“Evil” is a stupid concept and doesn’t exist.

[“Paisios”]

Yes, why should we?

I can easily argue for this, so in my opinion this isnt a stumbling block. It makes me feel good when people are happy, it makes me sad and angry when someone takes advantage of others. It also leads to a society I dont want to live in.

People who lack empathy however cant argue theese points. (Sociopaths)

I don’t know how to ask the questions I would like answered in follow up to this without sounding either confrontational or baiting, so I will leave it at that, since neither of those positions is what I intend.

Your replies have been useful to me. Thank you.

 

[VirOptimus]

Admirable.

But why should we care about how others feel or damage caused to them (unless we benefit ourselves indirectly)?

[Edit: I am interested in an atheist or humanist perspective on this, but I fear my questions sound like an amateur attempt at baiting you to admit there is no foundation for morality without a righteous God Who makes the rules. That is not my intention, nor my desire. But I think that my ineptitude will lead me down the path of trying to guide this discussion in that direction unintentionally. Please forgive me.]

Also, having absolute morality only leads to fanatics, and we have plenty of examples from history that this is a recipe for horrible things, pogroms, inquisitions, torture, terrorism etc.

 

[“Paisios”]

Also, having absolute morality only leads to fanatics, and we have plenty of examples from history that thus is a recipe for horrible things, pogroms, inquisitions, torture, terrorism etc.

I can not argue against the example of history, but it seems to me that relative morality could also be used easily to justify all sorts of “evils” (for lack of a better term, in the context of our discussion here).

 

[Chinchilla]

No this is a lie.

What is lie in materialistic world view ?

 

[Chinchilla]

You just admitted that animals can have motivations to behave cooperatively that overpower any hostile directives. That undercuts your whole line of reasoning stating that materialism values hostility over cooperation.

I can admit that because I assume Christian world view to begin with .

 

[VirOptimus]

I can not argue against the example of history, but it seems to me that relative morality could also be used easily to justify all sorts of “evils” (for lack of a better term, in the context of our discussion here).

No, not having absolute morality makes any moral choice dependant on the arguments for or against the action.

 

[VirOptimus]

What is lie in materialistic world view ?

What you wrote is a lie, learn the basics about moral philosophy.

 

[gaara4158]

I can admit that because I assume Christian world view to begin with .

That has nothing to do with any of this. The animals that cooperate presumably do not share your assumption, and yet they still cooperate.

 

[Chinchilla]

What you wrote is a lie, learn the basics about moral philosophy.

I say it is true , why should I listen to you rather to myself ?

 

[VirOptimus]

I say it is true , why should I listen to you rather to myself ?

You are free to be in error.

 

[“Paisios”]

No, not having absolute morality makes any moral choice dependant on the arguments for or against the action.

But the strength of the arguments partially depends on the usefulness or truth of the propositions, which in a relative morality must needs (at least in a moral sense) be subjective, as well as the soundness of the relationship between them, so could still be used to justify many awful things, no?

(But again, I don’t choose to debate - by awful things, I a, already presuming an absolute standard of morality on which to judge my things - I am having a very diffucult time comprehending the depths and greater consequences of a relative morality, which is why i made this thread in the first place. I find it incomprehensible, and am looking for understanding.)

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

[VirOptimus]

But the strength of the arguments partially depends on the usefulness or truth of the propositions, which in a relative morality must needs (at least in a moral sense) be subjective, as well as the soundness of the relationship between them, so could still be used to justify many awful things, no?

(But again, I don’t choose to debate - by awful things, I a, already presuming an absolute standard of morality on which to judge my things - I am having a very diffucult time comprehending the depths and greater consequences of a relative morality, which is why i made this thread in the first place. I find it incomprehensible, and am looking for understanding.)

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Well yes, but the same is true of a belief in absolute morals (moreso I would argue as in an belief system with absolutes you are conditioned to not question authority, see populism).

It all comes down to a well-educated populace.

Also, subjective and objective is a false dichotomy, as it presupposes an objective agent, i.e. god(s).

 

[“Paisios”]

Well yes, but the same is true of a belief in absolute morals (moreso I would argue as in an belief system with absolutes you are conditioned to not question authority, see populism).

It all comes down to a well-educated populace.

I guess I see more grounding of propositions with an absolute morality, and am not clear enough regarding a relative morality. I do not deny that there are dangers and pitfalls with belief in an absolute morality, or that it could be subject to misinterpretation. But I see some dangers with an extreme individualistic relative moral system as well, practically speaking, since we are social beings interacting with each other.

Your replies have clarified a few things for me, but I fear that this discussion will go over my head if it goes much deeper (I am not well enough educated in philosophy, logic or such things to speak intelligently on these issues), but will be interested in following it if others join in.

So I thank you for your informative responses to my inquiries, and your patience with my lack of even basic knowledge.

 

[VirOptimus]

I guess I see more grounding of propositions with an absolute morality, and am not clear enough regarding a relative morality. I do not deny that there are dangers and pitfalls with belief in an absolute morality, or that it could be subject to misinterpretation. But I see some dangers with an extreme individualistic relative moral system as well, practically speaking, since we are social beings interacting with each other.

Your replies have clarified a few things for me, but I fear that this discussion will go over my head if it goes much deeper (I am not well enough educated in philosophy, logic or such things to speak intelligently on these issues), but will be interested in following it if others join in.

So I thank you for your informative responses to my inquiries, and your patience with my lack of even basic knowledge.

Sure, no problem, I would recommend reading Axel Hägerström, Joseph Raz, Immanuel Kant and Kirkegaard for a varied look on the subject.

 

[Chinchilla]

You are free to be in error.

Error ?
I presented my case , all you did is said " You are in error because I said so ".
Then I responded with similar stupid argument " Because I said so "

Why should I believe what you said rather then what I said ?

 

[“Paisios”]

Sure, no problem, I would recommend reading Axel Hägerström, Joseph Raz, Immanuel Kant and Kirkegaard for a varied look on the subject.

Thank you for the recommendations. I remember reading some Kant back in my university days so many years ago, and maybe a bit of Kierkegaard, too, but that was long ago and I barely scraped the surface.

I certainly have a presupposition of God and absolute morality, and I find it very difficult to get my head around relative morality, even to the point of understanding it, never mind having agreement or disagreement with its concepts.

 

[VirOptimus]

Error ?
I presented my case , all you did is said " You are in error because I said so ".
Then I responded with similar stupid argument " Because I said so "

Why should I believe what you said rather then what I said ?

I’m not responsible for your education.

But what you wrote has nothing to do with materialism.

Really really wishing something to be true doesnt make it so. Read a book in moral philosophy 101 and learn for yourself.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thank you for the recommendations. I remember reading some Kant back in my university days so many years ago, and maybe a bit of Kierkegaard, too, but that was long ago and I barely scraped the surface.

I certainly have a presupposition of God and absolute morality, and I find it very difficult to get my head around relative morality, even to the point of understanding it, never mind having agreement or disagreement with its concepts.

I would say that all you moral standpoints is based on judgements you yourself has made, doubly so on moral issues that are not a part of your religion.

 

[gaara4158]

Error ?
I presented my case , all you did is said " You are in error because I said so ".
Then I responded with similar stupid argument " Because I said so "

Why should I believe what you said rather then what I said ?

Because you have demonstrated yourself to be a very poor moral philosopher.

 

[Chinchilla]

Because you have demonstrated yourself to be a very poor moral philosopher.

According to who ? You ?
Why do you think your opinion is better than mine , you can't even disprove that you were not created 5 minutes ago with alredy prepared memories by having brain cells connected together in your brain with fake memories.