spendius wrote:I hold to that view myself actually.And I accept all that follows from it.I suspect half-baked evolutionists are present.I'm full blown and I think half-baked supporters do discredit to the cause.They seem to me to be only seeking to cosy up to science as a self-esteem booster.On the hard questions they close their ears.
Actually, the "half baked" supporters get something you don't, that no ethical imperatives can be derived without ethical premises, which must in turn derive from other ethical premises, and so on until one reaches axioms. They do not accept the ethical premises which you continue to leave out in making your arguments. I pointed this out to you on the other thread remember?
spendius wrote:We do not lock rapists up for the rape.We lock them up because a large majority of the population has exerted its power to do so.How else could an evolutionist approach the matter.How does an evolutionist take a moral stance on anything.An evolutionist simply shrugs.If that.
Actually, on my planet, we do lock rapists up for the rape. "We" being the large majority of the population which is exserting its power. And we have made our intentions in that regard quite clear (ever heard of laws?), so there is no reason for any would be rapist to doubt the cause and effect relationship between those events. (yeah, yeah, we don't catch all of them, but you get the gist of it right?)
And proponents of evolution arrive at their ethical imperatives the same way any other human does, by establishing axiomatic ethical imperatives, and derive a system of ethics based on those axioms in conjunction with their understanding of the world.
spendius wrote:Tell me Timber.How do I as a flat out scientific evolutionist take a moral stance on anything.
We've been over this. You seem to have taken the stance though that it is preferable (right) to not have people act as you imagine they would if they weren't influenced by theists, how do you arrive at that ethical imperative if you are an oh so amoral "evolutionist"?
I've devised a thought experiment for you by the way. imagine for a moment that the invisible creature in the sky is real. How do you now take a moral stance on anything?
You could settle on the ethical axiom to do the creatures bidding of course, but founding your system of ethics on an axiom would concede my case. You could posit that this good was good, and proceed to do it's bidding, but you would then have founded your system of ethics on an axiom again, that one ought to do good. If you consider that to be part of the definition of the word "good" then "the creature is is good" is simply a rewrite of axiom one, "one ought to do the creatures bidding".
No matter how you twist and turn it you can not get around the facts that:
* All ethical imperatives must either derive from other ethical imperatives, or be established as first principles.
* Circular logic is invalid.
* Infinite regression won't do
From which follows:
* All ethical imperatives are either first principles, or derived from first principles.
And as we all know first principles must be considered "self evident" or "true by definition". In another word axioms. Thus any system of ethics is an axiomatic structure.
Can you come up with any reason why someone with a materialistic understanding of the universe would be less inclined to establish an axiomatic structure of ethics than someone with a theistic understanding?
spendius wrote:I would really like to know.
I've told you twice, all you need to do is pick up on it.
spendius wrote:If people like me were running things the ladies would have to stay indoors under strict supervision instead of running loose sending sexually provocative signals out if they didn't want to risk being grabbed.
You might want to rephrase that, the way it reads at present it isn't very flattering. (Oh, but there is no more editing, I guess you'll look like an asshole til the end of able2know.)
