Thanks Peter,

I hadn't thought much about what might be called 'personal values', as opposed, or distinct from, 'social values'. I assumed that 'values' meant 'social values', how we relate to and treat each other and society, what we expect from, and try to contribute to, each other and society as a whole, including its most vulnerable.

How we might 'value ' a bottle of wine, and how we 'value' the notion of helping others in need - seem to be referring to qualitatively very different things, using (perhaps inappropriately) the same word. If we have to use the same word to compare the values of James Halliday and Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela, we really are up the creek [no offense to James Halliday].

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Premise B: they (good and evil) exist.

If you agree that the qualities of good and evil are not to be found in nature, yet they exist, then what other option is left?

Of course, there are many who do not agree with either premise: on the one hand you get those who think (without evidence) that good and evil do exist in nature and on the other hand you get those who claim that good and evil do not exist at all, who may or example say that it's all relative, all just an unreal idea in people's minds, etc. Postmodernism is well known for that.

Similarly, suppose for example that Maslow's "needs" indeed exist, then these too would be supernatural: that there is air (as per your example of JaFra, whoever that is) is an empirical observation. That without the oxygen which is in the air organisms die, is also an empirical observation, yet no empirical observation can show us that anyone "needs" air: you might as well call it a superstition.

«Then you make the leap, that supernatural means 'religious'.»

Certainly not! In fact I believe that there are supernatural phenomena that are anything but religious, things we should actually stay away from and better not waste our time on.

As religious, I only referred to the persistent conscious choice of good over evil, rather to any and all supernatural-driven activities. Doing so is religious because it helps you to come closer to God, which you seem to prefer to call 'goodness', to which I have no objection.

Hi Yuyutsu,

1. natural:

* natural, and reasonably well-understood;

* natural, but not understood, something for which, due to our ignorance, which in turn is partly due to our lack of knowledge technology, we don't have satisfactory current explanations just yet;

this phases easily into:

* supernatural.

2. not natural:

* man-made, manufactured, consciously fashioned;

* caused by human action, not necessarily by intent.

Does all that make sense ?

Joe

Yuyutsu,

Good and evil are labels that we put on human interactions and emotions.

There are human interactions and emotions that are generally preferable to others. There is nothing supernatural (i.e. beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature) about a label or a concept. There are certain actions and states which we can generally agree are consistent with the notions of good and evil (e.g. health is preferable to sickness, life is generally preferable to death). The supernatural, on the other hand, cannot, by definition, be investigated in any way.

<<That without the oxygen which is in the air organisms die, is also an empirical observation, yet no empirical observation can show us that anyone "needs" air ...>>

Ah, but you can if we can agree health is preferable to sickness and that life is generally preferable to death. Which most people do, even though you don’t (yet contradict this by still looking both ways before crossing a street).

A J Phillips wrote(I've added the numbering):

1.Good and evil are labels that we put on human interactions and emotions.

2. There are human interactions and emotions that are generally preferable to others.

3. There is nothing supernatural (i.e. beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature) about a label or a concept.

4. There are certain actions and states which we can generally agree are consistent with the notions of good and evil (e.g. health is preferable to sickness, life is generally preferable to death).

5. The supernatural, on the other hand, cannot, by definition, be investigated in any way.

MY RESPONSE:
1. True
2. True
3. True
4. Internal contradiction/confusion
5. True (b/c it is beyond the ability of science to do so)

The internal contradiction arising from
a. "the notions of good and evil": definite article implies a unique standard
b. Identifying good with what is "preferable" is a relative standard eg.health is good b/c "health is preferable to sickness". Sickness is good b/c "sickness is preferable to death". Sickness is not good and good. Contradition.

(b) impies there is not a unique standard. This contradicts (a).

So there cannot be a unique standard for good and evil if based on human perferences. Even if we assumed everyone had identical preferences or limited good and evil to things everyone agrees upon (which is silly but but let's pretend) there can be no unque standard (Point b).

If there is to be a unique standard then it must be "supernatural": something beyond what science can explain (AJ'S Point 5).

For convenience, let's call it "the will of god".

Over to you AJ

grateful,

I didn’t say sickness is good. (By the way, my post to Yuyutsu was written in the context of our past discussions, and so it’s not going to sound very comprehensive to someone who just stumbles upon it now.)

<<So there cannot be a unique standard for good and evil if based on human perferences.>>

I assume, by “unique”, you actually mean “objective”. That's the usual argument from theists, anyway. If so, then, no, my talk of good and evil did not imply an objective standard. I only spoke of general preferences.

<<If there is to be a unique standard then it must be "supernatural": something beyond what science can explain>>

No, the Euthyphro dilemma debunks this common misconception.

<<For convenience, let's call it "the will of god".>>

Sure, once you've gotten around the Euthyphro dilemma and provided reliable evidence for a god.

Over to you, grateful.