(November 21, 2009 at 10:24 pm)Rockthatpiano06 Wrote: Yeah, he's just backing me into a corner with his circular logic. He keeps telling me if life evolved then it cant have value, and if humans make up morals than we can justify genocide. I really dont know how to respond to any of it because its all bs as we know.The easiest way to get out of that corner is to call him on his circular reasoning. Force him to defend his position properly.
As for the two points you brought up above, he's correct. Life itself has no objective meaning; it can't if there is nothing objective to place meaning on it. However, separate people place value and meaning on each other, creating value and meaning subjectively. Just because it is subjective doesn't mean it isn't value and meaning.
Also true that if we make up morals, we can justify genocide. The thing is, we don't make up morals at all. Morality as far as we know is a cumulative reasoning exercise that whole societies develop. Each individual is born with a personality and brain that reasons to a specific moral code. Take 1000 such people, all with different opinions and place them in a society, and the dominant moral belief will become the norm. If 900 out of those 1000 think murder is a bad idea, murder will be made immoral, etc etc. The real debate happens when the ratios are more equal, so in a 500:500 or 400:600 sway. Of course, reasoned debate generally converts people across to a viewpoint, as can be seen by the attitudes towards race and homosexuality from the 60's onwards. The idea that everyone should be treated equally is becoming the dominating idea, and thus changing the morality slowly but surely.
