The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith

[genkaus]

That evades the issue. Values derived solely from an indifferent evolutionary process only relate to survival value. Your 'morality' is just programmed into by random chance. Rape and slavery have evolutionary advantages. That doesn't make them morally good. But neither does it make them evil because within naturalism good and evil have no meaning.

Not quite. Naturalism informs and forms the metaphysical basis for a lot of different philosophies. So while it does not dictate any particular morality by itself, it is incorrect to say that there are no naturalistic moralities.

---

You are using evolution in a teleological sense. Really, if naturalistic evolution is true, evolution is no more significant to morality than particles of space dust.

Wrong on both counts. Teleological evolution does not contradict naturalistic evolution. And evolution had a greater significance in defining who or what we are and therefore it is more significant to morality that space dust.

Why should human happiness be the ultimate standard for morality?

It'd simply be the indicator of the ultimate standard of morality.

[jstrodel]

genkaus you are not arguing your points, you are just repeating what you presuppose. An argument is suppose to move from things which are self evident to things that are controversial, following established logical precedent. You are just repeating controversial points.

Please explain to me how naturalistic evolution can be teleological. How can you distinguish people as being the end of naturalistic evolution more than anything else evolution touches? And you can you consider evolutionary processes to be the goal of the forces that created them? Maybe if you are a Deist, certainly if you are Christian. Not as a naturalist.

[genkaus]

genkaus you are not arguing your points, you are just repeating what you presuppose.

And what is it that I presuppose?

Please explain to me how naturalistic evolution can be teleological.

The mistake here would be thinking that if anything is teleological then there must be an intelligence behind it. Simply put, it'd be a matter of the angle you are looking at it from. For example, if you see a tree as a system then everything in it does perform a specific function towards specific goals. In that sense, there is a specific purpose behind each sub-system. But to assume that this implies a specific intelligence within each system or even a central intelligence would be incorrect.

How can you distinguish people as being the end of naturalistic evolution more than anything else evolution touches?

I wouldn't. Since I never assumed that people were the end of naturalistic evolution.

And you can you consider evolutionary processes to be the goal of the forces that created them?

Depends on what they are.

Maybe if you are a Deist, certainly if you are Christian. Not as a naturalist.

Even as a naturalist. Which - as a matter of record - is not necessarily my position.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Even as a naturalist. Which - as a matter of record - is not necessarily my position.

We seem to be having this discussion on two threads. I'll butt out of this one, Gen, but continue reading.

[Mystic]

I'm reading a book of moral psychology with a bunch of essays in support and against each other. It doesn't seem so far that naturalism has a leg to stand on. Free-will seemingly is impossible from it's perspective, and caused free-will is an oxymoron (compatibilism is not so compatible). So that is a problem, let alone justifying properly basic beliefs in morals (and all of them agree so far that properly basic beliefs of morals are necessary for morality).

[jstrodel]

Please explain to me how naturalistic evolution can be teleological.

The mistake here would be thinking that if anything is teleological then there must be an intelligence behind it. Simply put, it'd be a matter of the angle you are looking at it from. For example, if you see a tree as a system then everything in it does perform a specific function towards specific goals. In that sense, there is a specific purpose behind each sub-system. But to assume that this implies a specific intelligence within each system or even a central intelligence would be incorrect.

How do you define a tree as being a separate system from the many other physical systems involved in the life of a tree. You could appeal to a biology book, but this is just an argument from authority. What actually grounds the unity of a tree as being separate from light and water and the ground?

You are probably going to define that a tree is a complex biological organism, but how do you infer teleology from this? You appreciation of the goal of a tree is a cultural construction, from things that you know about. The tree is no more a goal than the mass of molecules that results from a dead seed and the water that produces nothing.

All of your metaphysics traces back to phenomenological categories. You are just making them up. There is no reason to suppose that there is any design to anything if naturalism exists. Trees are no more designed than failed evolutionary experiments and no more designed than broken up rocks or water molecules.

It is not the angle that you look at it. People are not free to interpret human nature for instance as ending in sexuality and define sexuality to be the prime reason that people exist, the goal of human life and therefore declare that rape is ok. There are moral absolutes and there are teleological absolutes, and the two go together. A human being is a human being, it has a definite unity that is more real than than simply saying that a human being is a scientific model that can be understood any way and the goal of human life thought to have any character, even if there is an element of truth to the biological organization.

[genkaus]

Free-will seemingly is impossible from it's perspective, and caused free-will is an oxymoron (compatibilism is not so compatible).

Wrong on both counts. A naturalistic perspective isn't necessarily deterministic and even if it was, it still does not preclude free-will.

So that is a problem, let alone justifying properly basic beliefs in morals (and all of them agree so far that properly basic beliefs of morals are necessary for morality).

And what do you mean by 'properly basic beliefs in morals'?

[jstrodel]

MysticKnight are you a Plantinga fan?

[genkaus]

How do you define a tree as being a separate system from the many other physical systems involved in the life of a tree. You could appeal to a biology book, but this is just an argument from authority. What actually grounds the unity of a tree as being separate from light and water and the ground?

Are you being serious? The separation is indicated by the physical boundary of where the tree starts. And if citing a biology book is argument from authority, then in this case the argument from authority is justified and valid.

You are probably going to define that a tree is a complex biological organism, but how do you infer teleology from this? You appreciation of the goal of a tree is a cultural construction, from things that you know about. The tree is no more a goal than the mass of molecules that results from a dead seed and the water that produces nothing.

That's the point. Any teleology indicated anywhere is a human construction - therefore it can apply to trees as it can apply to evolution,

All of your metaphysics traces back to phenomenological categories. You are just making them up. There is no reason to suppose that there is any design to anything if naturalism exists. Trees are no more designed than failed evolutionary experiments and no more designed than broken up rocks or water molecules.

Precisely. All categories are made up by humans and there is no reason to even suspect any design.

It is not the angle that you look at it. People are not free to interpret human nature for instance as ending in sexuality and define sexuality to be the prime reason that people exist, the goal of human life and therefore declare that rape is ok. There are moral absolutes and there are teleological absolutes, and the two go together. A human being is a human being, it has a definite unity that is more real than than simply saying that a human being is a scientific model that can be understood any way and the goal of human life thought to have any character, even if there is an element of truth to the biological organization.

That's where you are wrong. Given that all teleological considerations come from humans, there can't be any teleological absolutes and therefore no moral absolutes. And you are not free to interpret human nature arbitrarily - but you are free to interpret it based on what it is. If you want to define sexuality as the prime goal for human existence then you better have the evidence and reasoning to back it up.

[jstrodel]

Precisely. All categories are made up by humans and there is no reason to even suspect any design.

There is your approach to teleology, you just make it up. You have a debate, people debate about what the ends of different parts of life are, but there is actually no way to resolve the debate or say what the final end of anything is or where it stops, there are a million different ways that are judged by "explanatory power", as defined by whoever defines whatever they want in whatever way they want.

Hey genkaus, have you seen the thread on ecstasy?