If god doesen't exist that what diffrence will it make if I kill, rape or rob.

so do you EVER or would you ever make any moral judgement...EVER? do you make moral judgements against the nazis or Ku klux Klan or child molestors? I'm trying to gauge where you stand on the objectivism vs. subjectivism debate. lovesPR

I think that the Nazis, the KKK, and child molesters cause serious harm to the humans they come into contact with and that the human race would be better off without them. If by your definition that makes them evil, well, then by your definition I think that they're evil.

My main issue with the idea of objective, universal morality is a technical one, relating to the fact that there is no objective definition of the term "evil" that everyone can agree on. One of the biggest sources of totally pointless conflict is when two people are saying the same word and meaning two different things by it.

actually the first premise of the moral argument is supported in that no one can have any basis for morality in naturalism. lovesPR

This negates my point how? Bush's decision had nothing to do with naturalism, according to him. Also, I'm looking for this premise you pointed out but I have only found this. Care to point me in a better direction?

Strike 2.

[QUOTE="lovesPR"] actually the first premise of the moral argument is supported in that no one can have any basis for morality in naturalism. Genetic_Code

This negates my point how? Bush's decision had nothing to do with naturalism, according to him. Also, I'm looking for this premise you pointed out but I have only found . Care to point me in a better direction?

Strike 2.

[QUOTE="lovesPR"]so do you EVER or would you ever make any moral judgement...EVER? do you make moral judgements against the nazis or Ku klux Klan or child molestors? I'm trying to gauge where you stand on the objectivism vs. subjectivism debate. GabuEx

I think that the Nazis, the KKK, and child molesters cause serious harm to the humans they come into contact with and that the human race would be better off without them. If by your definition that makes them evil, well, then by your definition I think that they're evil.

My main issue with the idea of objective, universal morality is a technical one, relating to the fact that there is no objective definition of the term "evil" that everyone can agree on. One of the biggest sources of totally pointless conflict is when two people are saying the same word and meaning two different things by it.

you sound like Bill Clinton when he said "that depends on what "is" is". Some things (like the holocaust or child molestation) are always wrong, this is a properly basic belief. Some ethical duties always reign true (like "it is wrong to commit genocide, you should not commit genocide")

prison...thats whatblazinpuertoroc

If you do those things you lose some of your humanity. Conscious stops most people from doing those thing, and it is your conscious that makes you human. Without religion there would still be right and wrong because on the human condition.

Samwel_X

Something I never understood about evolution. Why did we evolve a conscious? What does a concious have to do with survival of the fittest? If we let emotions get in our way (not killing an enemy because we have a "concious" or morality on other subjects)then we wouldn't survive, how then did we evolve this if technically this would just hinder our survival? If you say it's just something conjured up in the human mind, then how do we decide what is right and what is wrong? We all have a sense of morality in us (well most) and we simply do what we find right, no? Why do all humans have this same exact "concious" in them if it isn't evovled, and if it is, then it would have died out because it would hinder our survivability. Also another point is, how do we as humans establish what is right and wrong? When there is no higher standard to tell us what is right and what is wrong then how do we really know anyways? You might say that all humans picked up their sense of right and wrong from their culture, but how did the first humans or other creatures with high intillect (if you believe in previous evolutionary forms I suppose) establish this? We can't have a concious if we evovled, and without a concious there would be no morality.

[QUOTE="blazinpuertoroc"]prison...thats whatlovesPR

Only if you're a psychopathic, immoral lunatic. How come I am not murdering now eventhough I do not believe any deity will judge me for what I have done at the end of my life?

[QUOTE="lovesPR"][QUOTE="blazinpuertoroc"]prison...thats whatMindFreeze

Only if you're a psychopathic, immoral lunatic. How come I am not murdering now eventhough I do not believe any deity will judge me for what I have done at the end of my life?

Becuase you have a concious.

then why use language? "the holocaust was wrong!" define wrong!

lovesPR

Person 1: "I think gay marriage is wrong!"

Person 2: "I think gay marriage isn't wrong!"

Do these people actually disagree, or is this debate totally meaningless because they don't agree on what "wrong" means? Language works precisely because words have definitions. If two people are using two different definitions for the same word, then all communication will be fruitless and pointless until that discrepancy is identified and the two people understand what it is that the other is actually saying when they call something "wrong".

you sound like Bill Clinton when he said "that depends on what "is" is". Some things (like the holocaust or child molestation) are always wrong, this is a properly basic belief. Some ethical duties always reign true (like "it is wrong to commit genocide, you should not commit genocide")

lovesPR

We both agree that genocide is an act that causes terrible pain, loss, and suffering, that its application causes the human race to be much worse off, and that as a result it is something that should not be tolerated by those who are concerned about the long-term well-being of the human race. Does an act against another human being cause more or less suffering because of what adjectives one uses to describe it? If not, then this whole argument over whether or not something ought to be called "wrong" is a pointless exercise.

Something I never understood about evolution. Why did we evolve a conscious? What does a concious have to do with survival of the fittest? If we let emotions get in our way (not killing an enemy because we have a "concious" or morality on other subjects)then we wouldn't survive, how then did we evolve this if technically this would just hinder our survival?

dackchaar

Suppose you have two scenarios. In one scenario, nobody forms any bonds with anyone else, and no one has any compunction against killing another human being. In the other scenario, you have reality, where people become close with one another and see numerous reasons not to kill each other. In which scenario is the long-term survival of the human race more likely?

Once you answer that question, the evolutionary benefit in having a conscience and morals is pretty darn evident.

If you say it's just something conjured up in the human mind, then how do we decide what is right and what is wrong? We all have a sense of morality in us (well most) and we simply do what we find right, no? Why do all humans have this same exact "concious" in them if it isn't evovled, and if it is, then it would have died out because it would hinder our survivability. Also another point is, how do we as humans establish what is right and wrong? When there is no higher standard to tell us what is right and what is wrong then how do we really know anyways? You might say that all humans picked up their sense of right and wrong from their culture, but how did the first humans or other creatures with high intillect (if you believe in previous evolutionary forms I suppose) establish this? We can't have a concious if we evovled, and without a concious there would be no morality.dackchaar

All humans don't have the same conscience. Some people see nothing wrong with killing others to get ahead. We call those people sociopaths. They're ostracized and shunned on account of the fact that people acting like that are liable to cause us pain and suffering, which is something that we want to avoid. The vast majority of humans inherently agree that we should not kill each other for the simple reason that we all understand that allowing such a thing would cause pain to both ourselves and those we care about. There's really no need to introduce a higher power here, although people are nonetheless welcome to speculate about one if they wish.

The fact of the matter is that the evolutionary advantages to not wanting to murder everyone are blatantly obvious.