RE: Morality
June 13, 2013 at 3:41 am
(This post was last modified: June 13, 2013 at 3:47 am by crud.)
thanks again max, it's good to have a proper discussion in place.
Regarding the fact the people don't care so much about Africans, could be due to all kinds of different influences from society.. so I won't go into this
By "Survival of the fittest" I didn't actually just mean most physical fit, intelligence would also be included. - I get what you're saying here
"Without empathy, at some level, society collapses"
I'd agree here, I do see how it would have it's place in evolution. But the are many examples of people using the wealth/time and risking their own life, just for the sake of others.. This doesn't really fit the mold.
"Still nothing nihilist that I can see."
Without some sort of objectivity that transcends our cultural/personal relative values... what grounds can we use to deem the actions of others as wrong? or right? - When they are only acting on their cultural/personal relative values?
It just seems like whoever's in power makes the rules.
While Jim Jefferies is a funny guy.
I think the topic demands a more philosophical argument then that.
From the naturalist point of view... on what grounds can they stand on to criticize the government/authority/actions of others, when all is simply relative?
We'd all state that the Holocaust was objectively wrong, right?
Regarding the fact the people don't care so much about Africans, could be due to all kinds of different influences from society.. so I won't go into this
By "Survival of the fittest" I didn't actually just mean most physical fit, intelligence would also be included. - I get what you're saying here
"Without empathy, at some level, society collapses"
I'd agree here, I do see how it would have it's place in evolution. But the are many examples of people using the wealth/time and risking their own life, just for the sake of others.. This doesn't really fit the mold.
"Still nothing nihilist that I can see."
Without some sort of objectivity that transcends our cultural/personal relative values... what grounds can we use to deem the actions of others as wrong? or right? - When they are only acting on their cultural/personal relative values?
It just seems like whoever's in power makes the rules.
While Jim Jefferies is a funny guy.
I think the topic demands a more philosophical argument then that.
From the naturalist point of view... on what grounds can they stand on to criticize the government/authority/actions of others, when all is simply relative?
We'd all state that the Holocaust was objectively wrong, right?
