Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you? — universeness
Your point that they would be immoral even if every person in existence declared their actions moral is a nonsense question as such a state of affairs has never happened and never will. — universeness
No it's more than that, it's a supernatural significance which has NEVER been demonstrated as having an existent. — universeness
Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior, — universeness
No it's more important, it's a powerful survival instinct. — universeness
Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day. — universeness
The two quotes above should make my reasons for commenting on my personal happiness, crystal clear. — universeness
Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well.” — universeness
My theism requires a creator. That's it. With it comes the power to create. From it, derives purpose, meaning, and a basis for morality missing in secular humanism. You cannot have an absolute morality without something anchoring it beyond human reason, which means murder is wrong unless I think it's not. It also establishes humanity as holy, sacred, and separated from all else. — Hanover
Yes, the onus IS on you to explain further, or else any discussion regarding your irreligious but still theist status, terminates, and you neither gain nor lose so why be a member of a discussion website? — universeness
How can such be evolving if you have already declared it supreme?
I assume this intelligence you type about is not omniscient, otherwise, again, how can it 'evolve' further.
We're all connected to this source; all life forms are.
— Noble Dust
What is the mechanism by which this connection you speak of functions?
Where do you suggest this source is located?
If you declare this source ineffable, then how can you make any comment as to it's existence? — universeness
In what sense? Which Hindu concept are you referring to? The concept of Brahma? Vishnu? Shiva? — universeness
Bad government yes and we fight that to, and the existence of bad government, does not in any way excuse the pernicious affects of religion. — universeness
It's like saying the existence of 'rape and torture' are more tolerable because murder exists. I assume you are familiar with '2 wrongs don't make a right.' — universeness
False trilemma ...You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: (1) accept a subjective morality but chase the elusive idea that your there are universal subjective truths (which there aren't), (2) use secular terms to appease yourself that you're not actually a theist, or (3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position — Hanover
I appreciare your honesty.This system of belief is not beholden to rational thought ... — Noble Dust
Grounding ethics in the real world problems – facticity – of the flourishing (contra languishing) of natural beings. To wit: 'Why be morally good?' is nearly synonymous with 'Why be physically & mentally healthy?' or 'Why be ecologically sustainable?' or 'Why be socially & politically just?" Answer: In order, as natural beings, to cultivate the flourishing (contra languishing) of as many natural beings as possible.What then makes ethical realism intelligible? — Hanover
False dichotomy.Without ethical realism, how do you avoid nihilism?
Without ethical realism, how do you avoid nihilism?
Grounding ethics in the real world problems – facticity – of the flourishing (contra languishing) of natural beings. To wit: 'Why be morally good?' is nearly synonymous with 'Why be physically & mentally healthy?' or 'Why be ecologically sustainable?' or 'Why be socially & politically just?" Answer: In order, as natural beings, to cultivate the flourishing (contra languishing) of as many natural beings as possible. — 180 Proof
False dichotomy. — 180 Proof
Given that our species nature is real (i.e. the fact that there are things which are bad, harmful, suffering-inducing to do to our kind), acting towards one another in harmony with our species nature is 'moral realism', no?act in harmony with your nature — wonderer1
Simply because there's a third option of moral pragmatism, a fourth is eudaimonism, a fifth is dis/utilitarianism, a sixth is deontologism, etc. Anyway, I'll stick with my rabbi Hillel's pre-scientific yet naturalistic, ethical principle:My question wasn't rhetorical, as if to argue either an absolute ethic or nihilism. I was asking why it's not a dichotomy. — Hanover
What you find hateful [harmful], do not do to anyone.
What you find hateful [harmful], do not do to anyone.
Given that our species nature is real (i.e. the fact that there are things which are bad, harmful, suffering-inducing to do to our kind), acting towards one another in harmony with our species nature is 'moral realism', no?
it seems to be declaring that purpose, sacredness and objective morality exist because god exists. — Tom Storm
I'm saying that morality cannot exist without God. Within God's definition is the moral. So it's not that morality exists because God exists; it's that if God exists, morality exists, and if God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist. — Hanover
If I declare moral realism, where is this moral realm? — Hanover
I don't either. — BC
Morality is typically defined as a collection of rules.
Moral realism says these rules have their source in something that transcends the human psyche.
The golden rule requires a person to look within, to their own love for themselves to find the right path.
Love replaces rules.
The golden rule is moral nihilism. — frank
The first 4 sentences are coherent. The last, 5th sentence, doesn't follow. — BC
What??? :rofl:when the thesis Hitchen's was opposing is not being argued for here. — Paine
OK, and should they decide to enslave those of a different tribe, then that's moral? — Hanover
Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you? — universeness
My humanity and my empathy towards my fellow humans and my support of standards such as the golden rule.And upon what basis don't you support it — Hanover
The judgement of your fellows who hopefully would label you a selfish, nasty individualist who only cares about himself and you would also be wrong, imo, as the result could be that you are more ostracised from your community.and upon what criteria would I be wrong not to agree with you. — Hanover
Hypothetical projections can be useful, especially in leading edge science when 'brain storming.'This just shows an inability to understand how to reason through the use of a hypothetical. It is logically irrelevant that the hypothetical hasn't occurred. — Hanover
This is really just more of your inability to abstract. I'm saying that that your elevation of humanity to special status makes it logically indistinct from what the religious do with God. — Hanover
If you have no supernatural basis for the holiness you decree for humanity, why did you choose humanity over plants? — Hanover
This doesn't follow. Why couldn't the plan be we are created perfect and will die perfect? — Hanover
Again, another shiney!! You only ask why, to the content of my above quote to be obtuse.Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior,
— universeness
Why? — Hanover
Yeah, especially for the nefarious elite! and those who wish to become one of them. Capitalism certainly does not work, at all, for the vast majority of the currently over 8 billion stakeholders on this planet.Capitalism seems to work, but I don't know that I'd call it intrinsically cooperative. This just seems your idiosyncratic view of morality — Hanover
Sorry but some of your responses are just absolutely absurd and perhaps even sinister.Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day.
— universeness
They cooperate with rapists so the rapists can get their lot of raping in and the non-rapists can get a little of what they want? I thought we locked rapists up without concern for their wishes. — Hanover
No. The point here is to learn to not make assumptions when people make statements about their beliefs. — Noble Dust
I didn't say that bad government excuses bad religion. — Noble Dust
It's like saying the existence of 'rape and torture' are more tolerable because murder exists. I assume you are familiar with '2 wrongs don't make a right.'
— universeness
No it's not. You are indeed putting words in my mouth. — Noble Dust
If I declare moral realism, where is this moral realm?
— Hanover
Buggered if I know. — Tom Storm
That they are the same? I've never looked into this nor have I ever been compelled to wonder. There may or may not be some truth there, I don't really know. — Watchmaker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.