Sorry to re-divert the thread
To Symmetry:
Nothing really, just that I tend to think of ethics as adherence to rules, and morality as an innate sense of what is right or wrong. I was wondering if you also made that distinction, or anything similar. I'm no philosopher, except in the strictest sense, but your arguments might run into problems if you think ethics and morality are interchangeable terms.Ah, I will keep that in mind. I suppose I am blurring the two.
To natty_dread:
Not really. Whoever has the most power gets to enforce their morals, the same way it is now. The general moral views are always decided by the majority, though. Even in a dictatorship, a dictator can't tell the people what to believe, or what kind of values to have. They can punish you for having the wrong values but until they discover chips that can be installed to everyone's brain they can't punish you for thinking.
I don't really know what you are trying to say. I agreed with everything you just said. But you phrased it as an argument so...
There's no such thing as evil.Why do you think that?
Well, what do you know, another Godwin... The majority of people in Nazi Germany didn't necessarily support all the atrocities committed by the Nazis, some of them were blinded by the propaganda of the Nazi party, some were just afraid to speak up. Either way, even if we assume that the majority of Germans condoned the acts of the Nazis, the rest of the world didn't. So ultimately, the majority did not support their moral values and took action accordingly.
Am I making you uncomfortable with references to Hitler? Perhaps you should read the wiki on Godwin's law...
"Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."
"The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority,..."
What it seems like to me is that you are doing just this with your arguments. Instead of debating abortion, diverting attention from the issue however you can. Abortion is the killing of one segment of the population by another, and fits the technical definition of all of these. It assumes one group is superior to another, with the right to kill that other. So I think Godwin's Law does have a legitimate claim here.
Also, with your quote above, I again don't really know what you are arguing. You said that, although Germany may have found it ok to do what they did, the rest of the world didn't. Well, ok. What if everyone in the world found it acceptable? It still would not be.
In other words: if other people's morals differ from yours, they are worthless.No. Did I say that?
And how exactly does believing in an imaginary sky daddy give you any extra insight on your own moral values?
I know why I want to do good things, I have very rational reasons for doing them. I don't need your sky daddy for them.Can you give me some examples? I know there are examples, but couldn't all be used to justify bad things as well? For example, people like me b/c of it. Well, how about cliques? Making fun of someone isn't right, but it could benefit you. Or how about on a more obscure level... it makes me feel good. What if I like torture? Is that right? Just curious if any of your "rational" reasons can work in all circumstances. Not just for you. You may be a moral person... but do you know why rationally?
To TA1LGUNN3R:
Morals only exist because we are a social animal; evolved behavioral traits ensured group cohesiveness. The attribution of morals to a sky daddy is indeed pointless, because we would have the same morals, regardless. Cultural history is the source of our morals.So, if morals are only due to evolution, then it really does not matter if the holocaust happened b/c it was not "wrong". We just view it as wrong, is that what you are saying?
Assuming you're talking about a godless society-- I would (and will) argue that this is false. One who recognizes that there is no soul or eternal afterlife or some other animating non-corporeal force will most likely place a higher emphasis on life, since death is then necessarily the cessation of experience. I can guarantee you I place a higher value on life than you do. In your view, life is something given by a supernatural being, which then begs the question as to its intrinsic worth. If god can create life at will and provide you with an eternal afterlife, how is life special? I, as someone who recognizes that nothing exists beyond matter, also then recognize that life is tenuous and fleeting, and to continue the input of my experience is paramount. As such, I also recognize and respect others' worth, and the initiation of cold-blooded violence is an act that lessens the value of my own life (however, response to violence is fine- if you attack me you forfeit any right to life).
So, this comes up in your belief: How do you rationalize your view that life is important? I mean, if you die, you just enter another life-like dream state where fat little cherubs practice their trumpet skills, right? Or how can it bother you that abortions are committed; their souls will live on, right? Or let's extend this to your example: why not kill someone you don't like if you can get away with it, because their souls will live on, yes? Is the only thing stopping you from a killing spree the threat of fiery Hell? The truth is that you, as an organism evolved over billions of years, feel dread at the thought of death or danger because it is the end, and ergo appreciates life.
Some deep stuff there.
You say that you place a higher value on life than I do. I do not necessarily agree with you. From my standpoint, why is life worth anything if there is not God? Who said life was good? In the end, it doesn't really matter what happens in your life, b/c it all just ends when you die. It doesn't matter if you had fun, or if you didn't. If there is a God, then life has meaning. In my worldview, God loved us. Therefore, we love God. And We love others. And we love ourselves. In fact, God is love. Meaning in life would come from following God and spreading his love. Basically the great commission and following the 2 greatest commandments. That's kind of the "in a nutshell". So, going back to what makes life special in my worldview. From my perspective, life is a gift. Therefore it is valuable. Priceless. You say that life is tenuous and fleeting. I would agree. But how does that make life valuable? Also, I don't think I can make the transition you made when you went from saying that your life was valuable to that you "recognize and respect others' worth, and the initiation of cold-blooded violence is an act that lessens the value of my own life". How is this not the Judeo-Christian worldview melding with and influencing your ideas? If there is not God, then sure I can believe that all that matters to you is your "input of my experience" and your senses. But what how does killing others lessen the value of your own life? If your own life is about experience, then why are others worth anything? Sure you can value the b/c they are useful to you, but I don't think you can make the leap that because your life is important to you, the lives of others are also important. Why are they? How does cold-blooded violence lessen the value of your own life, if that life is based on the input of your experiences?
As to what you say during the rest of your statements about heaven and such... I don't presume to know what heaven will be like. It doesn't exactly say anywhere (and Jesus was transported through wormhole 7Q into the Universe called Heaven where he greeted his father with joy Theorysodus 9:12). So
Not sure if I answered all of your questions there... I kind of went out of order b/c my argument's made more sense not going chronologically through your questions. And it is late, so I probably could have been clearer. Feel free to point out anything I didn't cover, or clarify things that I misunderstood so that we can narrow our argument.
To PLAYER57832:
Sigh... I will respond eventually. You do seem to kind of go off on tangents... so it's sometimes hard to gather all of what you are saying into a clear and concise argument... (this this and this are true. Therefore, this argument is true). It's like wading through mud, or walking through the undergrowth of a jungle. However, you are right in that the argument deserves a lot of discussion. However, you are incorrect when saying that because of this, pro-choice is right. If there were debate about theft, lynching, or gassing, that does not automatically mean that everyone can choose whatever suits them. It will probably be saturday that I respond.
