(January 9, 2016 at 2:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(January 9, 2016 at 2:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It can't be too difficult to answer that question RR, what with the numbers of people who go through life being "moral" in a manner completely recognizable to -you- as moral...without having any such objective, transcendent definition...for whether or not they feel like tossing old ladies into the street......
Ok... if cultural perceptions changed about morality, and it was every man for himself, do you think that your views about morality would change? Would you be doing things, that you now consider to be immoral?
Let me begin with my functional definition of morality. Which is behaviors that lead to the betterment of the well being of the most people possible, and the harm of the well being of the least number of people.
Societies that would have an "every man for himself" ethic, would just not last. They would fall apart, and those moral members of the society would start their own society with a better moral ethic, or find one that exists that they could join.
But more importantly, the vast majority of people are psychologically healthy, and have no compunction to behave immorally.
If society became "every man for himself" I would rape, murder, steal, as much as I want. And the amount I want to rape, murder and steal is exactly zero.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
