What the media isn't reporting about the tragedy in Parkland

[Guest]

Dude, just don't.

Many scientists and philosophers do have the view that there is no objective morality. However, it doesn't mean we can't think rationally to solve our world problems.

There is probably a temptation for the young newly-minted atheist or agnostic to dismiss notions of good or evil outright because they can see that the idea of sin is a construct that has been manipulated as a tool of power.

Here is a debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5a3MxIqZOs

[_DoubtingThomas]

But it should be remembered that Science itself does absolutely nothing. It is the choices that humans make to create and use science which can do things.

I am not sure. In his new book Steven Pinker makes the case for "Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress". "Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing"

[_honorentheos]

Dude, just don't.

Many scientists and philosophers do have the view that there is no objective morality. However, it doesn't mean we can't think rationally solve our world problems.

There is probably a temptation for the young newly-minted atheist or agnostic to dismiss notions of good or evil outright because they can see that the idea of sin is a construct that has been manipulated as a tool of power.

Here is a debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5a3MxIqZOs

This guy?

https://cosmicskeptic.com/about/

[_DoubtingThomas]

This guy?

You should listen to the debate. I shared the video because you said, "a temptation for the young newly-minted atheist" ;)

But here is a respected source

"Though many philosophers are quite critical of moral relativism, there are several contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it. These include such prominent figures as Gilbert Harman, Jesse J. Prinz, J. David Velleman and David B. Wong. The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons"

Gowans, Chris, "Moral Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/moral-relativism/>.

[_honorentheos]

I listened to the debate. Alex is a good example of "a young newly-minted atheist". It was not a particularly good showing, though the argument that they debated (using the term loosely) was roughly along the lines of, "If there is evil, then God is a necessity" or something to that effect.

I'm curious, DT. Which of Alex's arguments do you believe was presented most defensibly? Be specific, if you could. I'd be disappointed if you just say, "That there is no such thing as objective morality" because we'd waste time in my then having to ask you to flesh out exactly what Alex cited as his argument for this position. I'd like to avoid that unnecessary delay.

[Guest]

I listened to the debate. Alex is a good example of "a young newly-minted atheist"

Thanks for saying my example is good.

What about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? It says there are "several contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it". If objective morality is real (I highly doubt it), it still has to be proved it is real. Do you have any evidence showing objective morality is real?

The other day I watched Michio Kaku video "Why Michio Kaku wants to avoid alien contact at all costs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e10MDxUWR7U

Please watch the three minute video of Michio Kaku. Kaku explains why aliens don't have to be evil to be a threat to humanity. If objective morality is real, then aliens wouldn't hurt us.

[_honorentheos]

If objective morality is real (I highly doubt it), it still has to be proved it is real.

What would you consider to be the valid conditions by which it could be proved or disproved? I'm not asking that to be trite or dismissive. The debate circled this so if you favored Alex's argument I would guess you would cite the same one but I'm curious what you think.

[_subgenius]

1. Better medicine to fight mental disorders. 2. Gene Editing on Human Embryos 3. Artificial Intelligence to better diagnose mental disorders 4. I have other ideas that I am not willing to share here because I might make money out of them. 5. As you said reprogramming people, we just don't know the limits of science.

Eugenics 2.0, congrats.

[_huckelberry]

Doubting Thomas,
The debate you linked above concerns whether objective morality exists with objective morality defined as existing if no humans existed. I have no interest in that question , I do not live in a universe where humans do not exist. Such an imaginary universe is not the one I try to live in or try to solve problems in .

The debate brought the question up not to investigate the role human decisions make in the catastrophes humans sometimes suffer. I think decisions make a daily important role. Instead the issue was raised to question the proposal that the existence of evil is good evidence of Gods existence. This is a completely different issue. I think on that tangent the proposal about evil is an argument way overextended to start out. I would not wish to try and support it.

To attempt to clarify my view. I do not believe evil is some cosmic force. It is a kind of or group of bad decisions made by people.

Second by stating that science is not always used for good I meant we must think about how we use it. I also believe that the enlightenment is an important positive development for humanity. We should not stop using reason and should never stop questioning overblown authority leaders whom manipulate peoples uncertainties about moral decisions to profit themselves and their position.

[Guest]

What would you consider to be the valid conditions by which it could be proved or disproved?

To prove something I would follow the scientific method. I haven't seen any evidence that objective morality exists because all cultures have their own morality. For some cultures abortion is murder, for other cultures gay sex is harmful. Is suicide objectively evil?

To attempt to clarify my view. I do not believe evil is some cosmic force. It is a kind of or group of bad decisions made by people.

Exactly! but what is a bad decision? For me evil is anything that causes suffering. It is wrong to make others suffer assuming we want to be a successful species. Now, is it morally wrong to kill cockroaches or ants just because you don't like them? Would it be wrong for advance space aliens to kidnap some humans to study them? If we go to Mars and discover microbial-like alien life, would it be wrong for us to take home a sample? I like hard questions.

If Dawkins was more precise he would notice that rocks or the ocean present pitiless indifference, humans unless profoundly defective do not.

Good point, but if a gamma ray hits planet earth in the next five minutes what is going to happen to morality?