Shel wrote:Moral intrinsic reality in Buddhism is based in cause and effect, yes? That's how it is in the scientific-secular view also.
I beg to differ. The idea of the laws of science do not extend at all to questions of ethics.
The idea of scientific principles do not extend at all to questions of ethics. What does that mean?
There are various scientific principles. There can be various ideas about scientific principles.
Whatever you're trying to say, the fact is that ethics can be studied scientifically. Theories can be developed and with experimentation, validated learning or scientific principles might be shared. Please try to keep in mind that scientific principles are not set in stone, they can change with new understanding.
According to the secular-scientific worldview, ethics are grounded in Darwinian principles, in other words, they serve only the purposes of survival. In fact, there is no purpose other than survival.
If "Darwinian principles" are scientific principles, and ethics are grounded in Darwinian principles, it would seem that scientific principles do extend to questions of ethics, contrary to your previous sentence. Whatever the case, I think it might be more accurate to say that according to at least one secular view, and perhaps some scientific views, ethics are based in gene propagation. This is just one way of looking at it of course, but it can be a very useful
way of looking at it. There are other ways of looking at it.
The divorce between science and ethics, or facts and values, goes back to David Hume, and his famous distinction between 'is' and 'ought'.
There has never been a divorce between facts and values. Obviously, facts do not all have the same value, and value can be quantified. The marriage between facts and values can't be broken, even by Hume.
Since then the predominant view of Western philosophy is that the Universe is absent of any intrinsic meaning or purpose.
What is the intrinsic meaning or purpose in the Universe according to Buddhism???
These are strictly human notions and are attributable solely to evolutionary requirements.
You're not suggesting that this is a scientific view are you?
I have argued this point at length on secular forums...
Frankly your point is not at all clear. I suggested that moral "intrinsic reality" in Buddhism is based in cause & effect, and that the scientific-secular view is also. You mentioned Darwinian principles of evolution, well, isn't that principle of evolution based in cause & effect? One thing leads to another and eventually an ape evolves into a homo sapien...