Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

For the greater good?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    robindch wrote: »
    This sounds a plotline from the Star Trek; in fact, I'm fairly sure it is :)

    Yes, it was the 'Dino-Darwin' episode. :o
    In the end 'Dino-Darwin' holds back his evolutionary theory because if he published it the Dino government would kill his friends - the Enterprise Crew, who couldn't intervene, something to do with the non-intervention of undeveloped worlds or some such... but I digress


  • Options
    #33
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Húrin wrote: »
    You couldn't say that anyone else is doing something wrong because it goes against your conscience.

    I never got that argument. Why not?

    Why can't I say what you are doing (beating up an old woman) is wrong.

    Yes it is wrong according to me, not according to you, but then do I need anything more?

    I never understood where this idea that I should respect your lets-beat-up-old-women morality with equal footing as my you-shouldn't-beat-up-old-women morality.

    The argument But how do you know you are right is flawed because it implies a comparison to a universal moral standard that we have already dropped.

    I'm right in relation to my morality. Society then groups based on shared morality. Some one disagrees then they can convince me or bring a big stick.
    Húrin wrote: »
    Christians know that this moral conscience points to a universal moral law.
    And biologists know that this "universal moral law" is actually moral instincts that have developed due to evolution. Which explains by the way the varying nature of morality across people and cultures, rather better than God or ideas such as the Fall.

    If God doesn't exist (he doesn't btw) then this evolved morality still exists. We don't all start raping and pillaging each other.

    Húrin wrote: »
    Without religion there is no objective, universal morality.
    I think it is pretty obvious that even with religion there is no objective universal morality.

    What religion you follow, what version of this universal morality you choose to believe is the correct one, is totally subjective.

    The idea of a universal morality is simply a vale religious people pull down to hide the fact that their morality is as subjective as anyone else. It is a pretend justification that their moral choices are some how given greater authority than others, when in fact the version of this universal morality they pick to believe in is based on their subjective choices.

    The advantage of the atheist idea that there is no universal morality is that they at least recognise this, where as theists justify their subjective morality with calls that it matches the universe one and as such must be right. This removes a chance to change one's mind or to rationalise a new version of ethics or morals. A good example of this is homosexuality, where theists believe this practise is wrong based on the subjective acceptance of the idea that a bunch of old men living 5,000 years ago were communicating with the correct god who holds the correct interpretation of the correct universal morality. They then say that this idea (homosexuality is wrong) is not subjective but in fact universal and cannot be re discussed or re debated. End of story, as it were.


  • Options
    #34
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Húrin wrote: »
    What stops you from committing acts of brutality? Conscience? Sure we all have one of those. But what makes you think that it can be applied to anyone else?
    If you try to kill somebody, then it's reasonable to think that somebody might want to kill you in return. In that light, wanting to kill other people seems like it might be bad for one's own health.

    Would you agree?


  • Options
    #35
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    robindch wrote: »
    If you try to kill somebody, then it's reasonable to think that somebody might want to kill you in return. In that light, wanting to kill other people seems like it might be bad for one's own health.

    That's actually a brilliant little summary you've got there.


  • Options
    #36
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    That's actually a brilliant little summary you've got there.
    Don't expect it'll make a blind jot of difference though. It can't be long before a religious poster whinges "yes, but that can't be right, since it's just so selfish". At which point, I'll be hanging up my hat and going for beer :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    robindch wrote: »
    If you try to kill somebody, then it's reasonable to think that somebody might want to kill you in return. In that light, wanting to kill other people seems like it might be bad for one's own health.

    Would you agree?

    Yes I do agree. Morality extends far beyond the question of whether it is right or wrong to murder. Do you agree?


  • Options
    #38
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Húrin wrote: »
    Yes I do agree. Morality extends far beyond the question of whether it is right or wrong to murder. Do you agree?

    That doesn't make sense. The right or wrong of something is the morality of it.


  • Options
    #39
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That doesn't make sense. The right or wrong of something is the morality of it.
    I mean, what is the point of acting as if that is the only moral question? Or that the prohibition on killing can be taken as a blueprint for all other moral questions?


  • Options
    #40
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Húrin wrote: »
    I mean, what is the point of acting as if that is the only moral question? Or that the prohibition on killing can be taken as a blueprint for all other moral questions?

    Who is acting as if murder is the only moral question?

    The "blueprint" for moral question is the golden rule. Even people without conscience (psychopaths) have motive to act within it.



    and before anyone says it, versions of the golden rule pre-date Jesus by thousands of years


Advertisement