You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The Good Vs Evil Delusion

in #philosophy7 years ago

yes it is evil. Killing an innocent person is evil, raping is evil. Not only demented people rape, sometimes rape is a part of the culture and it is an evil and barbaric practice. Child sacrifice is an age old practice too.

It is evil to us, not to them. For example Aboriginals consider us evil for throwing our parents into care centers for them to die. For us is Tuesday. We just happen to rationalize it differently. They would carry the elderly on their shoulders until their last breath.

I would suggest you read the book "The World Until Yesterday" from Jared Diamond (Anthropologist). He explains a lot about these cultural differences and how people consider each other evil or good depending on their perception.

If you don't accept that there is objective evil, there is no standing for law and civilization collapse on itself.

Not really. If I don't accept it, then it means that it has a subjective value and it would have to be decided by the group from which I would chose to live with. Whether I believe is evil or good would remain irrelevant since I will chose to live with the people that will judge me. Society does not need to collapse. Ultimatums don't really cut it. Also, the fact that so many cultures have so many different views about good and evil demonstrates how subjective the concepts are.

There is no up or down or any kind of point of reference and this is how evil people can justify their actions on utilitarian bases or "rational" basis.

Indeed they do. Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with our subject matter.

Sort:  

so all you can say is: "I prefer that people don't rape and kill innocent babies...but if they do it and if they believe it's fine by them...then it is."

That kind of thinking gives you no intellectual grounding to defend anything that has value in this world. And when evil come knocking at your door, you will no other choice than passively accept what the culture or the zeitgeist gives you.

Sad!

so all you can say is: "I prefer that people don't rape and kill innocent babies...but if they do it and if they believe it's fine by them...then it is."

I cannot dictate morality to another group nor I can help someone that doesn't ask for my help. It is tough. I witnessed some harsh things in my life but you learn to develop a thick skin.

That kind of thinking gives you no intellectual grounding to defend anything that has value in this world.

I understand this. Never claimed I do.

And when evil come knocking at your door, you will no other choice than passively accept what the culture or the zeitgeist gives you.

Nop, I will fight for my survival. Totally irrelevant from one another

Your atheism force you in this position because it is true, you cannot dictate ehat is roght or wrong...no individual can. Theism gives a ground for objective moral value...but that's out of the real of possibilities for you it seems.

I don't believe in objective morality since it changes all the time for every culture (and individual) depending on context. This is why I guess religious people become slowly their own heresies, choosing to believe what they want from their holy texts (much like a buffet).

Atheists live much the same. Each one develops their own morals, on the go. Religious people are not more "moral" than atheists. They just happen to base their morals on a different context (fear of God) rather than doing good for the sake of good.

Being theist or atheist does not make one moral or immoral, thats beside the point. The point is that there is no point of reference but the individual to define what is good or evil in an atheist framework. If there is a God, then there is one outside of individual preferences.

What Hitler minions or Staline's did was objectively evil, regardless if they thought it was right.

There are things that are so evil, like starving 7millions to death in Ukraine, that we can objectively point the evilness of it. Because of that, we are forced to recognize the reality of evil.

On your proposition, there is no virtue, values or actions that are better than an other. Mercy is no more valuable than vangeance.

Being theist or atheist does not make one moral or immoral, thats beside the point. The point is that there is no point of reference but the individual to define what is good or evil in an atheist framework. If there is a God, then there is one outside of individual preferences.

To an atheist a God is nothing more than the fiction of a group of people's imagination. Much like they have a point of reference a holy book as more or less a legal reference the atheists rely on their own book of law. What? You can trust the judgment and point of reference of laws written 2000 years ago but you cannot trust an individuals point of view? Also. facts don't favor you in this matter. at all. Atheists make just 0.07% of people in federal prisons while they are more or less 15% of the population.

What Hitler minions or Staline's did was objectively evil, regardless if they thought it was right.

To call something objective it has to be accepted by everyone. Obviously Nazis and Communists did not think it was evil. This is why the tolerated and supported these people. Hence, not objective. Nothing is objective. Ever.

There are things that are so evil, like starving 7millions to death in Ukraine, that we can objectively point the evilness of it. Because of that, we are forced to recognize the reality of evil.

Indeed. From our point of view they are. From their point of view was revenge to defend other people, getting them back if you like.

On your proposition, there is no virtue, values or actions that are better than an other. Mercy is no more valuable than vangeance.

Agreed.

We are talking about moral epistemology here about the reality of objective moral values. Whether someone is theist or not is beside the point all together. Atheist can act morally and theist immorally, but even then, according to your point of view there is no moral or immoral.

Whether or not it is written in a particular book is also beside the point. (that's moral ontology)

On the theist side, moral values are a transcendent reality, they are true independently to individual preferences.

But at this point, I think it's pointless to talk because in the post-modern point of view that you are holding on to, truth doesn't even exist..."everything is relative" as you say..

But then...is it objectively true that everything is relative? If so, you are living in a contradiction...if not, not everything is relative.