Originally posted by seer
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 carpedm9587 View PostYou'll to get in line behind Sparko and Rogue...
No - it can't. This is like saying, "red can be red or not red." See my previous post.
It can be seen as moral - or it can simply not apply or not exist. A person will either see "personal property" as a value to be protected, in which case Theft will be seen as immoral, or they may NOT see personal property as a value to be protected, in which case the concept of theft simply doesn't exist. If I do not care about personal property, I am not going to see anyone taking something as "theft."
Your question cannot be answered as asked. As I noted, it's like asking, "do you think red not being red would benefit society." The question is nonsensical.
I cannot answer these questions, Jim. They don't make any sense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostCommon sense seer, common sense. I know that it is in your best interests that you not be murdered or robbed, that it is in the best interests of all men that they not be murdered or robbed, and all men means the entire community, the society, so it is in the best interests of the human community that our morals provide for us a society wherein those interests are enforced. Your argument seems to say, no, none of that matters, the only reason a thing is right or wrong is because a god says so, and he says so for no particular reason.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 PostCommon sense seer, common sense. I know that it is in your best interests that you not be murdered or robbed, that it is in the best interests of all men that they not be murdered or robbed, and all men means the entire community, the society, so it is in the best interests of the human community that our morals provide for us a society wherein those interests are enforced. Your argument seems to say, no, none of that matters, the only reason a thing is right or wrong is because a god says so, and he says so for no particular reason.
And what happens when what is best for one society is bad for another?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou still haven't even defined what "best" is and how anyone can judge what is "best" for society. Does it just mean "help a particular society survive?" or does it mean "make people in that society happier" or "whatever JimL decides it means?"
And what happens when what is best for one society is bad for another?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 PostPlease no!
No, it is like saying, "red is not allowed here."
That's a contradiction though. If a person has personal property, like all people do, no matter what society, then they obviously value it as personal property. I don't think that you can actually thinik of any society where people have nothing of their own that they value.
I'm not seeing the logic there carp. I'm not saying "murder not being murder, would benefit society, I'm saying "murder not be allowed, or in other words, murder being understood as immoral and illegal, would benefit society. I think that's obvious.
Of course they make sense carp, they are simple questions. Understanding that the allowance of such behaviors would be detrimental to society as a whole is to understand that, conversely their being understood to be immoral and illegal is a benefit to society.
How about saying something like "Killing someone for personal gain" instead of "murder" which is already defined as immoral.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostPlease no!
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, it is like saying, "red is not allowed here."
Originally posted by JimL View PostThat's a contradiction though. If a person has personal property, like all people do, no matter what society, then they obviously value it as personal property. I don't think that you can actually thinik of any society where people have nothing of their own that they value.
Originally posted by JimL View PostI'm not seeing the logic there carp. I'm not saying "murder not being murder, would benefit society, I'm saying "murder not be allowed, or in other words, murder being understood as immoral and illegal, would benefit society. I think that's obvious.
Originally posted by JimL View PostOf course they make sense carp, they are simple questions. Understanding that the allowance of such behaviors would be detrimental to society as a whole is to understand that, conversely their being understood to be immoral and illegal is a benefit to society.
This is the hole in the examples you have chosen.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 Sparko View Post
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?
Abortion is totally legal in Israel.
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,
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJim I have no problem with common sense, but again that is just our say so. You can't escape it. God's say so has a reason, His reason; a peaceful, civil society of genuine brotherhood.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostUnfortunately, yes. You just jumped on their "Carpe is a handwaver and dancer" bandwagon.
For the reasons cited in my previous posts, this is not correct.
For those of us steeped in the western culture of "personal property" it is a difficult notion to grasp. But such cultures have indeed existed and continue to exist. Granted, they are considered "primitive" cultures, but they exist. And even within our western society, small enclaves have formed around the idea of "collective ownership," where no individual owns anything; all is held by the collective for anyone to use. In such cultures and enclaves, the notion of "theft" disappears - because you cannot steal when there is no such thing as "personal property."
I suggest you look up the definition of "murder." Perhaps that will help you understand.
I don't know how to help you understand this, Jim. I have explained it as best I can. "Murder is wrong" is a tautology because "Murder" is defined as "wrongful (or illicit) killing." So if you take the statement "murder is wrong" and substitute the definition for the word, you get "wrongful (or illicit) killing is wrong." Obviously, wrongful killing is wrong. That is a tautology. It is always true. It's like saying "red is red" or "heavy things are heavy." There is no way for "wrongful killing" to ever be "right."
This is the hole in the examples you have chosen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostJim if "murder" being immoral and illegal benefited a society, then it would no longer be illegal or immoral would it?
How about saying something like "Killing someone for personal gain" instead of "murder" which is already defined as immoral.[/QUOTE]
You're just picking nits. Some people killed/murdered for no reason at all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI'm assuming you mispoke here, or miswrote, but that, afaict, makes no sense at all.
How about saying something like "Killing someone for personal gain" instead of "murder" which is already defined as immoral.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostMurder is more than just killing. It is illegal and immoral killing. So like carp said, so when you propose a situation where "murder isn't immoral" you are stating a contradiction. You are saying "where immoral killing isn't immoral" - That is why he keeps arguing with you. Use a term for killing that doesn't already have "immoral or illegal" built into the very name.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIf you understand that there are underlying reasons for morality, then you should also understand that there is no need of a god in order that we reach those reasoned conclusions all on our own.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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
650 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment