There is empirical evidence for evolution giving us universal values?>

<Tabanus> conflates universality with objective existence.

It's like conflating Absolute Morality with Objective Morality.

<So funny how you borrow from objective morality> That's God right there. He thinks objective values are from God, why should I rebut a fake question. I was NOT borrowing from "objective morality".

<if the majority, say 50.1% of voters, voted to burn Jews in ovens?> Is it this question you want me to answer? The question itself is an insult. To me, to all cultures, to mankind. Similar to Ohio's question.

Values don't develop.

But bringing up evolution and morality is not new. You are repeating me, of all people.

June 2011

<In fact, many humanists say openly that morality doesn't exist. It is just a construct of the mind. It is just the byproduct of natural selection, or it's a socio-biological necessity for survival. >

Search Kibitzing

November 2014

<If atheism were true then we would have to look at morality as nothing more than a survival mechanism developed over millions of years of societal conditioning. We would have to believe that although we may feel strongly that something is wrong, bad or evil, it's really just an ingrained meme that aids us in our quest for survival. Humans have complex brains and therefore capable of evolving moral feelings.

Under this view morality is not objective, existing independently of human beings. >

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #215)

June 2013

<The problem with non theistic definitions of morality is that they have no objective basis with which to ground them. This is why non theistic ethicists appeal to reason and, unbelievably, common sense when trying to determine the nature of moral values and duties. Typically this leads to discussions about evolution and various social and biological conditioning factors (based on survival and natural selection) that have supposedly surfaced as a result.>

He gave no reasons or arguments to think this is true. He merely asserted it.

This is where we are right now in the OMV debate. For clarity's sake, he is stating the contradiction, which is level DH3 and doesn't meet posting guidelines. Can he deliver?

And the other thing is that <tab> doesn't want to own the implications of his worldview. Without there being a transcendent, objective standard by which to measure morality, morality itself ceases to exist, and all we really have are ideas about right and wrong in our imaginations.

So in the absence of a standard, there is no objective difference between love and hate, kindness and cruelty, <tabanus> and a pedophile.

He knows that ain't true, but since he's committed to OMVs not existing, he's trying to double talk his way out of it.

<Without there being a transcendent, objective standard by which to measure morality, morality itself ceases to exist,>

Nope. It's in us. Right there, all the time. It's only you who have the "right" answer already.

<there is no objective difference between love and hate, kindness and cruelty, <tabanus> and a pedophile.>

Nope. It's in us. Right there, all the time.>

If moral values exist in us then they are not objective. You already stated that OMV do not exist.

But here you are again not saying why.

There's no such thing as a subjective difference.

On your worldview, you are morally equivalent to a pedophile, since there is no objective difference. The only difference that exists is in your imagination, so it is imaginary.

He didn't like the fact that on his worldview, <2. Objective moral values do not exist>, he is the moral equivalent to a pedophile.

So what's happened?

Now he is <shifting> positions, trying to say that moral values do exist objectively, but, they come from evolution!

Now the people's opinions are objective, because you say so? This is not about opinions being objective.

This is about moral ontology.

You're just playing with words, trying to score a point?>

Words have meanings.

<Perhaps they are rather "objective".>

You're going back and forth because you don't know what you're talking about.

But first - in my new forum, I, as the moderator, am not allowed to have "real debates", which I am hoping this forum will facilitate. Having said that, if you were engaged in a real debate here, you would need to explain why omv do not exist, lest you remain stuck at DH3, which is to merely state the contradiction.

So I am allowing this debate to happen here so as to provide an example as to what is and what is not allowed.

<OBjective>

The moral argument is about moral ontology, and you have not spoken to that yet.

To say that moral values exist <objectively> is to say that moral values exist and are binding, apart from human kind, to be discovered by humans as an existing part of reality.

To say that moral values do not exist objectively is to say that they just exist in the human imagination.

It is a question of the nature of their <existence>. It is not a question of their universal acceptance or their uniform application i.e. all lies are always bad all the time regardless of the situation i.e. absolute values.

<To say that moral values exist <objectively> is to say that moral values exist and are binding,> Ok. (Evolutionary + cultural moral)

This does not explain why moral values do not exist objectively. You said, <2. Objective moral values do not exist>, so you need to explain why.

<<To say that moral values exist <objectively> is to say that moral values exist and are binding,> Ok. (Evolutionary + cultural moral)>

No, in that case moral values would be grounded in human and would therefore not have an objective existence apart from humanity.

(DUH?)

So here we are:

1. You said objective moral values do not exist, but have not given any arguments for that or a reason to believe it. DH3

2. You are talking about the human concept of morality being borne out of evolution and societal conditioning.

Why? This has nothing to do with <why> we should believe that moral values do not <exist> objectively, which is a question of moral ontology.

We <agree> already that if God does not exist then OMV do not exist, and therefore, what we consider to be this thing called morality is really just something in the imagination, a tool for survival, a product of conditioning, and by no means some sort of objective and binding concept that exists entirely apart from human kind.

So there is no need to talk about that, yet you are stuck there, confused about what to say.

3. In the absence of objective moral values, there is no objective right and wrong. Humankind could have evolved differently and an entirely different set of moral values could have been possible. So on atheism, the morality we speak about is just a matter of opinion. It's a matter of what is trending. There is no real right or wrong. There is no <objective> standard by which to measure moral actions and values.

Therefore, you and the pedophile are lost in a sea of relativism and neither has moral high ground, on your view.

That is the implication of your worldview. This implication has caused you to try to shift away from there not being any OMV.

<Tabanus> conflates universality with objective existence. >

Is it this question you want me to answer? The question itself is an insult. To me, to all cultures, to mankind. Similar to Ohio's question.>

You don't seem to understand anything about human history.

I will be blunt here. My question exposes the fault in your argument.

The USA founding fathers understood the potential for passion to be aroused in people, for good or for ill. Which is one reason they created a bicameral legislative body for the USA, with the Senate originally being unelected!

That's right, Senators were appointed by their state governors, and for 6 year terms, not 2 years as in the House.

But more importantly, my question shows that "morality" is not decided by opinion polls AT ALL.

You recognize the validity of this, which is why you refuse to answer a simple question.

Instead, you hide from my question by calling it an insult.

Question again. There is evidence for the development of behaviors in every species, which serve to protect the species itself. In addition, we have a brain/intelligence, and can makes rules based on these behaviors. Sound cultural moral rules, which in turn are passed down the generations. Simple as that. >

Actually, it would have been much simpler if you had just honestly said "no".

You claimed it was <values> at first. When I asked the question, you admitted it was <behaviors>, not values.

Exactly.

Since his worldview bases moral values on election outcomes, then all we need to do to legalize the murder of Jews (or to legalize whatever crime we want to) is to get enough votes.

He understands this, which is why he won't answer my question, and instead calls it an "insult".

Unfortunately, Hitler was elected to office. At the ballot box, don't you know?

Meh. I'm on the mental construct side.>

Look, here's my theory: In the beginning we had behavioural traits which served to preserve the species as a whole. Later, we developed intelligence and consciousness.

Now let'sassume we are 3000 years BC. A mother and a father thinks that to protect their child, there should be an action taken against pedophiles. The parents talk with other parents, who also agree. The matter is brought to the governing body, who also agrees or are forced to bow to the majority. They may even write it down, what the punishment should be, etc.

Now we have a moral already. A moral which protects the child, protects the family and society, and in a long-term (evolutionary) perspective maybe even helps to protect the species.

How much better can it be? And now because I'm supporting this kind of moral, my moral is equivalent to a pedophile. That's not only ridiculous, it's highly insulting.

----