Logic won't allow it... Moral law must exist, if we appeal to a standard of "better" for humanity.

[Just_me_Mike]

Anyone up to the challenge?

 

[Revoltingest]

What challenge? If you want to prove moral law must exist, then please proceed.
Then I'll see what I think of your reasoning.

 

[Meow Mix]

Anyone up to the challenge?

Moral law may only exist in hypothetical and categorical imperatives, possibly.

 

[Meow Mix]

What challenge? If you want to prove moral law must exist, then please proceed.
Then I'll see what I think of your reasoning.

I think he's correctly arguing that anyone who says X is better for humanity (which I'm assuming is equivalent to "We ought to do X") is implicitely assuming the existence of moral law.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I think he's correctly arguing that anyone who says X is better for humanity (which I'm assuming is equivalent to "We ought to do X") is implicitely assuming the existence of moral law.

Wow, just wow. The key word that I used in detail on another thread today was "ought" and no one got that.
Maybe only certain brains get it
You just made my day, but I still think a break is in order for me ... You rock as usual...

 

[Revoltingest]

I think he's correctly arguing that anyone who says X is better for humanity (which I'm assuming is equivalent to "We ought to do X") is implicitely assuming the existence of moral law.

Ah...then I'd make such an argument based upon morals shared by whomever
I'm presenting the argument to. Otherwise, I wouldn't be very convincing.

 

[tigrers99]

Humanity recognizes 3/4 (if not more) the same morality- what is morally good and what is morally bad. The militant Atheist argued for years that morality was (is) man-made and is used for social cohesiveness. Over the last few years though, secularists have been trying to prove that morality is a result of natural Evolution. That the lower primates (gorillas, chimps, etc.) exhibit morality themselves. Thus 'proving' that universal morality is not transcendent as the Theists and Apologists have been affirming. The secularists have named this new study Social Biology . I would think that it would be very difficult to defend Social Biology in debate because it violates some key tenets of the Theory of Evolution. It would also be easier for the Theist and Apologist to make the case that God gave these lower primates a portion of His morality.

 

[LuisDantas]

There isn't much of a relationship between the existence of a hypothetical moral law and the possibility of improving humanity's future.

I happen to believe that a moral law does indeed exist, or at least can be constructed fairly easily, but that is only relevant to the description and teaching of moral values, not to their very existence and development proper.

"Wild" development of moral values, regardless of whatever one understands as being moral law, can and does work to some extent.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I think he's correctly arguing that anyone who says X is better for humanity (which I'm assuming is equivalent to "We ought to do X") is implicitely assuming the existence of moral law.

Unless they're merely stating their opinion about what is best for humanity. In other words, "we ought to do X because I think the result of X is good".

 

[PolyHedral]

I would think that it would be very difficult to defend Social Biology in debate because it violates some key tenets of the Theory of Evolution.

How? I'd have thought it works perfectly alongside evolution if you know that memes evolve just as much as individuals.

 

[Meow Mix]

Unless they're merely stating their opinion about what is best for humanity. In other words, "we ought to do X because I think the result of X is good".

Yep, which is a hypothetical imperative. That's one possibility.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Unless they're merely stating their opinion about what is best for humanity. In other words, "we ought to do X because I think the result of X is good".

However there really isn't opinion in the matter. If we were discussing opinion than nothing means anything.
The evidence is moral value does appear to get better as we observe history. I realize this is hard for some to understand (not implying you at all) but it is important to understand why I am saying this.

Some people point to the witch hunts and similar events and say were their moral values good? Others might say about them hunting the would be witches, it was moral to them, which means morals are subjective. Thus, when we stopped burning people, it is easy to point and say our morals changed, but they really didn't.
What changed was we no longer believed there were witches. Because if we did, we might still be doing the same thing today.

It is for reasons like this I say the argument can be made that morals don't change, in fact can't change.

 

[CarlinKnew]

The evidence is moral value does appear to get better as we observe history.

Better according to what standard? Yours? Your culture's? The standard that's most popular today? If we could go back in time and bring our ancestors to the present, perhaps they would say that moral value appears to get worse as we observe history. Why would your judgment be more accurate than theirs?

Some people point to the witch hunts and similar events and say were their moral values good? Others might say about them hunting the would be witches, it was moral to them, which means morals are subjective. Thus, when we stopped burning people, it is easy to point and say our morals changed, but they really didn't.
What changed was we no longer believed there were witches. Because if we did, we might still be doing the same thing today.

Maybe we'd try to deal with witches diplomatically if we believed they existed today. Who knows.

It is for reasons like this I say the argument can be made that morals don't change, in fact can't change.

What reasons? That perhaps we'd be burning witches today if we believed they existed? That's a long shot from supporting the argument that morals don't change.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Better according to what standard? Yours? Your culture's?

Neither of the above, I am saying it is Law, and there is good reason to say so. It is a law unique to human beings.

The standard that's most popular today? If we could go back in time and bring our ancestors to the present, perhaps they would say that moral value appears to get worse as we observe history. Why would your judgment be more accurate than theirs?

A big misconception is thinking that as we look farther back through time, cultures are so much different in terms of morals. It is simply a lie to say such things, and anyone who spends anytime researching the morals of older cultures will find some difference, but not polar opposites as some might ignorantly suggest.

Are you interested in hearing the argument for this?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Neither of the above, I am saying it is Law, and there is good reason to say so. It is a law unique to human beings.

Well you said moral values improved throughout history. What standard are you basing that on? What "Law" do you claim to have an understanding of?

A big misconception is thinking that as we look farther back through time, cultures are so much different in terms of morals. It is simply a lie to say such things, and anyone who spends anytime researching the morals of older cultures will find some difference, but not polar opposites as some might ignorantly suggest.

Are you interested in hearing the argument for this?

Sure. Maybe you can start with slavery.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Well you said moral values improved throughout history. What standard are you basing that on? What "Law" do you claim to have an understanding of?

If you look carefully I said it "appears" that morals improve. I didn't say they do. There is a difference.

Sure. Maybe you can start with slavery.

Sure we can start here. I can't help but comment though, in effort to save us both time. There is a huge difference in advancing our knowledge and calling it moral advance.

Example we would not call a man morally advanced for removing his mousetraps from his house, if in deed he believed there to be no mice present.

I just don't want to get twisted with what we are talking about here.

Slavery in many forms, well legalized slavery was entirely a matter of education. Moral principles have remained the same, as our knowledge of facts changed. Does that make sense?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Bump to Carlin? You finished?

 

[thedope]

There can never be a universal morality in form but in content, it can be distinguished as a desire for integrity, displaying a range of intensity from the instinct for self preservation at one extreme to gratitude at the other. For humans, this is based on one's model of integrity.

 

[CarlinKnew]

If you look carefully I said it "appears" that morals improve. I didn't say they do. There is a difference.

Right, you said moral values appear to have improved throughout history. What standard are you basing that on?

Slavery in many forms, well legalized slavery was entirely a matter of education. Moral principles have remained the same, as our knowledge of facts changed. Does that make sense?

No, because it wasn't entirely a matter of education. Slavery mostly ended because of war and political movement. Some people still believe that slavery is moral and that certain races deserve less respect than others.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Right, you said moral values appear to have improved throughout history. What standard are you basing that on?

Because we observe and say they get better. We can only do that if there is something between good and bad morals. Otherwise their is no standard, which would be fine if that is what we observe, but it doesn't fit what we see.

No, because it wasn't entirely a matter of education. Slavery mostly ended because of war and political movement. Some people still believe that slavery is moral and that certain races deserve less respect than others.

Your not thinking your replies through to their conclusions. If someone still believed slavery is moral, it has NOTHING to do with morals, or moral law, it has to do with education. Are you not able to follow that rabbit trail?