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

[DogmaHunter]

In materialistic world view stronger is eating weaker to survive , so multiple strongers are eating multiple weakers .

No.
Materialism is an idea about what does and doesn't exist. It's not an ideology on how one should behave or not.

According to that Hitler was not a bad guy he simply was stronger than his neighbours

Considering he lost the war, it's not really accurate either to say he was stronger, wouldn't you agree?

and wanted to evolve himself and his people over other animals so he simply wanted to destroy them so he has more land for himself and his nation .

Sounds like you didn't pay much attention either during classes on WW2.

Good or Evil does not exist in that world view .

That's not actually accurate either.
Most people are convinced that they are the "good guys".
I don't think Hitler considered himself or his ideas evil.
Just like ISIS folks don't considere themselves evil. Au contraire.

There is no such thing as rape in that world view

And yet in Nazi Germany rape was still a crime.
And before you claim the opposite by pointing at perhaps some nazi officer raping a jewish woman...

Rape was a crime in the US as well, eventhough plenty of slave owners raped their slaves without consequence.
The point there is not about rape itself, but about how rape is defined in context of who the victim is.

Let's take dolphins for example , two dolphins guard one female dolphin , both copulating with her if she wants it or not because they are trying to preserve thier genes . After the copulation they find other female dolphin and leave this one because thier job was done with her .

Since humans are animals according to that world view we are no better than these dolphins , guy "raping" woman simply wanted his genes preserved she likes it or not it's not imporant .

That humans are animals (ie: members of the kingdom of animalia) is a biological fact. The same kind of fact like humans being mammals. But we are Homo Sapiens. There is no reason for a member of species X to act like a member of species B.
What this is, is no more or less then a rather juvenile, not to say pathetic, attempt at demonizing science, atheists,.. in short: just about anyone that doesn't believe like you do (on faith). With some Godwin's law sauce on top, of all things.

ps: Hitler was a Catholic, the catholic church danced along the nazi's for a long time and nazi soldiers had "Got Mit Uns" ("god is with us") engraved on their belt buckles.

Perhaps first learn your history before commenting.

Murder is also not possible in that world view . Praying Mantis is eating male's head after sex for example . If you assume human being are animals then the murderer is no better than this praying mantis they just did that for whatever reason .

Ridiculous, for the same reason as outlined above.

 

[Chinchilla]

No.
Materialism is an idea about what does and doesn't exist. It's not an ideology on how one should behave or not.

Behave like atom because you are atom mr atom .

Considering he lost the war, it's not really accurate either to say he was stronger, wouldn't you agree?

Well actually only 6M soldiers from Germany died compared to like 30M of others that's quite impressive outcome . 1:5 ratio

 

[Chinchilla]

Sounds like you didn't pay much attention either during classes on WW2.

Sounds like you didn't pay attention during classes on WW2 .

 

[Chinchilla]

Hitler was a Catholic, the catholic church danced along the nazi's for a long time and nazi soldiers had "Got Mit Uns" ("god is with us") engraved on their belt buckles.

I'm not catholic .

Satlin and Mao did way worse than this catholic guy even tho they were Atheists .

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Because we all prefer that those others do the same for us.

I like this thought exercise I heared once, don't remember where exactly.
When discussing the idea of why morals matter and how it relates to our lives...

It's helpfull to do this exercise. I feel it captures the point a lot better then any explanation I could give you (wich will easily end up being multiple posts, page after page).

It goes like this....

You are a human that is about to be born. You have NO control about your birth or what kind of person you will be. You have NO control over your ethnicity, sexual orientation, which religion you might (or might not) be born into, your political preferences, your interests, your strengths, your shortcomings,... You could end up being anyone.

There's only one thing you can decide: what kind of society you'll end up in. Design that society. What laws does it have (and not have)? What's the culture like? Etc.

I think such an exercise goes further then mere, rather vague, explanations like "empathy" etc. It really sets you to think.

For example, you don't want to end up a jew in nazi germany.
Or a black dude in 19th century USA.
Or a gay dude in present day Iran.
Or any kind of citizen in present day North Korea.

That's the big picture. There's also the smaller picture in how you treat others and how others treat you. The same exercise logic applies. If you don't know in advance on which side of the fence you'll end up.... You'll instantly think differently about how both sides of the fence look like. In fact... more then likely you'll design the society in such a way that such fences simply don't even exist!

[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.]

I actually got that. It is true that your choice of words smells a bit like that "bait" you talk about, but for some reason I understood that you were asking serious and genuine questions aimed at actually listening and trying to understand, rather then to get to some kind of "AHA!" point.

It's appreciated. ;-)

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is lie in materialistic world view ?

Again, it seems you simply don't have a clue what materialism actually is.
It's not about how to behave or how to organize a cooperative society.

It's about what physically exists and what doesn't.

 

[Chinchilla]

Again, it seems you simply don't have a clue what materialism actually is.
It's not about how to behave or how to organize a cooperative society.

It's about what physically exists and what doesn't.

Why do you assume that atoms in groups should react other than while they are being separate ?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Behave like atom because you are atom mr atom .

Doesn't follow.

Well actually only 6M soldiers from Germany died compared to like 30M of others that's quite impressive outcome . 1:5 ratio

Irrelevant to the point being made.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not catholic .

Satlin and Mao did way worse than this catholic guy even tho they were Atheists .

Not to mention dictators and the worshipped head of the state religion known as hardcore communism.

ps: your silly game of trying to demonize / dehumanize atheists etc, is very transparent. And insulting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good and evil are human constructs. They are subjective labels given to social behaviors within a moral system. They exist as such, not as any physical essence or object in the world.

Are Good and Evil actually human constructs? In some ideational way they may be, but even if this is the case, the motivations in play within any one person's acts of Benevolence or Malevolence toward other people aren't purely human constructs and can be objectively identified by the surrounding community for what they are. So, all of this mamby-pamby talk about just how ethereal ethics and morals 'actually are' seems to me to be begging the question about the existence of what we 'really' do conceptualize when we think of Good and Evil.

In other words, let's say I punch you in the face. And I do so repeatedly. And I do so because I don't like you and I'd really like to see your power as a human being be demolished and removed from the presence of our society, not because you're necessarily doing anything morally deficient or hurtful to others, but simply because your existence and social agenda clashes with mine, and I want to see mine win out no matter what. So, I'm malevolent toward you. (Of course, we'd probably call that sociopathy, but I digress)

In such a scenario, my malevolence toward you, regardless of the respectively diverse ethical systems held among each individual in the collective community, can be cited by many if not most in the surrounding community and called out for what it is----malevolence that is disruptive, hurtful, and disrespectul of another human being (especially of a fellow human being who isn't actually doing anything destructive and who therefore needs to be curtailed), and thus the collective can objectively identify my malevolence as "evil." And in such a case, there really isn't an ethereal vagueness to the kind of malevolence that simply wants to dominate other people for the sake of dominating other people. No, it's simply recognizably evil on most moral counts and with most moral people.

Am I wrong?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why do you assume that atoms in groups should react other than while they are being separate ?

Because that is demonstrably what happens.
Didn't you ever take a physics or chemistry class?
Maybe you should.

Seperate H and O atoms don't behave like H2O, to give just one example.

 

[“Paisios”]

Because we all prefer that those others do the same for us.

If that is the motivation, is it general or specific? As in, is there no positive moral value
in treating someone well if we know from past experience and their stated intentions that they will treat us poorly in return? (I am not asking if there is a right then to treat them badly, but rather is there value in treating them well despite that). Is the motivation that we hope in general our treatment of others will cause a general reciprocal good or does that motivation apply to the specifics? (I hope I am making myself clear).

I like this thought exercise I heared once, don't remember where exactly.
When discussing the idea of why morals matter and how it relates to our lives...

It's helpfull to do this exercise. I feel it captures the point a lot better then any explanation I could give you (wich will easily end up being multiple posts, page after page).

It goes like this....

You are a human that is about to be born. You have NO control about your birth or what kind of person you will be. You have NO control over your ethnicity, sexual orientation, which religion you might (or might not) be born into, your political preferences, your interests, your strengths, your shortcomings,... You could end up being anyone.

There's only one thing you can decide: what kind of society you'll end up in. Design that society. What laws does it have (and not have)? What's the culture like? Etc.

I think such an exercise goes further then mere, rather vague, explanations like "empathy" etc. It really sets you to think.

For example, you don't want to end up a jew in nazi germany.
Or a black dude in 19th century USA.
Or a gay dude in present day Iran.
Or any kind of citizen in present day North Korea.

That's the big picture. There's also the smaller picture in how you treat others and how others treat you. The same exercise logic applies. If you don't know in advance on which side of the fence you'll end up.... You'll instantly think differently about how both sides of the fence look like. In fact... more then likely you'll design the society in such a way that such fences simply don't even exist!

Interesting exercise. I may try it.

I actually got that. It is true that your choice of words smells a bit like that "bait" you talk about, but for some reason I understood that you were asking serious and genuine questions aimed at actually listening and trying to understand, rather then to get to some kind of "AHA!" point.

It's appreciated. ;-)

Yes, I am asking genuine questions, and I have no hidden agenda nor plans (or ability, for that matter) to try and bring this to any “AHA - I got you” moment, but I have observed that so often this kind of discussion goes in that direction, so I wanted to be clear.

I am really quite interested in these concepts, and am interested in learning for better understanding only - I do not expect to have my mind changed, nor do I have any intention of trying to change anybody else’s minds here.

And I do appreciate yours, and the others’, taking your time to make a response, and patiently bearing with my questions.

 

[Chinchilla]

Because that is demonstrably what happens.
Didn't you ever take a physics or chemistry class?
Maybe you should.

Seperate H and O atoms don't behave like H2O, to give just one example.

would identical twins with identical amount of atoms and in same order act and think the same ?

 

[gaara4158]

In such a scenario, my malevolence toward you, regardless of the respectively diverse ethical systems held among each individual in the collective community, can be cited by many if not most in the surrounding community and called out for what it is----malevolence that is disruptive, hurtful, and disrespectul of another human being (especially of a fellow human being who isn't actually doing anything destructive and who therefore needs to be curtailed), and thus the collective can objectively identify my malevolence as "evil." And in such a case, there really isn't an ethereal vagueness to the kind of malevolence that simply wants to dominate other people for the sake of dominating other people. No, it's simply recognizably evil on most moral counts and with most moral people.

Am I wrong?

Sure, if we define evil as concretely as you did there, I don’t disagree with you at all. The reason I took the effort to differentiate between physical existence and a social construct is because good and evil are often used as an anchor point for theists make a moral argument for God’s existence, so I was just nipping that in the bud. But you’re right, there’s nothing silly about giving a name to the most senseless malevolence we observe in life.

 

[Strathos]

would identical twins with identical amount of atoms and in same order act and think the same ?

If all of their atoms were arranged in exactly the same pattern, regardless of any interior or exterior influences, that could only be explained by a miracle.

 

[gaara4158]

would identical twins with identical amount of atoms and in same order act and think the same ?

That’s not possible unless they could occupy the exact same location in spacetime (which they couldn’t) because their exact location would have an effect on the arrangement of their atoms.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure, if we define evil as concretely as you did there, I don’t disagree with you at all. The reason I took the effort to differentiate between physical existence and a social construct is because good and evil are often used as an anchor point for theists make a moral argument for God’s existence, so I was just nipping that in the bud. But you’re right, there’s nothing silly about giving a name to the most senseless malevolence we observe in life.

I'm always glad to know that I can find some moral agreement with those who are non-Christians. However, I'm not sure that differentiating between physical existence and a social construct eliminates the possibility that moral influence from a Divine force could, on some level, still be "bleeding through" into humanities' collective ethical psyche or intuitions.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Behave like atom because you are atom mr atom .

This is my new favorite nonsense phrase. Thanks!

 

[Redac]

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

How does one evaluate the relative strength or weakness of an argument for the morality of a given proposition? What standard does one use to do so?

 

[VirOptimus]

How does one evaluate the relative strength or weakness of an argument for the morality of a given proposition? What standard does one use to do so?

You use your intellect.