The Solipsist's God

[Ramo]

But when you deny sayng something you just said....that's where I draw the line. That means Ramo that your very sneaky and don't take this convo seriously.

Don't you think you're getting a little paranoid?

"Why should truth values be attached to baseless assumptions? They're meaningless."

This makes me wonder if you know "what you even believe yourself. This isn't the first time you've done this Ramo. If you want anyone to take you seriously at least pay attention to what you say. Because its not my job to look up and find your statements for you.

Egads man, I meant that the truth values are meaningless! Are you just trying to figure out the most absurd interpretation of my sentences that you possibly can?! Not only that, I've made that opinion even more clear various times in this thread. For example: "Once again, I don't know what probability means in the case of baseless assertions."

I am not saying your assumptions are not true, I am saying they cannot be true.

Which assumptions?

No here I got to thinking he must mean "true" when he says validity. Because if Ramo knew basic logic he would know that validity alone isn't enough to establish a given conclusion. That takes 2 things 1) Validity and 2) True premises. True premises are important for this reason:

I can make this argument using Ramo's logic: All Marxists are evil
Preston is a Marxist
Therefore Preston is evil.

Valid yes. But since the premises are not known to be true its very weak.

Huh? I was showing that there are no objectively true premises, barring non-contradiction, assuming non-contradiction. And you you telling me that an objectivist doesn't consider non-contradiction a true premise?

Ramo says he has 1(which he doesn't because if the viewpoints were infinite and all equal

Equal? Again, I've never asserted that. You'd have to explain to me what the probability of baseless assumptions means first.

Hence, there could be "infinite" viewpoints but all of them could simply be wrong. I don't see how the fact that there are "possible viewpoints" establishes or proves in any way that reality is subjective.

Why not?

Ramo basic logic tells you reality means nothing in a vacuum. Ramo's argument must be more then just valid, it must be strong or sound.

Why does assuming non-contradiction make an argument "weak?"

Rand may be somewhat odd btw, but at least her beliefs seem to be better then yours.

Is there some particular reason why you're always defensive? I only asked the question because every other objectivist I know is a Randian...

You seem to believe that unless there are premises that validly lead up to a given point that the statement is meaningless.

Nope.

or lacks a truth-value. Such a view bespeaks an ignorance of critical thinking. Validity only applies to arguments which are built on true premises.

Once more, a set of premises can be invalid if they contradict each other.

Certain things though can be said to be true without argument,things like basic facts and such.

Not too an objectivist.

Remember that a sound or strong argument consists of two main elements 1) Validity and 2) True premises. Meaning some things don't necesserally require validity to be true(these thing being original premises).

Again, not if they contradict each other.

Things can be true without being conclusions...either sound or strong.

Only if you assume them beforehand.

OK, you still don't get why that's relativism. You state all these assumptions are baseless and meaningless.

Nope.

To me it appeared as if by "valid" you meant true.

Fair enough, I didn't mean logically valid, but truth, in this case.

His proof in the form of an analogy:

It's not an analogy; it was just one of the many possible ways to complete the proof...

Assuming there is a God. Remember for an argument to be strong or sound its premises have to be true.

You're not reading my argument carefully enough. There is a God and His name is Joe is a valid set of assumptions. Again, that's because it doesn't violate the rule of non-contradiction. I'm not saying that these assumptions are true, just that they are valid.

What do names have to do with interpretations? That's quite a leap to go from the assumed God's names to all interpretations.

There is a God and His name is Bill is distinct from His name being Joe. Those are two distinct possible sets of assumptions on which to base reality. Generalizing from that alone, there are infinite possible such sets.

Again Ramo assumes that since his argument is "valid" it is strong. That's only half of it friend. The other half is having true premises. Without that your argument may be valid...but weak.

Once again, non-contradiction is the premise that I'm assuming.

If its not an objective standard then it can prove nothing. Look at what the textbook I quoted had to say about objective and subjective claims.

That's an absurd assertion. You can prove things, if you make assumptions.

First off define useful.

Utility is equivalent to whether there exists something which the concept can model.

Secondly, by saying all asumptions are baseless you are saying they are equal. How can one baseless assumption be better then another?

I don't see a reason why they should be equal either. Once more, I'm not making an assertion either way.

You stated that it was a baseless subjectivist assumption, in which case it cannot be a standard of truth.

Why not?

Well Ramo maybe if you weren't ambiguous I would.

It's not my problem if you can't keep track of the discussion.

The fact that you didn't realize that with my paragraph long answer tells me it is you, not I, that am not reading these posts.

I had no idea what you were rambling on about, particularly because of the lack of relevance it had to the particuar subject at hand.

That's what subjectivism entails.

Then I'm not a "subjectivist." I prefer not being labeled as an xist, because of precisely this kind of thing. I may not know about all of this philosphical baggage you're mentioning, but please try to attack my arguments instead of some strawmen ones you've found in a philosophy textbook. And if I say I didn't assert something, stop using that as a anrguemtn.

Subjectivism is basically saying all claims,truths etc are subjective.

And I agree with that assertion. I don't agree with this equality of probabilities argument, or of the meaninglessness (whatever that means) of assumptions.

Anyways Ramo, I've always showed why relativist/subjectivist(interchangeable terms) positions are contradictory numerous times.

You haven't showed my position contradictory.

So to be "real" and object has to be seen? I've never seen my brain, so according to Ramo's theories, my brain is "unreal", as is any concept like science,physics, and zoology.

Again, that's a patently absurd interpretation. A brain is observable. The weak force is observable. A dolphin is observable. But a tensor is not.

Are you saying that ideas are not real?

Depends on what that means.

Or that these ideas and methods(Like science) don't describe reality just cause I can't see a science running around?

Explained above.

Are you saying all evidence is derived from sense experience btw

You might have noted the "and so forth."

If there is no objective reality Ramo, then sense experience is no better a standard then imagination.

Yep, but I'm assuming senses are are a better standard than imagination. Call it faith.

There's always a possibility that I'm in a "Matrix"-type situation, for instance. I assume that this isn't the case.

Ramo, if everything is subjective and everybodies right, then the idea that there can be something called "evidence" which gets us closer to the truth is meaningless.

You may feel uncomfortable with a less absolute standard, but ignoring it doesn't get you any closer to the truth.

[qutoe]In the subjectivist view reality is whatever one wants it to be. I'm getting annoyed by your inability to grasp that obvious statement.[/quote]

Where did I contradict that?

If it's subjective, whatever I percieve or think it to be, then my concepts never have to change.

Only if your worldview is based upon no assumptions.

The very concept of reality loses meaning in the subjectivist viewpoint.

Why does the lack of objective reality imply the lack of a subjective reality?

Well that makes me wonder now how you came to the conlcusion that an assumption was incorrect.

It contradicts my visual senses. Because I have more "faith" in the veracity of my visual senses, I chose to drop that assumption.

If logic is a construct it is not a very good standard Ramo.

I don't think there is a single "very good standard."

In your view at least, in which case it cannot be used to establish Quantum Mechanics.

Why not? Just because I believe in subjective reality doesn't mean I don't make certain assumptions (I suppose you would call it truth).

Also define "work things out".

Again, usefully model something.

Actually its only an ad hominen if I say that disproves subjectivism.

Eh? Isn't that what your whole argument is about?

How is that conveniant?

Because you can make assertions that you believe are self-evident, and you can proclaim them as the absolute truth. Like a theist.

I have to admit when I'm wrong and actually admit that being correct is more then a matter of just inventing things. I actually have to work to acquire knowledge.

As opposed to so-called "subjectivists?"

Also, Ramo, what makes you think everything becomes a matter of black and white in the objectivist viewpoint?

Either something is true or it isn't. There's no ambiguity, provided you have adaquate evidence.

I try to avoid reducing everything to the simplistic black/white only, or all is grey mentality.

The lack of absolutes hardly simplifies anything.

That in no way refutes what I was saying.

I used the word "also"; that usually denotes agreement.

[mactbone]

Well, are you now saying that the Flood, the various plagues, and the destruction of Soddom and Gommorah aren't true?


Don't know if I stated it in this thread or not, but your answer brings us to another question. St. Augustine came to about the same conclusion as you, and hit the same philisophical wall.

God is also omniscient according to Christians. If something is omniscient, they know ALL. Knowing everything, includes the future, as the future is something. Since, to be omniscient, God has to know the future, then humans have no free will. For the future to be known to any being, it would mean that the future cannot change. If the future cannot change, then we are acting according to destiny/whatever you want to call it. Therefore, if God is omniscient, then there is no free will.

[Ecowiz Returns]

God is also omniscient according to Christians. If something is omniscient, they know ALL. Knowing everything, includes the future, as the future is something. Since, to be omniscient, God has to know the future, then humans have no free will . For the future to be known to any being, it would mean that the future cannot change. If the future cannot change, then we are acting according to destiny/whatever you want to call it. Therefore, if God is omniscient, then there is no free will.

The question of having a predetermined destiny equalling having no free will although much appealing is somewhat an exageration.

Let's take this person, A and let's assume I know everything about her: how she looks, her personality, her propensities to ilness, hes parents, wheres he lives in and how that place is and how that place's characteristics have effects on her... everything one can imagine and even more.

According to your reasoning that person would be my puppet, because it would have no free will and I would know everything about her actions. In other words, the way God made things happen, i.e, the ways of God's Creation, would automatically determine what I would do or not.

Let's had a small characteristic to that person and see if I can still know everything about her future. Let's say that that person has free will. I'll assume that person has the ability of making her own choices without any kind of indication other than the ones she chooses to acept as guidances (parent's advices, knowledge drawn from books, teacher's opinions, friend's and lover's opinions... you name it). Because I know the person, and everything about the person, I'll ultimatelly know which will be her decisions, every one of them. Because other than what we may call random events, Christians believe we make our own destiny, by our own choices is life, we can say we believe in free will. However, even our own choices are known by God and actually expected, I would believe, if He is omnsicient.

Does this meen our fate is written?
Maybe it does.
There are too many factors, most of them out of our own control that help explaining why we act in such or another way on different ocasions. One could say we are a mix of our experiences and our actions derive from them and our "natural" tendencies. If God knows all of that...well...

But does that mean we have no free will?
Only if in all of His Omnipotence God were not to be able to account for free will in His Omniscient predictions.

Oh, and about those neet cathastrophies you mention...
... they may have happened or something like those cathastrofies happened, than were described (no cameras then) and finally interpreted as acts of God. Currently, to the Catholic Church they are more like "Paraboles" than historical facts. So it isn't even of material importance that those events really took place or not.

[Logical Realist]

Off Topic

Ramo:

I meant that the truth values are meaningless! Are you just trying to figure out the most absurd interpretation of my sentences that you possibly can?! Not only that, I've made that opinion even more clear various times in this thread.

You weren't very clear.

Which assumptions?

That of subjective reality.

I was showing that there are no objectively true premises, barring non-contradiction, assuming non-contradiction.

are you saying non-contradiction is an objectively true premise?

And you you telling me that an objectivist doesn't consider non-contradiction a true premise?

I never said that. I said it takes more to establish a conclusion then validity.

Equal? Again, I've never asserted that. You'd have to explain to me what the probability of baseless assumptions means first.

By equal, I meant all true or real.

In regards to possible viewpoints not being able to establish subjectivism:

Why not?

Because those viewpoint might be wrong. Possible does not mean actual

Why does assuming non-contradiction make an argument "weak?"

I never said non-contradiction made an argument weak. I'm saying that validity alone does not make an argument sound or strong.

Once more, a set of premises can be invalid if they contradict each other.

I meant that validity only establishes an argument with true premises. Sorry to confuse. Was tired.

Not too an objectivist.

Why not?

Again, not if they contradict each other.

Agreed.

[quote] Is there some particular reason why you're always defensive? I only asked the question because every other objectivist I know is a Randian...

Its the way you asked the question.

There is a God and His name is Bill is distinct from His name being Joe. Those are two distinct possible sets of assumptions on which to base reality. Generalizing from that alone, there are infinite possible such sets.

But each set, to be seen as real or true must be more then just valid. Validity is only half of it remember?

That's an absurd assertion. You can prove things, if you make assumptions.

In a subjective world that would just be your opinion, as subjective means all is opinion. What if I assumed that it wasn't an absurd assertion?

Even the statement "if you make assumptions you can prove something" would be opinion. If its all whatever one assumes, then it is ALL like that.

BTW, just so we're clear. What is your definition of assumption? Also do you think some assumptions are better(true as opposed to false, or real as opposed to illusory) then others? If so on what basis?

I don't see a reason why they should be equal either. Once more, I'm not making an assertion either way.

You don't have to. I proved how the idea of all assumptions being equal was contradictory and cannot be true. Whether you believe it,or openly state that then, is irrelevant.

In response to why subjectivist claims cannot have truth values:

Why not?

Because subjective claims are by definition, in that logic book I quoted, matters of pure opinion.

It's not my problem if you can't keep track of the discussion.

When you are ambiguous it is.

I had no idea what you were rambling on about, particularly because of the lack of relevance it had to the particuar subject at hand.

It's not my problem if you can't keep track of the discussion.

Utility is equivalent to whether there exists something which the concept can model.

How do you determine whether or not a given concept is modeling what exists?

And I agree with that assertion. I don't agree with this equality of probabilities argument, or of the meaninglessness (whatever that means) of assumptions.

Subjective cliams are all opinion so cannot be better then eachother. Look at the Logic text. I quoted.

Again, that's a patently absurd interpretation. A brain is observable. The weak force is observable. A dolphin is observable. But a tensor is not.

Ramo, here are you saying that a thing is not real until it is observed? Also I have never observed my brain. Nor weak force. Does that make them unreal?

Also tensors might not be the equivalent to logic.

Depends on what that means.

It means: If ideas are not observed, are they then "unreal"..real being axiomic.

Yep, but I'm assuming senses are are a better standard than imagination. Call it faith.

In your system it is a faith.

There's always a possibility that I'm in a "Matrix"-type situation, for instance. I assume that this isn't the case.

Even in the Matrix there was an objective world. It was not ALL in the mind. Comparing your system to the Matrix is thus a false analogy. In your world the Matrix would be reality. In which case the idea of it being illusory or virtual is meaningless.

You may feel uncomfortable with a less absolute standard, but ignoring it doesn't get you any closer to the truth.

I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about here. If there are no absolutes then what is truth?

Me:

In the subjectivist view reality is whatever one wants it to be. I'm getting annoyed by your inability to grasp that obvious statement.

Ramo:

Where did I contradict that?

I have been arguing about subjectivism this whole time,saying it assumes all concepts,pov's and such are all equally true. You've been arguing with me about that. If you aren't a subjectivist then, you must admit that all concepts then are not matters of opinion. If you do, fine I agree with you.

Then I'm not a "subjectivist." I prefer not being labeled as an xist, because of precisely this kind of thing. I may not know about all of this philosphical baggage you're mentioning, but please try to attack my arguments instead of some strawmen ones you've found in a philosophy textbook. And if I say I didn't assert something, stop using that as a anrguemtn.

Well I'm glad your not a subjectivist then. It would have saved time if you had said that sooner though.


The only alternative to subjectivism though is objectivism. Thus if subjectivism is eliminated...objectivism stands as true. (I believe that objectivism is the only other option because 1) I cannot think of and have not been presented with another and 2) They seem like a mutually exclusive/universal dualism.

Why does the lack of objective reality imply the lack of a subjective reality?

It doesn't. I'm saying the very concept of subjective reality is absurd. Remember subjective means "anything goes". If this is the case, then the idea of a "reality" as opposed to fiction is meaningless.

It contradicts my visual senses. Because I have more "faith" in the veracity of my visual senses, I chose to drop that assumption.

So is correctness all a matter of what you have more "faith" in?

I don't think there is a single "very good standard."

Does that mean you don't think that any standards are very good or that you think there are a lot of very good standards?

ust because I believe in subjective reality doesn't mean I don't make certain assumptions (I suppose you would call it truth).

I'm sorry Ramo but that makes you a subjectivist/relativist. Maybe you don't like being called that but that is what you are, since believing that reality is subjective is what subjectivism and relativism are all about.

usefully model something.

What makes one model more useful then another?

Isn't that what your whole argument is about?

The major theme of my argument is that subjectivism is a sort of relativism and that relativism leads to absurdity. The part about conveniance, is an explanation as to why relativism is so appealing. Now a false belief can be apealing, so being "conveniant" does not make it false, but it will might motivate people to buy into it.

Because you can make assertions that you believe are self-evident, and you can proclaim them as the absolute truth. Like a theist.

That depends on the theist. I would say though, yes I can make an assertion about absolute truths...that's not what makes the truths absolute or self-evident though.(Me saying it is). They are self-evident for fact that they require no more evidence to be reasonablly accepted, and are needed for any sort of reasoning in the first place. These differ from faith empirically,fundamentally and which concepts they produce.

Now there is no way for me to prove that something is self-evident, nor for you to accept it. Since the self-evident presuposses proof. All I can show is that without it...no form of logic or reasoning is possible. You can say this is faith but I'd say there was a strong actual difference between a belief in God made for no reason and a belief in noncontradiction. In any event, there is no more case for you that it is faith(in respect to an agreed standard) then for me to say its self-evident. All I can somewhat do, is point to the fact that there is an empirical difference between the two types of beliefs.

Just like someone could say a square is a circle. There is no stanard that will settle the issue, all you can do is point to the obvious difference.

This is why I say that objectivism and subjectivism are incapable of breaching and leading to eachother.

As opposed to so-called "subjectivists?"

Yes, because in subjectivism if its all opinion, then doing research does not make one person any more right then another.

Either something is true or it isn't. There's no ambiguity, provided you have adaquate evidence.

I asked what makes you think its that way in the objectivist viewpoint? Now granted in it either something does exist or it doesn't. But being true or not is different. There can be degrees of truth based on context, some guesses as to what exists are better then others. The only standard is that reality and its objects are not necessarily matters of opinion and what one believes.

The lack of absolutes hardly simplifies anything.

A lot of times it does. With your Randians for example, or Christians as it cuts off change. People can then say "I'm right about this end of story". That makes life simpler. As you then don't have to consider another's viewpoint.

I used the word "also"; that usually denotes agreement.

I don't try to be arrogant. I'd like to know what makes me that way in fact if you're going to say I'm arrogant. I don't consider myself to be smarter then anyone else on this board(with the exception to Kaak perhaps), or more intelligent. Just motivated,rational and honest.

If you percieve me as arrogant perhaps that's because I try to be direct and objective. I don't like to be indirect because that can create confusion in an argument or say "I think" or IMO, because I don't think its a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. Certain things like the taste what ice cream tastes best is opinion. Others are matters of fact. (Like math,politics and science). Now that I'm commenting on a matter of fact and not opinion does not make me right necessarily (though of course I will think of them as most will, coincidentlly ) all my knowledge(excluding fundmntal absolutes of course) concerning fact is I admit provisional. But that dosn't mean its opinion or I'm uncertain (as there is provisional certainty) it just means I could be wrong. And I accpept that, while also remembering that I don't need to know something with absolute certainty to argue strongly for it necessarily. All I need is logic and other types of evidence.

That is why I won't go "IMO tigers are felines". But will say instead "Tigers are felines". Now if this is the Matrix, then I might be wrong, or if someday I find out all tigers are robots...again I am wrong. But based on the current level of knowledge I possess now, the chances of either of the above are so unlikely as to have me dismiss them for the moment and say with provisional certainty that "tigers are felines". Again this is not subjective, as tigers will either be feline,partially feline or not feline at all, regardless of what I believe. My knowledge of that though, that's where the grey areas come in. But grey areas are good enough to be considered facts at the moment.

I hope this cleared things up a bit. Anyways I enjoy your criticisms and hope you did likewise with my own criticisms and ideas. As I believe that sharing ideas and engaging in strong debate is an important part of keeping an open and evolving mind. As long as you are not dishonest or bigoted about the debate it remains constructive. Please feel free to add any more crticisms or ask any more questions that you deem are necessary. Until then: Bon Voyage *waves*

[Logical Realist]

Prophets and Jesus

Ecowiz:

What a very nice quote qe have here!!!

So Jesus came and fullfilled the Law and the Prophets, thus accomplishing the condition He presented in 5:18.

It says he "till the heavens and earth pass" you think this means that Jesus might fulfill this in one of two ways. 1) His sacrifice. 2) Armegeddon. If the second he did not. I think the latter has more weight as it speaks of the earth and heaven "passing" i.e. being changed in a strong way.

The Golden rule cannot be an add on for two reasons:
1- The context in which it is presented: Jesus presents it, along with the First Commanment, as a synthesis of the Law and the Prophets.
2- It would simply be in contradiction with some of the rulings, if they were to be accepted as something other than dated precepts.

Good point.

t would be just as easy for a Omnipotent God to make it allright to hate, wouldn't it?
But then, would He be a Loving God?

Nope, because if God was omnipotent he could get around that. God could be a loving God that created a morality of hate

The only thing I offer you to ponder is "What if it was true, and such a God existed?". "Wouldn't it be great?"

Granted and "no" because I'd still consider it a dictatorship. And would still rather love otherthings above God.

Now returning to your first point.
It is not Christian doctrine that an a-Christian moral is structurally a-moral or imoral.

Well my point are Xians say their morality is all that saves us from moral subjectivism(its all mine or X's opinion). But in fact it is just that. I never said Christianity was immoral though I think belief in superstition is immoral.

I have some dificulty in imagining what would be the pilars of a strictly materialistic morallity.

Can you help me on that?

Certainly, there is utilitarian/hedonist theory(including rule(group) and act(Individual) based), where what is moral is what satisfies the greatest amount of wants or values(in the case of groups the greatest amount of wants and values for the greatest number). These values could be programmed by nature and enviroment and can include wants like "people should be treated fairly" or "I want to be nice". This is well complmented by identity-value theory in which morality is determined by what one is or how one is programmed by genes,culture and enviroment. For example, it'd be like me programming a robot to not kill or not want to kill. In identity-value theory we are programmed in that way. Morality is part of who we are as groups and individuals. The two like I said are completely materialistic and blend in well together. They are also not dependent on arbitrary choice in any way.

There is also objectivist morality said to be based on rational self-interest. Here one focuses on what is best for one's self-interest on the basis of reason. This can include things like money...but things like family and other loved one's happinness as welll.

Lastly there is secular humanist-situational morality. This is basicaly based on certain principles defined as moral (like do not cause harm and do not lie) which may vary in strength and applicability according to the situation.(like, if someone was going to harm a loved one, then it might be ok to harm them or if llying would save lives)This seems subjectivist but is not as it is not anything goes and chosen by the individual but defined at the ostensible level.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Nope, because if God was omnipotent he could get around that. God could be a loving God that created a morality of hate

Somehow, this strickes me as one of the least logic statements you have made so far. Love and hate are contradictory in terms, wouldn't you think? A Omnipotent God could do that, but a Loving God wouldn't even if He could.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Granted and "no" because I'd still consider it a dictatorship. And would still rather love otherthings above God.

Granted, also. It's all a matter of personal conscience. As far as Christian doctrine is concerned you have no reason to believe you will have to realise, during your lifetime, that you were mistaken. If you don't believe there is an afterlife, there is nothing you have to worry about (in what your conscience is concerned of course). Looselly quoting Paul in one of His letters: he said that if we, Christians, were not to believe in an afterlife where we can join God in all Grace and Happiness then we would be the most pathetic of creatures. I believe that is what many atheists think of us, actually. I myself don't feel in anyway restricted by such a "dictator" that let's me do whatever I whant to do, even if He knows ioing wrong. That's why, perhaps, I don't look at God as a dictator at all, but as a Father.

On materialistic theories of Morals:

First note:
You present me here with three different theories.
It's a bit odd, to me, to trade one believe for three theories but i'll give it a try.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Certainly, there is utilitarian/hedonist theory(including rule(group) and act(Individual) based), where what is moral is what satisfies the greatest amount of wants or values(in the case of groups the greatest amount of wants and values for the greatest number). These values could be programmed by nature and enviroment and can include wants like "people should be treated fairly" or "I want to be nice".

According to this description of the theory, what ensures that the socially established rules of moral are good is the possibility that a rondom/chaotic system on natural/environmental programing gives values as "fairness", "niceness" and so forth.
My question here is:
I recall that "survival of the fittest" and things like the predator choice of killing the phisical weakened first (I believe, because it is easier than trying to kill a more fit prey) are consentually argued as being natural programes. However, I don't see "niceness" as a value established in those "programs".
How this theory answer this?

Originally posted by Logical Realist
This is well complmented by identity-value theory in which morality is determined by what one is or how one is programmed by genes,culture and enviroment. For example, it'd be like me programming a robot to not kill or not want to kill. In identity-value theory we are programmed in that way. Morality is part of who we are as groups and individuals. The two like I said are completely materialistic and blend in well together. They are also not dependent on arbitrary choice in any way.

The problem with gene imprinting, in my view is that, without a purpose, i.e., if it were by acident, there is no logical reason to believe that destructive padrons weren't also imprinted.
When we come to cultural constructs I believe we have to justify how did the culture arrived to the rule in the first place.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
There is also objectivist morality said to be based on rational self-interest. Here one focuses on what is best for one's self-interest on the basis of reason. This can include things like money...but things like family and other loved one's happinness as welll.

How strong his this self-interest? A too strong self-interest cannot cope with caring for the happiness of others (even close ones, let alone those that we don't know or are not familiar with).
Also, I can see perfectly logical reasonings for acts such as killings and thefts, but also lying, particularly when a rational self-interest is concerned.
Can this theory provide me a moral ruling as wide as the set of non-spiritual Comandments (ie, those in the Ten Commandments that are not related to our relations with God)? I take for granted that no materialistic moral can advise some kind of spiritually oriented behaviour.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Lastly there is secular humanist-situational morality. This is basicaly based on certain principles defined as moral (like do not cause harm and do not lie) which may vary in strength and applicability according to the situation.(like, if someone was going to harm a loved one, then it might be ok to harm them or if llying would save lives)This seems subjectivist but is not as it is not anything goes and chosen by the individual but defined at the ostensible level.

Again, in this theory a question comes in mind: how did those principles appeared, in what were they based, what made any human community to accept and abide by them?

Basicly the answer I am looking for is where are based the values/principles that these theories present. I may have understood wrong, but these theories,other than the objectivist morality, are much more about the mechanics of how the principles survived and much less on how they came to appear in the first place. But, as I wrote above, I have some dificulty in realizing how certain moral rulings present in the Christian Morals would appear in a objectivist framework (and I'm not talking about the spirituyal ones, of course).

One point I lost is about Superstition and Morality. I confess I have some dificulty in understanding why believing is the Astrological Signs can be seen as imoral, although I don't believe in them myself. For me, not all mistakes are imoral: some are plain mistakes.

[mactbone]

The Greeks did not follow God's word, yet they did not constantly kill each other. There are many intances of societies that follow basic precepts very similar to ours, yet they did not have the word of God. So how do you explain them?

I like to see it this way. Everything we do, benifits us in some way. I choose not kill people, not neccessarily because of the laws, but because if I killed someone (in a primitive society it would be really bad because you need everyone to contribute to the community), someone would see me as a threat and go after me. So, everything becomes personal logic. Why don't I steal? If I started stealing, people would either try to harm me, or everyone would steal from everyone, and I wouldn't be able to keep my things.

[devilmunchkin]

i have been told by some christians before, that without god, we have no reason to not go out and kill and riot etc. but what they don't understand is, we have no reason to either.