RE: My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...
March 30, 2013 at 11:42 am
(This post was last modified: March 30, 2013 at 11:46 am by Mystic.)
Just existing implies rights. Hmm... I don't know if that is sequitur.
Morality exists based on reality. We don't get to chose what it is. But before you were stating it's experience that we evolved to have. Furthermore, what is this reality you talk about. Surely you are discussing "conscious" existence right as opposed to any existence right? You are stating we have equal rights to that of a fly for example, because both exist in the conscious sense? I don't think most humans would regard this as true, and if what you are saying is true, it seems your morality is unique, and not shared by most of humanity. Most of humanity doesn't deem the rights of a human that same as a cow for example.
Moreover, how can sheer existence give us a concept of moral rights? It can't surely. But why would evolution favour a concept of morality based on sheer existence instead of what favours surivability.
Going back to "praise" consensus, it can be very well be, since cohension is needed for society to function, most humans develop an inclination to accept the praise of their society and accept the leaders.
Moreover, morals would not have been philosophically discussed in our primitive nature, it would be told in the mode of myths. People would have inclination to believe it's "pious" (aka good) to believe in the myths of their society. Without that, morality in the past, would break and not have advanced to what it is.
So while you think morality is based on reality, from naturalism perspective, it would seem morality is more line built with inclination from evolution to accept the praise consensus of their society/tribe/culture/nation.
Ofcourse, somethings we needed like empathy. And it being found in animals doesn't make it objective. Rape is done by animals. Doesn't make it ok for us, does it now? So whether or not, empathy is acted upon by majority of animals, it doesn't make it objective. It just means it was advantageous for surival of the species. If having sex with multiple partners was more advantageous or is what worked better in the species, then it would not be seen as wrong by that species. If rape worked at an advantage, again, it would not been seen as wrong.
Of course, somethings will be more universal then others, but universality doesn't equal objective. It just means it works for the advantage of most species.
The core of the issue, is whether there is anything that we truly ought to do. Or anything that is "good of us" to do. Surely we perceive a perception of this and are inclined to believe in it, but why should we obey this concept we have? What makes it right?
You stated we have equal rights to that of other animals existing. Surely I disagree with this and cannot come to believe it myself.
Moreover, we don't simply come with morals - we come to learn them from society. How is this even possible? We trust our parents. We then trust society. We are so ingrained with morality but if we didn't have the concept a priori then what it makes it real? If we needed others to teach us, it means we really didn't know until others taught us.
This gives notion that we are taught by praise and condemnation of parents, then society, then charismatic leaders if we are the type to look for inspiration, but none of this is developed from sheer reality.
Going back to "cool", we have a concept of "cool" but obviously didn't have that right away, and had to come across this type of praise (which is totally baseless).
It seems like praise can be created by society. There is also "holiness" "piousness" which is different type of "good" then secular good, but again, from naturalism perspective, this surely would be baseless.
So we have two type of praises that are baseless from naturalism perspective, yet, goodness and objective praise, surely must be true? Honour must be true?
What makes it so? Why should we listen to the "ought" or our natural empathy? Some people say it's because it makes us feel better. Then everything is reduced to :we should do what makes us feel better". But even that, why should a person care about themselves? From evolution perspective, we would not have survived were it not for caring about our selves. We naturally would have a high belief in valuing ourselves. But it wasn't felt by sheerly existing.
Morality exists based on reality. We don't get to chose what it is. But before you were stating it's experience that we evolved to have. Furthermore, what is this reality you talk about. Surely you are discussing "conscious" existence right as opposed to any existence right? You are stating we have equal rights to that of a fly for example, because both exist in the conscious sense? I don't think most humans would regard this as true, and if what you are saying is true, it seems your morality is unique, and not shared by most of humanity. Most of humanity doesn't deem the rights of a human that same as a cow for example.
Moreover, how can sheer existence give us a concept of moral rights? It can't surely. But why would evolution favour a concept of morality based on sheer existence instead of what favours surivability.
Going back to "praise" consensus, it can be very well be, since cohension is needed for society to function, most humans develop an inclination to accept the praise of their society and accept the leaders.
Moreover, morals would not have been philosophically discussed in our primitive nature, it would be told in the mode of myths. People would have inclination to believe it's "pious" (aka good) to believe in the myths of their society. Without that, morality in the past, would break and not have advanced to what it is.
So while you think morality is based on reality, from naturalism perspective, it would seem morality is more line built with inclination from evolution to accept the praise consensus of their society/tribe/culture/nation.
Ofcourse, somethings we needed like empathy. And it being found in animals doesn't make it objective. Rape is done by animals. Doesn't make it ok for us, does it now? So whether or not, empathy is acted upon by majority of animals, it doesn't make it objective. It just means it was advantageous for surival of the species. If having sex with multiple partners was more advantageous or is what worked better in the species, then it would not be seen as wrong by that species. If rape worked at an advantage, again, it would not been seen as wrong.
Of course, somethings will be more universal then others, but universality doesn't equal objective. It just means it works for the advantage of most species.
The core of the issue, is whether there is anything that we truly ought to do. Or anything that is "good of us" to do. Surely we perceive a perception of this and are inclined to believe in it, but why should we obey this concept we have? What makes it right?
You stated we have equal rights to that of other animals existing. Surely I disagree with this and cannot come to believe it myself.
Moreover, we don't simply come with morals - we come to learn them from society. How is this even possible? We trust our parents. We then trust society. We are so ingrained with morality but if we didn't have the concept a priori then what it makes it real? If we needed others to teach us, it means we really didn't know until others taught us.
This gives notion that we are taught by praise and condemnation of parents, then society, then charismatic leaders if we are the type to look for inspiration, but none of this is developed from sheer reality.
Going back to "cool", we have a concept of "cool" but obviously didn't have that right away, and had to come across this type of praise (which is totally baseless).
It seems like praise can be created by society. There is also "holiness" "piousness" which is different type of "good" then secular good, but again, from naturalism perspective, this surely would be baseless.
So we have two type of praises that are baseless from naturalism perspective, yet, goodness and objective praise, surely must be true? Honour must be true?
What makes it so? Why should we listen to the "ought" or our natural empathy? Some people say it's because it makes us feel better. Then everything is reduced to :we should do what makes us feel better". But even that, why should a person care about themselves? From evolution perspective, we would not have survived were it not for caring about our selves. We naturally would have a high belief in valuing ourselves. But it wasn't felt by sheerly existing.
