Are atheists less civilized than normal members of society? - Page 25 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14997129
SolarCross wrote:Too simple, at the very least you need to include a definition or criteria for what constitutes "good" and "evil".



No I don't, we all know what good is, some people are just evil fucks who use religion to rationalize their depravity. And all religions are abused in that way, not just Islam.
#14997136
SolarCross wrote:Nope, we actually all do have different ideas of what is good and evil


No, we don't. We all have an innate sense of good and evil, some of us choose to ignore it for various reasons, even codifying our rationalizations into religious commandments, but we all know that good is whatever is constructive and benevolent and evil is whatever is destructive and malevolent.
#14997140
Sivad wrote:No, we don't. We all have an innate sense of good and evil, some of us choose to ignore it for various reasons, even codifying our rationalizations into religious commandments, but we all know that good is whatever is constructive and benevolent and evil is whatever is destructive and malevolent.


This assertion is partly circular reasoning because "benevolent" means "good wishing" and malevolent means "bad wishing". You are saying good is good and bad is bad. Circular.

The other part destructive / constructive falls down because everyone recognises some destruction as good and some construction as bad. Hanging serial child killers is recognised by almost everyone as "good" but is obviously a destructive act. Many would recognise making a building that was ugly or non-functional as bad yet is also fairly a constructive act. Also whether something is destructive or constructive is generally a matter of perspective. Writing a poem is a constructive act because it creates a poem but it also destroys a clean white page. Human existence is constructed out of the destruction of innumerable other lifeforms: plants, fungi and animals...
#14997151
SolarCross wrote:Circular.


No, it's not circular, it's just stating that the value of an act is determined by intention as much as outcome.

The other part destructive / constructive falls down because everyone recognises some destruction as good and some construction as bad.


Not really, you're just equivocating on the relative and the absolute. Some acts are relatively destructive but are overall or ultimately or on the whole or by and large or all things considered, constructive. The constructive is whatever ultimately makes us stronger, freer, more robust, expansive, and substantive people.
#14997154
Sivad wrote:No, it's not circular, it's just stating that the value of an act is determined by intention as much as outcome.

It is circular because bad and good remain undefined except by themselves. The "wishing" or intention is irrelevant because it is present in BOTH ends of the dichotomy and so is not serving as a distinguishing criteria here.

Sivad wrote:Not really, you're just equivocating on the relative and the absolute. Some acts are relatively destructive but are overall or ultimately or on the whole or by and large or all things considered, constructive. The constructive is whatever ultimately makes us stronger, freer, more robust, expansive, and substantive people.

I am saying that there is no absolute moral values and the closest one can come to it is by invoking a supreme being and trusting "Him" to be truly objective and also somehow obtaining a credible communication of that objective standard.

Why should the rabbit feel good about his flesh being used to construct healthier wolves?
#14997162
SolarCross wrote:It is circular because bad and good remain undefined except by themselves.


Benevolence is defined as charity, compassion, kindness, generosity, selfless altruism, nothing circular there. Malevolence is intending pain, harm, injury, or destruction for cruel, spiteful, selfish, or depraved ends.


I am saying that there is no absolute moral values



That's just obviously false, some people try to deny it but the overwhelming majority of us recognize that there is definitely an absolute and objective moral law that we are all bound to.

and the closest one can come to it is by invoking a supreme being and trusting "Him" to be truly objective and also somehow obtaining a credible communication of that objective standard.


Morality can be successfully grounded without appealing to a supreme being and moral knowledge doesn't require divine revelation or any sort of supernatural faculty.

Why should the rabbit feel good about his flesh being used to construct healthier wolves?


We are morally obligated to make sacrifices for the greater good and morally prohibited from using others as a means to our own selfish ends.
#14997164
Sivad wrote:Benevolence is defined as charity, compassion, kindness, generosity, selfless altruism, nothing circular there. Malevolence is intending pain, harm, injury, or destruction for selfish ends.

Right because the (Christian) authors of the words presuppose certain things are "good" and "bad" respectively. However even here they are very contextual and consequently relative. Christians would eat meat but not consider it malevolence despite it causing death and destruction for selfish ends... You may of course imitate Christian conceptions of "good" or "evil" but it is only fair to make that plain and realise that those conceptions are relative too because not everyone or everybeing is a Christian or even human.

Sivad wrote:That's just obviously false, some people try to deny it but the overwhelming majority of us recognize that there is definitely an absolute and objective moral law that we are all bound to.

Except there actually isn't, if morality is just a popularity contest then currently Christians still win hands down and even they only total about 33% of the human population (straight away we are flat out ignoring non-humans as if they don't exist!) so now you are anthropocentrically stuck having to accept that Christian morals are closest there is to an absolute and objective moral law. But it gets worse because while Christians share certain identifiable characteristics they differ on quite a lot too after 2000 years of one schism after another. A minority of Christians (mormons) accept polygamy as moral, the rest don't, very many Christians firmly hold abortion to be a profound sin and there are many other points of difference.

Sivad wrote:Morality can be successfully grounded without appealing to a supreme being and moral knowledge doesn't require divine revelation or any sort of supernatural faculty.

Yet no one has done it.

Sivad wrote: We are morally obligated to make sacrifices for the greater good and morally prohibited from using others as a means to our own selfish ends.

So the rabbit should sacrifice himself to the wolf but the wolf must not eat and so starve? :lol:
#14998543
Sivad wrote:No I don't, we all know what good is, some people are just evil fucks who use religion to rationalize their depravity. And all religions are abused in that way, not just Islam.

True, but the rationalizations are especially easy and persuasive in the case of Islam because Muslims are instructed in their Qu'ran to emulate the example of Mohammed, a particularly depraved individual by civilized standards, as a religious duty.
  • 1
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
Racism

How 'bout the genetics involved in short distance[…]

Socialism wants to be an all encompasing monopoly[…]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tue[…]

''So what?'' I'm beginning to think that you hav[…]