Brian Iverson

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.

Karuna wrote:
Appeal to Nature is an argument and informal fallacy where something is believed to be good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural. Evolution and biology are non-moral.

I agree, but evolution and biology give rise to all kinds of things, including moral psychology.

In this current universe cooperation in humans exist…[Read more]

Utilitarianism can be reframed as “all those affected by my actions are to receive the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to them”,

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

Deontological means duties, right?

That is a gross oversimplification. Pick up a book and read it…please.

I’m with Hume: morality is an evolved psychological matter.  I think Kant went wrong by trying to insist it’s rational and moreover, absolute.

Hume’s writings on ethics are vague and are not well developed. Kant’s works were, in part, a response to the many problems with both Hume writings. Kant only talks about absolute “within” the moral syst…[Read more]

In my opinion

Appeal to Nature is an argument and informal fallacy where something is believed to be good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural.

Evolution and biology  are non-moral.

( It’s not in the same category as morals)

It’s a category mistake to equate the two.

In this current universe cooperation in humans  exist b…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
Deontological … utilitarian … Virtue ethics

Deontological means duties, right?

All of these come into play in human morality, and in fact in an evolutionary framework, fit together perfectly.

Utilitarianism can be reframed as “all those affected by my actions are to receive the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to…[Read more]

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 that it actually must be adhered to by all people under every circumstance?

That’s the nature of normativity or ought-ness – it exists in the minds of people.  So,…[Read more]