RE: Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil
March 15, 2021 at 10:37 am
(This post was last modified: March 15, 2021 at 10:52 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Harsh, lol. Threads like these could help us to more clearly and accurately communicate our moral positions, and better understand other moral positions.
For example, we've learned that Seax doesn't actually believe that naturally advantageous things -are- the set of morally good things - rather the other way around. Goods things can be naturally advantageous. That this explains some portion of our moral development and positions on good which can be ascribed to the effect of selection.
However, assuming that morally good things can be naturally advantageous - and that societies and breeding populations will privilege and police the boundary of that advantage.... as they see it, we've multiplied the original problem, not resolved it. Now we have to contend with moral relativism and subjectivism, as well, at least descriptively.
The criteria of benefit, as employed in defense of volcanoes, may not help us here - as we can conceive of some benefit to any item of moral import deemed good or bad by any criteria (and just about everything not of moral import, too - we're endlessly creative at finding a use for things).
One killing benefits, another does not.... whether that's the individual, a breeding population, or society. Is there a moral difference between these two killings, and if so, what?
A broader version of the same question might be - suppose that one breeding population or society determined, accurately, that it would be beneficial to them to eradicate the other? If we contend that this would be bad in some sense that other breeding populations or societies would strike us down - then it seems to be the case that failing to eradicate the other society is the bad making property? If they rise up and beat you down that just goes to show that misdeeds are punished.....but if you secure the benefits and prevent any hope of reprisal, then a Very Good Deed has been accomplished. Carthago delenda est.
For example, we've learned that Seax doesn't actually believe that naturally advantageous things -are- the set of morally good things - rather the other way around. Goods things can be naturally advantageous. That this explains some portion of our moral development and positions on good which can be ascribed to the effect of selection.
However, assuming that morally good things can be naturally advantageous - and that societies and breeding populations will privilege and police the boundary of that advantage.... as they see it, we've multiplied the original problem, not resolved it. Now we have to contend with moral relativism and subjectivism, as well, at least descriptively.
The criteria of benefit, as employed in defense of volcanoes, may not help us here - as we can conceive of some benefit to any item of moral import deemed good or bad by any criteria (and just about everything not of moral import, too - we're endlessly creative at finding a use for things).
One killing benefits, another does not.... whether that's the individual, a breeding population, or society. Is there a moral difference between these two killings, and if so, what?
A broader version of the same question might be - suppose that one breeding population or society determined, accurately, that it would be beneficial to them to eradicate the other? If we contend that this would be bad in some sense that other breeding populations or societies would strike us down - then it seems to be the case that failing to eradicate the other society is the bad making property? If they rise up and beat you down that just goes to show that misdeeds are punished.....but if you secure the benefits and prevent any hope of reprisal, then a Very Good Deed has been accomplished. Carthago delenda est.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
