Morally Speaking, What Are Humans?

If morality is subjective, what isn't? Cold hard facts? Or are even those only in the eye of the beholder?

battlefront23

The way I look at it, if something is objective, then evidence can be presented in its favor that can be used in an argument against someone who disagrees. I don't see how that is the case for moral statements - you can certainly factually describe the effects of an action, but the fundamental step is going from "it has negative effects on other people" to "you shouldn't do it", and I don't think there's really any evidence you can provide in favor of that logical jump.

That's not to say that people should just stand around and do nothing when someone is doing something with effects contrary to one's own moral code - I certainly think that someone is justified in acting in such a situation. All this is really saying is that you cannot really provide any evidence that will convince a person that your fundamental moral code is correct if that person did not already believe such.

I believe most people are evil, but some are good. How many people do you see holding a door open? How many do you see someone help find a lost wallet or something?

Most actions ar emade of greed or to further themselves, which would be considered evil. People who choose to do things for the benefit of others are good. Some people do things good for other people for themselves as well.

I believe most people are evil, but some are good. How many people do you see holding a door open? How many do you see someone help find a lost wallet or something?

Most actions ar emade of greed or to further themselves, which would be considered evil. People who choose to do things for the benefit of others are good. Some people do things good for other people for themselves as well.

RazerBlade13

Said the virtuist to the ethical egoist. I personally think that actions made for greed which are in one's best interest are the best thing to do, and are good.Vandalvideo

People will always inevitably do whatever they feel will take them closest to fulfilling their desires in life. That's unavoidable.

The thing that can certainly be changed, however, is precisely what one desires in life. If a person derives happiness from the suffering of others, then I think that most anyone else would agree that that person's happiness is not exactly compatible with others' happiness, which thus makes it an unstable and rival happiness - it's only possible to be present if others around the person are not happy. On the other hand, if a person derives happiness from others' happiness, then that is a much more stable and non-rival happiness.

I've long said that the only way that happiness can be a limitless resource is if we derive it from each other - which is why I say that it's really in everyone's best interest for that to be the case.

(Of course, the question of how and if one can change what makes one happy is an entirely different question, and one to which I don't yet have any real answer.)

Most people attempt to be mostly good, some people are just in general bad though, though in the minority.

No god.

Atheists just believe in too many coincidence lol. First the universe was formed by chance. Then a planet perfectly habitable for life was chance. Us being the highest life form, caring about our history or learning it, and having the gift of music,reading books,enjoying games or any imaginiation is chance(these gifts aren't necessary for survival, even that is chance). Us holding the fate of the Earth in our hands as far as pollution or helping take care of the Earth is chance. Our so called evolution was chance(keyword) to become humans and have all the gifts I said in my 3rd point(i'm not sure on evolution but I think we were planned toevolve from "cavemen" but I mean the rest of the evolution process). Us being just far enough from the sun for the sunlight to help life on the planet was chance. Our planet having an atmosphere that can shield just enough sunlight etc.was chance. Life forming on the planet was chance. I saw a ghost once as a kid once so I have no doubts about life after death.Anyways i'm just saying Atheists believe in way too much coincidence.Just my view on it all. I'm sure there's a ton of more points about too many coincidences

ghostelite88

The way I look at it, if something is objective, then evidence can be presented in its favor that can be used in an argument against someone who disagrees.

GabuEx

Man, I always arrive to these parties late....

I always wonder when I see these topics if those who believe in Christianity hold no self-esteem or love for themselves to any degree. Why would anyone embrace any belief system that claims them as not only worthless, but flat out evil, the scum of the earth, whose good acts are disregarded as "dirty rags"? I find it hard to believe all followers hate themselves this much, so maybe I'm misinterpreting things here, but I've never seen such a desire to constantly put oneself down all the time.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The way I look at it, if something is objective, then evidence can be presented in its favor that can be used in an argument against someone who disagrees.

Funky_Llama

Hmm, that's actually a fair point. Perhaps I should instead say "can theoretically be presented in its favor". There are things that we may never know, but which someone who knows and sees everything would definitely know.

One can easily see how evidence could be presented to convince others that someone is a murderer, but I cannot see how a moral statement could have evidence presented in its favor that would convince others who didn't already agree of its correctness to the exclusion of mutually exclusive other moral statements.

Man, I always arrive to these parties late....

I always wonder when I see these topics if those who believe in Christianity hold no self-esteem or love for themselves to any degree. Why would anyone embrace any belief system that claims them as not only worthless, but flat out evil, the scum of the earth, whose good acts are disregarded as "dirty rags"? I find it hard to believe all followers hate themselves this much, so maybe I'm misinterpreting things here, but I've never seen such a desire to constantly put oneself down all the time.

Rekunta

I think that the self-loathing that some people get from belief in Christianity tends to be the result of taking things a wee bit too far. As I understand the things that the Bible says, what it is really saying is that we must not be complacent with what we are, because there is always something that can be improved upon. When it says that nothing is "good enough" for God, what it really means is that we cannot buy our way into heaven just through actions that are not backed up by a sincere love. In other words, we must not do a good deed and then say boastfully, "See, God, now I am a good person; I now deserve heaven" - we instead must endeavor our whole life long to improve ourselves, and to act not out of the desire to attain heaven, but rather out of love both of God and for our fellow man.

I agree with your interpretation.

I'm just saying that I think that any rational person who holds themselve to high moral standards (as they claim) yet still believes themselves to be inherently evil whose good acts ("dirty rags") are also worthless has a definite self esteem problem.

EDIT: Which makes me wonder.....is it possible to hold to God's moral standards yet be evil at the same time?

Morality is subjectiveGodless_Liberal

I agree with your interpretation.

I'm just saying that I think that any rational person who holds themselve to high moral standards (as they claim) yet still believes themselves to be inherently evil whose good acts ("dirty rags") are also worthless has a definite self esteem problem.

Rekunta

My personal impression is that many such people are scared - scared of the unknown, scared of hell, scared of not being good enough, scared of the thought of not knowing what's going to happen or where they're going. I've found that it tends to be the case that the more someone vigorously and aggressively tries to convince everyone else that something is true when others say it's not, the more they're really afraid themselves of it not being true.

And before anyone asks, no, I can't prove this. It's just the impression I get.