Yes, but which one is objectively true? The first one if there is no God. In a real ultimate sense humans are nothing special and there is nothing really important about maintaining our civilization if there is no God.
So, are you telling me that if we found conclusive evidence tomorrow that there is no god, that you'd kill yourself and encourage everyone else to do so, bringing an end to civilization?
Yes, it makes most of us feel good. But you are only living a fantasy. Pretending like what you are doing is of true objective significance.
There you go with that "objective" thing again. Why does that matter? "Objective significance" is an oxymoron, we judge things to be significant or not, and all judgments are subjective.
So if there is someone that has a different goal, such as creating a communist country and they want to kill anyone that stands in the way of that goal, how can you objectively and rationally condemn them?
We can examine the objective consequences of their plan and base a well reasoned and supported judgment off of that.
There are reasons why killing anyone that stands in your way is an immoral act. It's not that hard to figure out.
Their feelings are telling them they are doing the right thing. Why are your feelings superior to theirs? Their feelings are just as valid as yours and come from basically the same chemicals in your brain and the same evolutionary process.
Because not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are backed with reason and evidence, some are not.
Only that it is objectively irrational as far as reality as shown above.
No it isn't, having a strong and thriving civilization benefits everyone, including myself. Feeling empathy and sympathy for others helps people bond and work together, strengthening that civilization.
It's both self interest, and public interest. Again, not that hard to figure out if you take the time to think about it.
But someone else may "objectively" feel that they are not enjoying their life so they want to end it. So would you try to stop them?
There's no such thing as someone objectively feeling something. Feelings are necessarily subjective.
See above about how society has no real objective basis for surviving.
There's plenty of subjective and intra-subjective ones though, based on objective facts. Why is that not good enough?
Maybe, but some people only care about themselves so on what basis can you condemn them if their evolutionary based feelings tell them not to care about civilization?
As long as they don't do anything to harm anyone else, I don't really care what their opinion on the matter is. If they do things to harm others, we have jails for people like that.
Yes, which is the only way he wanted to live in his country and the only way he wanted to survive.
Ok? Doesn't mean he wasn't an immoral monster.
No, because his behavior was just based on his brain chemistry just like you. Just because his brain chemistry came to a different conclusion then you does not mean he did anything wrong or even anything right. He was doing what evolution had created him to do. He was trying to make sure that people that believed he should be in charge were the only ones that survived, just like any other animal created by evolution.
That doesn't mean it was good behaviour
Actually it is A and B. Everything God wants is what is best for humans and dogs. God and myself as His representative on earth do not want harm to come to dogs if possible. True Christians obey God out of love for Him and His creation, not blind obedience.
If god told you to hit the dog, would you do so?
