do we call someone who has absolutely no ability to love or care about others? INHUMAN! Love defines a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. We have to start somewhere. I think this is the most intuitive foundation and its value is confirmed by the fruit it bears.

Hi Spock, may I ask where one can read your whole theory? Would like to read it.

Some people want to know what love is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loWXMtjUZWM
Others ask what is love:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVmbhYKDKfU

PaulSacramento wrote:Some people want to know what love is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loWXMtjUZWM
Others ask what is love:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVmbhYKDKfU

What love is vs. what is love? It's the same question, or no?

Spock wrote:Thanks for the encouraging words Proinsias. It would be very helpful if you could articulate your reservations concerning the moral theory I am proposing. I am guessing it is because you are not sure if moral statements can be objective. Do you believe any statements can be objectively true?

I do think objective truth, especially in the case of morality, is a thorny issue, as this thread is demonstrating nicely.

The logic of love is also a rather odd concept, a little like formulating a theory of humour, if the theory helps you to be funny or loving go for it, if it doesn't ditch it.

There seems to be general agreement that love is central to all of the views expressed here, some feel the need to ground love in the concept of God & you're happy to stall at love - each to his own.

Next, we look at moral phenomenology and ask ourselves "What is the actual process I go through to determine if something is moral or not?" The answer is obvious. Every child knows it. We know something is right or wrong if we ask ourselves "Would I like that done to me?". So we have motivation for assuming a symmetry must be at the heart of our moral intuitions, and we have a big clue that the Golden Rule is somehow fundamental to them, and we know that we apply the Golden Rule to access our moral intuitions. The rest is gravy.

It is not immediately obvious to me
It's all sounding a little like gravy.
Perhaps you are correct and it is at the root of every moral decision I make, but I don't see it. It could equally be grounded in selfishness and I believe that has much heavier bearing than the Golden Rule on moral decisions. How will I feel if I do xyz? how will it impact my quality of life? could this lead to situations I'd rather avoid?
Is the child in learning moral behaviour employing the golden rule? I think in general they are looking to avoid the sort of situation where a parent or educator may sit them down and ask them questions like 'how would you feel if that was you', to which the only reply which isn't likely to prolong the situation is "I wouldn't like it" or something along those lines. My wife is a teacher, generally teaches kids about 5-7 and specialises in behaviour difficulties, I asked about her use of the golden rule, she often asks the children how would they feel if that was them, when I asked if she thought the kids genuinely take the time to put themselves in another's shoes before coming to the realization that they would in fact not like it, she laughed. The stubborn ones may argue but eventually most learn that saying "I wouldn't like it" is the quickest exit from an uncomfortable situation. I talked to my 8 year old daughter, her insight was that it's mainly boys that get asked the question by the teacher and the answer they provide is the one which will "make the teacher shut up".

Something like 1+1=2 seems on the face of it far more objective. I can imagine two apples or two cups of tea or two people rather easily whilst allowing for differences between the two apples. I can envisage one person in a room and another entering with a result of two people being in the room. Imagining how another may perceive or be affected by my actions in a given situation is more problematic. I don't think we learn so much from imagining what another would feel and more from practical experience. If I don't enjoy being around an upset wife I will review the situation, see if I can find the root of the upset, attempt to rectify the situation and prevent it from recurring - is this due to me placing myself in my wife's shoes and imagining how I'd feel or is it me doing whatever I can to maintain the happy marriage I desire.

It also seems to be pretty useless in solving both day to day moral dilemma's, should I offer to help that person cross the road? to the issues that routinely crop up here on: abortion, homosexuality or the validity of violence as a means to resolving a situation. The issues that the golden rule deals with plainly and succinctly "Would person B like to be beaten to death" are on the level that it appears to me most lifeforms must be using the golden rule as the basis for their behaviour when dealing with those they relate to in a genetic manner. In comparison 1+1=2 can be pretty solidly relied upon as a basis for solving numerical problems one may encounter throughout the day.

The idea of Person A & Person B also skewers away from objectivity imo. It's grounded more in Confucian humanist ethics and human centric religion. The phrase which is often heard from Buddhist teachers along the lines of "Wash every dish as if it were a baby Buddha" seems to me a more objective approach to morality. It applies to wiring a plug as it does to cutting a person in half. It doesn't give us a clear cut sense of what to do or what not to do but morality is not a case of 1+1=2. Am I nice to my cats and take good care of my knives as I can imagine what it's like to be a knife or a cat, I don't think so.

I'm always mystified by these conversations. Everyone seems to agree that love is good and that "brutal pedophiliac rape & murder" is bad. This is never enough for many people though. To an extent it's like arguing why most people think The Beatles were good or why Bach was great.

It also worries me that people in a few thousand, or even hundred, years people may be writing off the holocaust in a similar fashion as we see acts of violence and aggression treated in the bible. I can't imagine the sort of talk regarding the proposed genocide of the Canaanites being even remotely tolerated in most corners of the net. The idea that it was because they were evil, it was due to their sins or the claim that they didn't kill all the Jews seem beyond ridiculous.

Short version. Selfishness, yay. Golden rule, boo.

Proinsias wrote:Is the child in learning moral behaviour employing the golden rule? I think in general they are looking to avoid the sort of situation where a parent or educator may sit them down and ask them questions like 'how would you feel if that was you', to which the only reply which isn't likely to prolong the situation is "I wouldn't like it" or something along those lines. My wife is a teacher, generally teaches kids about 5-7 and specialises in behaviour difficulties, I asked about her use of the golden rule, she often asks the children how would they feel if that was them, when I asked if she thought the kids genuinely take the time to put themselves in another's shoes before coming to the realization that they would in fact not like it, she laughed. The stubborn ones may argue but eventually most learn that saying "I wouldn't like it" is the quickest exit from an uncomfortable situation. I talked to my 8 year old daughter, her insight was that it's mainly boys that get asked the question by the teacher and the answer they provide is the one which will "make the teacher shut up".

I have read most of the debate here about moral objectivity, but nobody mentions anything about punishment or maybe I missed it.
Without punishment people wouldn't respect that many moral values.

I don't know if moral objectivity is still in place when you educate people through punishment.


P.S.: I apologize for my short comment.

I think it's a big part of it. Babies & small children certainly seem to respond to punishment far more readily than to imagining they are someone else, readily observed in animals too. That's part of my issue, by the time they get to the point they can take on the golden rule and attempt to apply it they are already more than familiar with the idea of being in trouble and it making their lives unpleasant. Once it gets to the point they are aware of the golden rule the only time it applies is once the atmosphere of "you're in trouble", which they are already familiar with, is established. A gross generalisation from personal experience of course.

1over137 wrote:Hi Spock, may I ask where one can read your whole theory? Would like to read it.

Hey there 10ver137,

You can read my theory here: The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality

Richard

Proinsias wrote:I think it's a big part of it. Babies & small children certainly seem to respond to punishment far more readily than to imagining they are someone else, readily observed in animals too. That's part of my issue, by the time they get to the point they can take on the golden rule and attempt to apply it they are already more than familiar with the idea of being in trouble and it making their lives unpleasant. Once it gets to the point they are aware of the golden rule the only time it applies is once the atmosphere of "you're in trouble", which they are already familiar with, is established. A gross generalisation from personal experience of course.

Hi Pro, how do you think altruism fits into all this, why do we feel compelled to help people we don't know for no personal gain?

Dan