(October 7, 2018 at 6:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 7, 2018 at 5:54 pm)polymath257 Wrote: No, I can and do condemn them. Just like they might condemn me. Which wins depends on how many people we can convince, just like with much of life.
When you say it is 'just' a way of thinking, you miss the whole point. Some ways of thinking lead to happier people than others. Some lead to oppression and unhappy people. Some things produce happiness in the short term but not in the long term. So, yes, the long-term pragmatics are central.
Howling with indignation is one way of presenting a moral argument, but often not the best. Playing to a sense of fairness and compassion tends to work better because those values are more universal in our species.
Much of morality, just like much of politics, boils down to what sort of society you want to live in: one that allows for freedom and fulfillment or one that is rule-bound and restrictive.
So then might makes right? It’s all about who wins, and has more power, and the others are immoral?
I don’t think that being moral is about making the most people happy. It also seems that we appeal to morality, even when it makes a large group of people unhappy. What do you think about the number of people here, who seem to want to make Christians unhappy..., are they immoral?
Power doesn't always devolve into physical might. The power of persuasion is also very high. And, again, the vast majority of people prefer to live in situations where they don't have to fear that their government will come and kill them.