Prune said:
I was making reference to extreme cases where there is no medical reason for one individual to die in contrast to another individual that had no medical reason to live. Believe it or not there are many of these cases, even I was once such a case.
What I mean by spirit is the simplest definition, nothing fancy, just an invisible life force that is of our creator, and I already gave a good definition of a soul so you may want to read again.
Exactly, as it has always been. Religious beliefs themselves are rarely directly responsible for evil actions. Don't think of the whole world as a large-scale Puritan Salem.
Is the backwardness of the Middle Ages any different from that of Soviet Russia in the 1930's?
Is the social degeneration of Nazi Germany any different than that of Spain during the Inquisition?
As far as William Clifford is concerned, there is no universal ethic or morality. There may be a concensus among Ethicists and Moralists, but not among mankind in general.
By the way, I am by no means a religious person, but only because I don't share the experiences of those who are.
After all, in a pure world free of religion and consisting of logic and scientific reasoning, one can make a very good argument that killing another person is not a bad thing (the victim never knows).
John
This is an extremely misleading statement and reveals that you have unclear thinking.
Logical reasoning leads from a set of assumptions to some conclusion. Some of these assumptions may be other conclusions. But in the end, all conclusions stand not only on the correctness of the arguments, but also on the truth of the founding assumptions. And those cannot be justified scientifically (although, in areas science is concerned with, can be supported with statistical/probabilistic arguments).
Now, with the specific area of morals and ethics you are dealing with. You implied in your statement that religion is the only source of morals and ethics. This is an offensive statement. Are you saying that all secular humanists, agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, in other words, Brights, have no morals or ethics?
Science can explain morals and ethics, in terms of how they arose through human social evolution. But it cannot justify them. Justification is a subjective thing, and morals and ethics are subjective. As to whether a good (logically correct) argument can be made that killing someone is not bad, that can happen in this world just as well as in the alternative you considered, it is just that most would find the basic assumptions the argument is starting from not compatible with their own subjective morals.
Most of us have a great deal of overlap between our subjective morals (though that is by no means to say there is some absolute standard), and thus we tend to agree that, for example, killing is bad, etc., regardless of religion. Indeed, I believe that morals that have been dictated by religion are cheapened, for they at best prevent one from developing morality from their experience and will, and at worst are little more than rules enforced by the fear of hell.
I think the question of philosophic nondeistic origins of morality were very nicely expounded on by Spinoza. Dutch fella, IIRC.
I meant to mislead no one. A devoutly Christian person would accept no such argument, but what is an atheist's or "freethinker's" basis that hurting someone is a "bad'" thing? Because he feels it's so? What about someone who doesn't "feel" that way?
"Brights" constitute a small fraction of mankind, and always will. Ethics and morals by fiat or decree solve few problems. Perhaps they can make the airlines fly on time.
People almost always behave independently of their religious beliefs. Blaming the problems of the world on religious beliefs is simplistic at best.
John
Prune said:
I think its another question of a fixed reference, anyone can have morals or ethics but what do they base them on. If your reference is a superior unchanging spirit then your moral values will never change regardless of what’s acceptable in the present time. If you base you moral values on the popular belief or government or anything of man you’re values will change with the winds. In some cultures at some time it was a legal and popular act to sacrifice children to a god, but that doesn’t make it moral compared to a true standard. Even if all things are expedient their not all prudent and only an unchanging fixed point of reference will yield a truly moral and ethical person in all situations.
IMO
jlsem said:
It doesn't take logic & scientific reasoning... just take Texas or any other place with the death penalty...
dave
Maybe for survival, (ie: food), but not for the sake of it. The only world that i see thats religion free is the animal world, and they have a logic to kill.
I dont know where you get not knowing your going to be killed from, thats our number one fear, its our number one instinct in all of us. Why do you think cats run away from dogs? to make the dog run?
The cat knows via instinct that if it stays there the dog is going to kill it. Where did the cat get its instincts from? evolution. Its the same with us.
Trev 🙂
Neither of us is wearing the badge in this thread. No need- most people have been delightfully polite.
jlsem said:
I guessed that would come up when i posted it... like most in my country i believe the it is a women's right to choose not mine to force on her, and cannot be equated at all with capital punishment, which often executes innocent people, and more practically is much more expensive than just imprisoning them for life -- or as in one of my favorite SF novels -- sending them to Texas (note: this Texas has little to do with the Texas where you live) -- the British did a similar -- but harsher -- experiment and a great nation came of it.
dave
If you read my other posts, you will note I am no religious fanatic. But, IMHO, this is a subject where the Bible-thumpers have the moral edge over the secularists. Being born is one of the greatest things that happens to a person, and you only get one shot at it. The guy on death row for raping and strangling an eight-year old girl, his mother gave him that chance and he blew it.
Ther is no proof that an innocent person has ever been executed in the state of Texas.
I personally know a guy on death row, and he richly deserves it. I won't say anymore about this.
John
jlsem said:
No, but there was a fellow on Death Row there whose lawyer fell asleep during the trial.
The judge ruled that was okay, the lawyer stayed awake during all the "important" parts of the trial.
There is an "unimportant" part of a death penalty trial????
You have failed to demonstrate that religion is any sort of "fixed" reference and not based on man. Until you do, its moral principles are just as arbitrary as any others one can make up (such as what the guy in the insane asylum believes the tooth fairy told him was good and bad). There's no way to pick among the infinite number of theistic possibilities, and if you do, chances are against you that the one you pick will be the right one, and you won't end up being in its hell by picking the wrong one. The only rational option is to reject theism. Again, if you bother to research all the refutations of Pascal's wager, you'll see that this is well covered territory.
Prune said:
Nearly all religions are rock steady on the moral laws, for instance the Ten Commandments, they have never changed. Mans laws change all the time, one day it might be ok to kill for any reason you see fit, it's practically ok to steel already, at least that’s what I got from a cop that was investigating a burgerly at my house and he told me they would not even try to find the stolen goods nor the thief, even though he had a good idea who it was, said I should just contact my insurance company. Evidently paper work is all police do around here anymore.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.