Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Atheism And Moral Progress
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo it benefits society to kill millions of our own unborn children. Got it...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostSorry about that. Sometimes you convey the impression of 'setting people right'.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThere certainly is no need for a god for there to be "morality." As for "morals having objective existence," I am not sure what this means. That sentient beings moralize is clearly objectively true. But your language seems to suggest that you think there is an objective moral code to which all of us are attempting (or should be attempting) to align. I would disagree that such a thing exists. There are communal moral codes, but those are nothing more than the aggregate of individual moral codes - they are not "moral absolutes" in the sense theists and so-called "moral realists" use the term.
Comment
-
How is abortion not selfish since in most cases it is done for mere convenience? And how is killing our own offspring conducive to our general survival? And you don't have to be religious to be against abortion:
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secu...inst-abortion/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-LifeAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostFetuses were bot viewed as "children" throughout most of the history of the Judeo/Christian religion. And it only became an issue among Evangelicals relatively recently... primarily, it seems, as a political weapon..
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWould you say that there is a legitimate argument to be made that the moral against murder, or the moral against theft, are not in the best interests of human society?
As for theft, you are approaching this in a manner I don't think is useful or appropriate. The question is not "is theft ever in the best interests of society." The question is "is there any society in which theft is not a "wrong?" The answer is yes. In a society where all property is held communally, the concept of theft does not exist. Indeed, there are primitive tribes whose language lacks the word for theft altogether, because the concept simply makes no sense to them.
Your "best interests" approach is not functional, Jim, because you will always end up at "best interests to whom?" At the end of the day, it is a specific person making that evaluation. That is what makes morality 100% subjective/relative. Moral absolutes don't exist. People simply confuse widely held moral principals with "absolutes" - or attribute these principles to a god (which they cannot show to exist) to lend them authority. There is a far simpler explanation for the source of widely, commonly held moral norms.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSo, first of all, "murder is wrong" is a tautology. It is true by definition, because the definition of "murder" is a "wrongful or illicit killing." So "murder is wrong" translates to "wrongful killing is wrong," which is always true, by definition. But it's not actually saying anything. It's like saying "red is red" or "heavy loads are heavy."
As for theft, you are approaching this in a manner I don't think is useful or appropriate. The question is not "is theft ever in the best interests of society." The question is "is there any society in which theft is not a "wrong?" The answer is yes. In a society where all property is held communally, the concept of theft does not exist. Indeed, there are primitive tribes whose language lacks the word for theft altogether, because the concept simply makes no sense to them.
Your "best interests" approach is not functional, Jim, because you will always end up at "best interests to whom?" At the end of the day, it is a specific person making that evaluation. That is what makes morality 100% subjective/relative. Moral absolutes don't exist. People simply confuse widely held moral principals with "absolutes" - or attribute these principles to a god (which they cannot show to exist) to lend them authority. There is a far simpler explanation for the source of widely, commonly held moral norms.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostHow is abortion not selfish since in most cases it is done for mere convenience? And how is killing our own offspring conducive to our general survival?
And you don't have to be religious to be against abortion:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostI'll leave the judgementalism to you Evangelicals. There are many good reason why an abortion is preferable, including the potential negative physical or psychological impact on the woman's life, financial inability to care for a child, or relationship problems and the unwillingness to be a single mother. Regardless, it is the woman's right to choose and not up to outsiders to impose their personal views on the woman's life.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View Post...do you think you could make a legitimate argument that would support the allowance of such behaviors to be in the best interests of this society.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Why would they have a "figure of speech" that called an unborn human being a "child" or "baby" if that wasn't what they thought it was? How would it even get to be a figure of speech, Tassman? It even describes Jesus and John in the womb reacting to each other. It describes God having plans for someone even before they were born and watching over them. It describes the punishment if someone harms a woman's unborn baby.
Your idiotic claim that the Jews didn't believe the baby was a baby before it was born has been shown to be false over and over, yet every single time the topic comes up, you simply repeat yourself. Do you actually think that people don't remember the last time you were proven wrong, or the time before that?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI don't think you answered the question Carp. More like you danced around it.
Originally posted by JimL View PostMurder can either be seen as an immoral act or not,
Originally posted by JimL View Posttheft can either be seen as either an immoral act or not,
Originally posted by JimL View Postand those behaviors can be treated as such within any society. So the question was do you believe that there is a legitimate argument that the moral against murder is not in the best interests of society.
Originally posted by JimL View PostTry to focus on this American society instead of trying to imagine other types of societies where you think the same logic doesn't hold. If murder was allowed, if theft were allowed, if rape were allowed, i.e., if those behaviors were not seen as being immoral acts and therefore illegal acts, do you think you could make a legitimate argument that would support the allowance of such behaviors to be in the best interests of this society.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
643 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment