(March 15, 2021 at 10:37 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: 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.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 28, 2024, 3:21 am
Poll: If There Were a God, Would You be Angry with Him? This poll is closed. |
|||
No. | 3 | 33.33% | |
Yes, but only for not intervening against human evil. | 0 | 0% | |
Yes, because I believe natural evil exists & it ought not to. | 5 | 55.56% | |
None of the above, I would only be angry if this God upheld the immoral proscriptions of the Old Testament. | 1 | 11.11% | |
Total | 9 vote(s) | 100% |
* You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
Thread Rating:
Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)