Humanism

It also goes a long way to “explain” organised religion: how it may have arisen, and some of its adaptive functions.

Bear in mind Simon that religion was born out of the ignorance of mankind. When it became “organized” the rulers of the day found it useful when they discovered that what they wanted just happened to be what their particular god…[Read more]

Karuna wrote:

Maybe it might make your arguments more clear?

Thanks, I’m sure it will.

evolutionary approach

The point of an evolutionary approach to morality, the reason why it works, is that evolution is fundamental to the biological natural world, and morality is a natural phenomenon embedded within other natural phenomena: e.g., biology,…[Read more]

Or Reg. We can teach by showing snarky contempt. That’s what Socrates did. Sort of

Indeed you had. Four days ago. There was no notification that I had a message. I have sent it. Enjoy

Hi,

Simon Payton,

The book by Michael Tomasello you refer to.

The same author has written a summary of his findings. In this short free access article.

It maybe helpful for people on this discussion to read it.

Maybe it might make your arguments more clear?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2018.1486605

The book you…[Read more]

Davis wrote:

If you cannot even get someone to read a very short intro to a topic (that you offer to gift them for free)

Check your inbox, I asked you for that book days ago.  You need to check the fakery of your news.

We should all take a more ethical approach to discussing morals.

No. This is:

“argumentum from pure exhaustion”

The irony is if you pay attention to the cartoon that this whole thing started with (a completely different topic by the way) you’ll see it was mostly, all about people, who refuse to educate themselves (in this case even in the basics) and then argue nonsense and when challenged on their lack of…[Read more]

I read, about it when you attack the person instead of the person’s argument.

I think it’s called argumentum ad hominem,

That’s what poor politicians do not what you do in moral philosophy.

Anyway Michael Tomasello’s life work is  evolutionary anthropology.

His book which Simon Payton is describing a natural history of human morality.

It’s…[Read more]

Enjoy your evening

Davis wrote:

Simon it baffles my mind how you won’t read a single book about a topic you discuss so much. I’m with unseen. I’m done discussing this with you.

He should enroll in Philosophy 101 somewhere. The more apt students will eat him alive.

My bibliography runs to about 9 pages.

Simon it baffles my mind how you won’t read a single book about a topic you discuss so much. I’m with unseen. I’m done discussing this with you.

I think @unseen might be right if he thinks that the workings of morality are too abstract and difficult for the average person to get into.  It took me three years to understand and be able to add to Michael Tomasello’s book, A Natural History of Morality.

However, I also think that the ethical/spiritual force: the pressure to thrive, survive…[Read more]

In summary of this discussion? pretty much sums up the frustration of modern atheists!

Davis wrote:

How do you know that Simon. You are virtually illiterate in all things ethics.

Let me know when “ethics” comes up with something that ordinary people can use – something that religion has been doing for 2600 years.

Unseen wrote:

Does it mean the same as “must-ness”?

Yes.

this common structure

Cooperation.  Either within groups, or between groups.

Forgive me for giving up on the usual quotation structure and using a you said and I say sort of approach. Additionally, I think I’m done with this discussion.

Unseen wrote:
a principle that is so widely held that everyone agrees it must always be followed. (I can’t think of one, but just for the sake of argument…) Does it follow ipso facto tha…[Read more]

That may be so, but this is the version that is actually used by people.

How do you know that Simon. You are virtually illiterate in all things ethics.

Davis wrote:

That depends. There are multiple utilitarian systems that would not be characterized as such.

That may be so, but this is the version that is actually used by people.  It links very well with the rest of an evolutionary framework, and what’s more, represents a general formula for how to behave.