RE: Why Secular Morality is Superior
September 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm by elunico13.)
(September 3, 2012 at 4:08 pm)Ryantology Wrote:(September 2, 2012 at 1:21 am)elunico13 Wrote: So you find it in yourself. Seems pretty arbitrary. Whats to keep the next person from asserting the exact opposite? You can't say they are wrong, but just different.
What keeps the next person from asserting the exact opposite is that most people also possess empathy. Sociopathy is not the basic state of the developed human mind. It's what keeps you from killing, too. You just make the mistake of attributing it to the fictional character you worship.
What makes me laugh is that you cite morality as being the exclusive domain of a god who says "thou shalt not kill", but allows for so many horrifying and arbitrary exceptions which so many of his slaves have gleefully exploited for millennia. The morality of Yahweh, if it can be said to be moral at all, is demonstrably inferior to my own for that reason alone.
EMPATHY
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also: the capacity for this.
There are plenty of empathetic serial killers who love their wives and children and have their favorite charities also. Notice how there is no obligation to be empathetic, which is an arbitrary standard of morality you are imposing on others. Nobody is obligated to listen to ryantology. According to you we can arbitrarily choose who to be empathetic to also.
SOCIOPATHIC
of, relating to, or characterized by asocial or antisocial behavior or exhibiting antisocial personality disorder
By what standard is your brain fully develpoed? Did evolution stop? If not, then you don't know that your brain is in a sociopathic state.
(September 4, 2012 at 2:55 am)whateverist Wrote:(September 2, 2012 at 1:21 am)elunico13 Wrote: So you find it in yourself. Seems pretty arbitrary. Whats to keep the next person from asserting the exact opposite? You can't say they are wrong, but just different.
Haven't you noticed? Nothing does prevent the next person from asserting the exact opposite. Not secular humanism, not the bible and certainly not your god. We are never on sure moral ground interpersonally. You have to check it out. Look for agreement but note divergences.
I no more find my own moral feelings diminished by this than I feel my hetero marriage under-mined by homosexual marriage. Some things aren't up to me and they aren't up to you either. I only wish more theists would understand this point. A little moral humility isn't a bad thing.
Serial killers excert the exact opposite.
I guess you're fine with pedofilia too. Don't wanna be intolerant, right? lol
Don't respond with your first emotional/knee jerk reaction. Think things through. After all you're in the philosophical thread. That goes for your politics too.
(September 2, 2012 at 10:58 pm)genkaus Wrote:(September 2, 2012 at 5:12 pm)elunico13 Wrote: There aren't any rational objections here. They're all arbitrary. Kind of like the other thread. I see more emotional responses from you than anything. Why do you get like this if truth is "on your side"?
You didn't say anything rational to object to. All you have presented are a bunch of lies and misrepresentations. The only rational response to that is pointing out that you are totally and completely wrong. And that's not an objection - it's a correction.
Why should LYING be wrong if we are just a result of random mutations that just happened to convey some sort of survival value?
(September 3, 2012 at 2:02 am)Brunitski Wrote: Our "morals", necessarily complex because of our extraordinarily complicated social interactions, are derived from evolutionary traits selecting for altruism and empathy; which incidentally we share with many other species. There are no absolute "morals". The concept of morals is a construct with its origins in the 14thC - it's original usage pertaining to "correct behaviour in society", or more aligned with customs, social mores and norms or ethics. Your obsession with the providence of "Morals" is entirely subjective.
Then I guess you wouldn't seek justice for the violent murder of a next of kin. After all the killer can adopt his relative morality of murder if he wants to. You're not going to say that he's wrong are you lol?
You're actually consistant with the evoltution worldview if you believe this. Congratulations!
Evolution can't prescribe how we ought to behave since it's descriptive.
James Holmes acted consistent with what evolution teaches. He evolved from an animal, and when he murdered those people, He acted like one. You can't say he's wrong since evolution made him that way.