Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

[ArtieE]

How did humans survive before the change in allele frequency that achieved that survival instinct?

LOL. Nearly every organism has an instinct for self-preservation. We had it as we evolved.

And why don't lions and tigers and bears, who possess at least as much survival instinct as humans do, abide by the "objective moral" rules?

Now your questions are getting so silly they aren't worth taking seriously.

 

[shunyadragon]

Cite the evidence for this "genetic selection for survival".

Why is it that humans are the only animals that have this alleged special kind of genetic survival instinct that provides us with objective moral standards, . . .

There is no objective evidence 'objective moral standards' in humans in any science including the science of evolution.

and are the only animals who commit suicide?

Humans are not the only animals that commit suicide.

It is common among higher mammals to give their lives in protection of the herd or the young.

There are many documented suicides in higher mammals

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/0...been-helping-us-understand-human-suicide.html

For Centuries, Animals Have Been Helping Us Understand Human Suicide
By Melissa DahlShare

In 1845, a Newfoundland dog in Yorkshire, England, drowned itself in a river. As the local newspaper reported at the time, each time the dog was “dragged out, it was no sooner released than it again rushed in, and at last determinedly held its head under water until life was extinct.”

For centuries, stories like these, suggesting that an animal had shown signs of suicidal behavior, have popped up on occasion; the latest was just last week, when

A killer whale at a Spanish marine park “beached” herself on the concrete adjacent to his pool. (The whale, named Morgan, was wild until 2010, when he was captured, and this is not his first time exhibiting self-destructive behavior; last month, he reportedly slammed himself again and again against a metal gate.)"

Name an animal that doesn't have the alleged genetic survival instinct.

All known life forms have the purpose to reproduce and survive in one way or another.

 

[shunyadragon]

Cite the evidence for this "genetic selection for survival".

You simply need to get an education in science on evolution. There hundreds of academic books and tens of thousands of scientific journal articles on evolution and the genetics of the genetic selection for the survival of life published in the last ten years. 98%+ scientists the the biology, geology and chemistry related to the science of life support evolution. When all scientists polled including those outside the sciences related to evolution it was 95%.

 

[Willamena]

You said, "That it's not inherently wrong does not mean that it isn't judged "wrong." But why would someone "judge" rape of a 3-year-old child to be immoral if it isn't immoral?

That's the conundrum moral relativists get themselves into. "Rape is not really, objectively immoral. But I believe it is immoral."

What I said, or meant to, was that the wording that speaks to that something (a behavior or belief) is to be judged to be wrong is a seperate case from the wording that speaks to that thing being inherently wrong. The latter adressess the thing by its nature.

 

[ArtieE]

There is no objective evidence 'objective moral standards' in humans in any science including the science of evolution.

"It may be that moral values have evolved for their survival value, being instilled by evolution, and are thus objective, not being derived from human opinion or knowledge. In this case they would not be universal because they presumably wouldn’t have existed before they evolved, and they may change, perhaps drastically, in the future. On such a view the laws are not universally applicable, but they meet the criteria for objectivity."
Objective vs. Universal Moral Values and Duties

From an objective point of view there are objectively right and wrong ways for organisms with an evolved survival/self-preservation instinct to behave. The objectively right way to behave is to behave in such a way that it increases chances of survival and the objectively wrong way is to behave in such a way that it decreases chances of survival. Since we are social animals living in communities and living in communities increases our chances of survival the objectively right way for us to behave is to behave in such a way that we keep our communities healthy and well functioning. The objectively right way for us to behave is to help each other survive because that increases our chances of survival. We call behaving the right way behaving morally and behaving the wrong way behaving immorally.

 

[Logikal]

"It may be that moral values have evolved for their survival value, being instilled by evolution, and are thus objective, not being derived from human opinion or knowledge. In this case they would not be universal because they presumably wouldn’t have existed before they evolved, and they may change, perhaps drastically, in the future. On such a view the laws are not universally applicable, but they meet the criteria for objectivity."
Objective vs. Universal Moral Values and Duties

From an objective point of view there are objectively right and wrong ways for organisms with an evolved survival/self-preservation instinct to behave. The objectively right way to behave is to behave in such a way that it increases chances of survival and the objectively wrong way is to behave in such a way that it decreases chances of survival. Since we are social animals living in communities and living in communities increases our chances of survival the objectively right way for us to behave is to behave in such a way that we keep our communities healthy and well functioning. The objectively right way for us to behave is to help each other survive because that increases our chances of survival. We call behaving the right way behaving morally and behaving the wrong way behaving immorally.

You REALLY nedd to address why you advocate human beings to act as BEASTS of the field. What you describe is what is already performed by lions, tigers, bears, birds, bacteria, etc

 

[Logikal]

I'm well aware of the studie of Normative Ethics and it does nothing to change my view. In fact, it strengthens it.

Let's test it...

Pick something which you find to be immoral (or that many people agree is an immoral behavior) and then explain to me why it is immoral.

Well I can give this test a go around. Let us start with the OBJECTIVE FACT that every proposition can be denied. So I hope you are not going to perform that route JUST BECAUSE you can and it is legal. I am expecting you to be better than that.

So here we go. Lets us take a look a Hitler and the Nazi regime. Most humans already chime in emotionally here but still IS TORTUIRING and MURDERING sets of HUMAN BEINGS morally WRONG?

Let's state some facts. The human beings in this scenario were usually adult human beings. These adult human beings already had lives before their capture. These human beings were taken against their free will. These human being were forced to endure physical pain and other physical hardships involuntarily and could have survived without undergoing such treatment.

Let me say these combined facts lead a rational person to say the acts inflicted on the Jews were morally wrong and regardless of race, color or religion the same acts would be UNIVERSALLY wrong no matter which human beings I chose.
Let's start here.

 

[ArtieE]

So here we go. Lets us take a look a Hitler and the Nazi regime. Most humans already chime in emotionally here but still IS TORTUIRING and MURDERING sets of HUMAN BEINGS morally WRONG?

Let's state some facts. The human beings in this scenario were usually adult human beings. These adult human beings already had lives before their capture. These human beings were taken against their free will. These human being were forced to endure physical pain and other physical hardships involuntarily and could have survived without undergoing such treatment.

Let me say these combined facts lead a rational person to say the acts inflicted on the Jews were morally wrong and regardless of race, color or religion the same acts would be UNIVERSALLY wrong no matter which human beings I chose.
Let's start here.

You're a baptist. Your holy book has a god that in Samuel 15:3 commands: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' You have a god that drowns practically everybody on the planet. UNIVERSALLY wrong you say?

 

[Logikal]

You're a baptist. Your holy book has a god that in Samuel 15:3 commands: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' You have a god that drowns practically everybody on the planet. UNIVERSALLY wrong you say?

I am baptist. The problem with your quote is that this was not ORDERED unnecessarily by GOD. This order given by GOD had a REASON which is UNLIKE why HITLER tortured and murdered Jews.
JUst because human beings are the victim that does not always imply murder or automatically imply something is morally wrong.

God punished the other races of people in the Old Testament because of their disobedience. He did not order killings for no reason. In the specific context in the Old Testament is that JEWS were seen as a RACE and not a religion. We know this because in the NEW TESTAMENT all human beings who believe in GOD are Technically HIS PEOPLE not only JEWS. The name switch from JEWS to CHRISTIAN should be noticeable.

There are some Jews who are so puffed up that they think they are STILL the chosen ones and are the only ones Who belong to God. The objective fact is that anyone who believes Jesus is God reincarnated in human form is also referred to as GODS PEOPLE!

 

[Willamena]

Well I can give this test a go around. Let us start with the OBJECTIVE FACT that every proposition can be denied. So I hope you are not going to perform that route JUST BECAUSE you can and it is legal. I am expecting you to be better than that.

So here we go. Lets us take a look a Hitler and the Nazi regime. Most humans already chime in emotionally here but still IS TORTUIRING and MURDERING sets of HUMAN BEINGS morally WRONG?

Let's state some facts. The human beings in this scenario were usually adult human beings. These adult human beings already had lives before their capture. These human beings were taken against their free will. These human being were forced to endure physical pain and other physical hardships involuntarily and could have survived without undergoing such treatment.

Let me say these combined facts lead a rational person to say the acts inflicted on the Jews were morally wrong and regardless of race, color or religion the same acts would be UNIVERSALLY wrong no matter which human beings I chose.
Let's start here.

You've appealed to morality to explain morality.

 

[Logikal]

You've appealed to morality to explain morality.

Please reread my post . I explain the WHY to offer my opponent to find a flaw with the facts I listed. I suggest that these facts and not emotion should stand or justify why said actions are WRONG. I did not inject emotion or feelings but JUST THE FACTS ma am.

 

[ArtieE]

I am baptist. The problem with your quote is that this was not ORDERED unnecessarily by GOD. This order given by GOD had a REASON which is UNLIKE why HITLER tortured and murdered Jews.

Oh I see. You are saying that genocide is universally wrong except when done by your god?

 

[Logikal]

Oh I see. You are saying that genocide is universally wrong except when done by your god?

Nonsense! Genicide is specifically defined when HUMAN BEINGs kill other HUMAN BEINGS. GOD is not a human being. I am a logical being so there are NO EXCEPTIONS. If you have exceptions then this a red flag to rational folk. Make rules correctly and there will be no exceptions ever. It is a sign someone messed up. Usually people in authority pull this.

So you think whenever a human is a victim it is morally wrong JUST BECAUSE???

 

[ArtieE]

Nonsense! Genicide is specifically defined when HUMAN BEINGs kill other HUMAN BEINGS.

It is?

Genocide:

noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
the definition of genocide

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Definition of GENOCIDE

The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
genocide - definition of genocide in English | Oxford Dictionaries

 

[Logikal]

It is?

Genocide:

noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
the definition of genocide

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Definition of GENOCIDE

The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
genocide - definition of genocide in English | Oxford Dictionaries

Yes it is!!!! I suppose the AIDS virus is committing genocide? Nuclear weapons do not COMMIT genocide. Nuclear weapons can be a tool in performing GENOCIDE or am I wrong about that?

So you mean to tell me if pit bulls were to execute an entire racial group in a specific state lets say they would be guilty of GENOCIDE? I hardly doubt this.

Where is the part where GENOCIDE is a CRIME? That is not in the definition either? So you dictionary is not up to the times eh?

Dictionaries can be useful but many people who need to kiss up use almost anything they think is authoritative as a crutch. You should be able to think for yourself without crutches.

 

[shunyadragon]

You REALLY need to address why you advocate human beings to act as BEASTS of the field. What you describe is what is already performed by lions, tigers, bears, birds, bacteria, etc

This actually does not respond to ArtieE's post.

Actually your comparison is invalid, humans do not behave like lions, tigers, bears, cats, birds, bacteria, etc, because of radically different paths of evolution, and adaptation. Humans evolved as social opportunistic omnivore more closely related to other primates in terms of behavior. Primates have similar yet primitive morals and ethics and consciousness.

Actually humans sometimes behave worse than our primate cousins, and other higher animals.

 

[Logikal]

This actually does not respond to ArtieE's post.

Actually your comparison is invalid, humans do not behave like lions, tigers, bears, cats, birds, bacteria, etc, because of radically different paths of evolution, and adaptation. Humans evolved as social opportunistic omnivore more closely related to other primates in terms of behavior. Primates have similar yet primitive morals and ethics and consciousness.

Actually humans sometimes behave worse than our primate cousins, and other higher animals.

I think you misread my post. My comment suggests that there is an issue with Artie's definition. I addressed that definition directly and stated directly that HIS definition is what BEAST currently do so why should we do it. I also point out all human beings I know believe humans are superior to beasts so why should we behave like them ?

 

[ArtieE]

Dictionaries can be useful but many people who need to kiss up use almost anything they think is authoritative as a crutch.

Like you use the Bible for example?

You should be able to think for yourself without crutches.

I agree. So throw away your Bible and start thinking for yourself. Can you?

 

[Nous]

LOL. Nearly every organism has an instinct for self-preservation. We had it as we evolved.

Earlier you said that "we evolved a survival instinct." Make up your mind. Is the alleged special instinct for survival that humans have that you claim provides humans with objective moral rules a product of natural selection or not?

Evidently you just don't have a coherent idea about what you're espousing here. You say one thing about it, then contradict yourself. You say that all animals have this instinct, but it is only humans who conform their behavior to moral objectives. Male lions commit infanticide of the offspring sired by other lions. Humans everywhere would consider that immoral, and such act would be illegal everywhere.

The instinct to survive is not about acting morally or doing something that is intended to ensure the survival or well-being of a group or nation or culture or family or the species. The instinct to survive is entirely unrelated to treating others as one would wish others to treat oneself. When the Titanic was sinking, people were fighting to get on the lifeboats--at least one man dressed himself as a woman in order to get on one of the lifeboats, displacing a woman. That is an example of an act motivated by a desire to survive, but it's hardly a moral act.

The two are not the same: acts motivated by the desire to not die are not the self-sacrificing acts that are among humans' most moral acts.

 

[Nous]

Cite the evidence for this "genetic selection for survival".

Why is it that humans are the only animals that have this alleged special kind of genetic survival instinct that provides us with objective moral standards, . . .

There is no objective evidence 'objective moral standards' in humans in any science including the science of evolution.

So you disagree with Artie's idea that the instinct to survive among humans provides us with objective moral rules by which we conform our behavior.

And evidently you are unable to substantiate your claim of some sort of special genetic survival instinct in humans. Artie can't seem to figure out whether humans "evolved a survival instinct," or had this instinct "as we evolved." Presumably you are likewise confused.

Humans are not the only animals that commit suicide.

It is common among higher mammals to give their lives in protection of the herd or the young.

Being killed in the course of trying to defend one's herd or offspring is not the same as suicide.