Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

Again, why is our survival a "good?" Subjectively to us it is, but that is only our SAY SO. Which Jim seems to have a problem with.

[JimL]

Well, by that logic, if the Allies had lost the war, then they would have been in the wrong. But you didn't answer my question, how can you condemn the Nazis? Especially if they had conquered the world, and society was then for the Aryans.

Winning and running a tyranus regime isn't what determines the best interests of the people. As I keep trying to explain to the dunderheads, the moral system that is in the best interests of society, i.e. in the best interests of all the people of a community, has nothing to do with what one individual, or tyranus government, might think, or employ for their own nefarius purposes. What matters is how the moral system actually serves the living conditions of the society as a whole. And that is something that can be measured.

"Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Ro 13:10) So to be good is to be loving. And "God is love" (1 John 4:8).

And to love one another is a kind of all encompassing moral and therefore to love one another is a moral that is in the best interests of society and so is a moral that need not come from god in order to serve our best interests and be understood to be "good."

[JimL]

Again, why is our survival a "good?" Subjectively to us it is, but that is only our SAY SO. Which Jim seems to have a problem with.

You're just being stubbornly silly now seer. "Why is our survival "good"? Is your survival a "good" to you? Yes? Well then, now you know why it's a "good!" And that is why a moral against murder is a "good" for the society in which you are a member.

[carpedm9587]

Good, when used as a noun, means either "that which is morally right; righteousness" or "benefit or advantage to someone or something." Clearly, the latter is subject to "say so." As I teach my students in class, you cannot assess "benefit" without a subject against which to assess it (in my student's case, a customer). Something that is a "good" for me may or may not be a "good" for someone else. Case in point, Bactrim and Septa are "good" for me if I have an infection. They are not a "good" for someone who does not have an infection, and can be a "bad" for someone who has an allergy to sulfa-based medications.

As for the morality-based definition, we've been around that merry-go-round more than enough times.

Bottom line, it might help the discussion if you are using the same definition of the terms.

[Sparko]

Winning and running a tyranus regime isn't what determines the best interests of the people. As I keep trying to explain to the dunderheads, the moral system that is in the best interests of society, i.e. in the best interests of all the people of a community, has nothing to do with what one individual, or tyranus government, might think, or employ for their own nefarius purposes. What matters is how the moral system actually serves the living conditions of the society as a whole. And that is something that can be measured.


And to love one another is a kind of all encompassing moral and therefore to love one another is a moral that is in the best interests of society and so is a moral that need not come from god in order to serve our best interests and be understood to be "good."

It seems that only what YOU think is in the best interests of society counts JimL. So you are "God" in your little morality theory.

[seer]

You're just being stubbornly silly now seer. "Why is our survival "good"? Is your survival a "good" to you? Yes? Well then, now you know why it's a "good!" And that is why a moral against murder is a "good" for the society in which you are a member.

Jim everything you are saying completely relies on SAY SO. It is my opinion that our survival, my survival, is a moral good - my say so...

[seer]

Good, when used as a noun, means either "that which is morally right; righteousness" or "benefit or advantage to someone or something." Clearly, the latter is subject to "say so." As I teach my students in class, you cannot assess "benefit" without a subject against which to assess it (in my student's case, a customer). Something that is a "good" for me may or may not be a "good" for someone else. Case in point, Bactrim and Septa are "good" for me if I have an infection. They are not a "good" for someone who does not have an infection, and can be a "bad" for someone who has an allergy to sulfa-based medications.

So our deaths would be bad for us, but a good for the Alien race that harvest us for food.

[lee_merrill]

Winning and running a tyranus regime isn't what determines the best interests of the people. As I keep trying to explain to the dunderheads, the moral system that is in the best interests of society, i.e. in the best interests of all the people of a community, has nothing to do with what one individual, or tyranus government, might think, or employ for their own nefarius purposes. What matters is how the moral system actually serves the living conditions of the society as a whole. And that is something that can be measured.

Oh, but the Nazis were all into survival of the fittest. Why isn't eugenics in the best interests of society?

And to love one another is a kind of all encompassing moral and therefore to love one another is a moral that is in the best interests of society and so is a moral that need not come from god in order to serve our best interests and be understood to be "good."

What if the love we need must come from God, though? Speaking of Nazis, Corrie ten Boom met a guard after the war who had repented of what he had done in Corrie's prison camp. He asked her forgiveness, and Corrie couldn't do it. She then asked God for his love, and she was then able to forgive.

Blessings,
Lee

[Tassman]

Again, why is our survival a "good?" Subjectively to us it is, but that is only our SAY SO. Which Jim seems to have a problem with.

It is more than just our "say so". Survival is the basic driving instinct of all living creatures. You think it's so "good" that you want it to last for all eternity.

[Tassman]

So our deaths would be bad for us, but a good for the Alien race that harvest us for food.

Yes, just as the deaths of the indigenous people of the countries we invaded during the colonial expansion was good for us but bad for the natives.

[seer]

It is more than just our "say so". Survival is the basic driving instinct of all living creatures. You think it's so "good" that you want it to last for all eternity.

No Tass, the moral claim that our survival is a moral good only relies on our SAY SO. The fact that we have an instinct to survive has nothing to do with whether our survival is a moral good or not.

[seer]

Yes, just as the deaths of the indigenous people of the countries we invaded during the colonial expansion was good for us but bad for the natives.

Yes, like in your country... And we are back to SAY SO...

[JimL]

Oh, but the Nazis were all into survival of the fittest. Why isn't eugenics in the best interests of society?

Because there is no such thing as the fittest people.

What if the love we need must come from God, though? Speaking of Nazis, Corrie ten Boom met a guard after the war who had repented of what he had done in Corrie's prison camp. He asked her forgiveness, and Corrie couldn't do it. She then asked God for his love, and she was then able to forgive.

Corrie forgave the guard, not god, regardless of where he placed the credit. The point is that god is not necessary for the existence of morals that serve the best interests of society.

[JimL]

Yes, like in your country... And we are back to SAY SO...

So I take it then that, to you, good and evil mean nothing other than gods say so. Is that correct?

[lee_merrill]

Because there is no such thing as the fittest people.

Surely some are more fit for survival than others, this is self-evident. So why not weed out the weak? Why not keep those with genetic illnesses from reproducing?

The point is that god is not necessary for the existence of morals that serve the best interests of society.

I find that I cannot love unless I have been loved, and "love comes from God" (1 John 4:7).

Blessings,
Lee