RE: The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?
July 25, 2013 at 6:47 am
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2013 at 6:50 am by Magnum.)
(July 25, 2013 at 6:22 am)genkaus Wrote:Well you might not then agree with what I have to say but my points are still valid.(July 25, 2013 at 5:54 am)Red Celt Wrote: If objective morality exists, then there must have been a point when it went from non-existence to existence. So, then. When might that have been? Christian apologists use objective morality as "proof" that their god exists. I'm interested to see what arse-above-elbow machinations an atheist is going to use in order to do likewise.
I'd say the first objective morality came into existence sometime around 1772 BC when the Hammurabi's code was written down and thenceforth became independent of anyone's subjective opinion. Since then, there have been many other such moralities all of which have come from humans without the need for any divine intervention.
(July 25, 2013 at 6:03 am)Attie Wrote: Yes I agree the GR does not give anybody anything else but a subjective warm and fuzzy feeling.
Not even remotely close to what I said.
(July 25, 2013 at 6:03 am)Attie Wrote: In reality things are rather chaotic and not even restricted or limited by application of law enforcement. You still get criminals or should we say people who disobey the law even though they subjectively act according to the GR.
Redundancy check: Criminals are those who disobey the law. Compliance with the golden rule is irrelevant.
(July 25, 2013 at 6:03 am)Attie Wrote: The GR is a Maxim and without value unless their is an universally accepted intent of good moral action following the idea that results in a law.
Baseless generalization. It can be beneficial without universal acceptance and it can be harmful with it.
(July 25, 2013 at 6:03 am)Attie Wrote: Generally the idea of producing moral codes and laws according to the will of either a leader or the collective is only one way of looking at ethics.
Ridiculous notion - given that we know many ways of looking at ethics while disregarding both the collective and the leader.
(July 25, 2013 at 6:03 am)Attie Wrote: The question is weather moral codes and laws can be produced that are not based on the will (subjective) of people but rather on scientific fact (objective) which would then rule out the GR?
And which scientific fact is to be chosen as the basis for morality?
In China we have many laws that are based on scientific fact and not on the will of the people. If you want to know them you can find them for yourself. I'm not here to help you out of your lazy ignorance.
What, are you American?
PS. The Hammurabi code is theistic.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.
Bertrand Russell
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.
Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.
Bertrand Russell