I see what you did there?
As far as I’m concerned, this “External Agent” stuff is just a case of someone claiming that their morals are superior to yours because they are “Officially Authorized”. At least with a diploma mill you get a fake diploma to hang on the wall.
I’m concerned that I’m on double secret probation, and the ‘external agent’ is spying on me.
We know from living wage debates that any conservative relgionist believes that there is no intrinsic value - it is set by the market. This means there must be some kind of soul stock market in heaven. If you don’t live up to expectations - analyst’s forecasts - you’ll soul won’t be worth a plugged shekel.
I should start a religion. Add affiliates that sell gold and guns, and I’d clean up.
You’re saying that, based on the username, Intrinsicvalue may be some kind of c… c… Communist?!
Same problem for the “external agency” conjecture.
People band together in groups. If you murder my children, the tribe will take action. They’ll kill you, and probably ostracize (or even murder) your children. It’s really bad game theory.
Humans have the faculty of empathy. We know how much we’d suffer if our children were murdered, and we extend that to others. Since we’re in the same tribe/clan/band/sept we already have learned the benefits of cooperation. We can hunt more antelope when we work together. So we value each other. When one guy slips on a rock and twists his ankle, we don’t leave him behind: we carry him back to the village, and we feed him until he gets better.
Also: there’s no gain in murdering children.
(Maybe if there is a really hellish famine. We could explore the morality of that. But it’s an outlying case.)
Game theory and allotment of resources is perfectly naturalistic.
So intellect and morality are not only linked, but advanced through an evolutionary process.
Hmm.
I am not sure what your “Hmm.” indicates. Do you have any reason to believe that that is not the case?
I have every reason to believe that that is not the case.
Care to share what reason that is?
That is a non-answer in a debate forum.
Let’s see your reasons.
Is Baby Jesus™, every reason?
That type of response can work in a face-to-face conversation if you throw in an enigmatic half smile, a raised eyebrow and a small pause for effect. On a message board, however, it just comes across as a trite non-answer.
That’s a basic problem for anyone claiming some kind of “objective morality”, whether it’s set by their god or by nature. People who claim such a thing always assume that the “objective morality” will just happen to be identical to their own personal morality - but what if it isn’t? Objective morality proponents not only need to prove that it’s real and objective, but that it’s a good idea to follow it.
If there is such a thing as objective morality and it demands that I go forth and rape children and cannibalize people, then I’ll just go ahead and be “objectively immoral”.
In that case you have thus far utterly failed to prove that there is any such thing as objective morality.
“It certainly cannot be simple coincidence that my personal morality aligns so well with the objective morality imposed by the hypothetical all-good entity. That clearly shows that I am one of the Select who are most pleasing to the hypothetical all-good entity, and therefore I can be all Judgy McJudgementPants on you poor benighted folks who are not so fortunate. Because no one would ever come up with the idea that torturing innocent children is a bad thing al on their own.”
(You know, if the most important piece of Imposed Morality is “Don’t torture children,” something that even squirrels avoid, the hypothetical all-good entity has really set the bar pretty low.)
Right. Given that we all more or less agree that killing kids is a Real Bad Thing (except, you know, those that don’t), it only follows that all other edicts in the same source should be adopted!
However, I’m guessing that’s going to focus more on, say, human sexuality than it does on weaving cloth from mixed fibres.
Yep… Having homosexual relations is an offense to God, and is intrinsically immoral.
But eating a nice scallop dinner? Oh, that prohibition has passed and is no longer meaningful to us.
Nice to be able to pick and choose among intrinsic morality!
That stuff must have only been a little bit absolute.