I've read a part of this book. I'm not much of a philosopher. I really don't know the details on the different arguments. I just act or think on whats there. I have been in search of the truth. I don't know why but thats just it. In my journey I discovered that every individual have their own set thoughts on whats right and wrong. so how could there be a universal truth to what right and wrong. the only truth I see is the things that an individual wants and does not want. If thats the case then the truth is within us? I mean we have our own version of the truth? any objection or reaction is welcome .
I agree completely. I think it was H.G. Wells who said this but I am not sure. "In nature there are no rewards or punishments, there are consequences." We make rational judgements of good and bad, for example a ripe or rotten apple, but these judgements spill over to our emotional judgements. So for example, if someone gives you a really ripe, juicy apple, how would you feel? And if someone gives you a rotten apple how would you feel? In paganism there is no black or white magic, magic is like a force like electricity, it can either be used to power our homes or it can be used to electricute someone. It depends on the user's intention that makes some magic better done than other magic. Do you see what I mean. Blessings Blessings Sebbi
I agree, Sebbi. I suppose I might modify that quotation to read: "There are no judgements; there are only consequences."
i think that might be a good way of looking at it: "no rewards or punishments, only natural consiquencs" some consiquences may be more desireable then others, though again that may often be a matter of personal preferance. fairness may be somewhere between difficult and impossible to judge, but bennifit and harm, may be more or less readily and objectively observable. not always perhaps, but yet quite often. this is not to say the existence of causality does not itself imply a kind of responsibility i believe such concepts as good and bad or good and evil were invented to simplify trying to explain this to those who don't get it or try to refuse to, and that they may have been invented with the best of intentions so it becomes not a matter of do whatever you like, but rather do what you would prefer the consiquences of. the observable natural and objective consiquences that is, whatever other kind we may or may not choose to speculate about.
How do you define "better" in such a framework? In an atheistic system, morality is an absurd concept, as Nietzsche observed. The same is true of pantheism: http://www.antithesis.com/features/dignity.html
""In an atheistic system, morality is an absurd concept, as Nietzsche observed."" It is equally absurd to think that anything that comes from God can be moral, especially when murder has been justified in the name of God. Just look at all the horrendous acts that have been carried out in the name of God - morality is an absurd concept in a theistic system.
The morality that Nietzsche attacks is what he regards as not moral, however he was really a great moralist despite the fact that he liked to think of himself as amoral. Christian morality, as Nietzsche conceived of it, was a morality based on resentiment, wickedness, jealousy, contempt for life. That which was overflowing with life and power, that which possessed wealth, etc. became evil in the eyes of Christianity out of the oppressed Christian's jealousy. In turn, the weak, the sickly, the deformed, became saints in Christianitie's morality of resentiment. The earth and life are to be despised under Christian morality. Nietzsche makes a distinction between two types of morality. Slave morality and Master morality. Christianity, by and large, is a form of slave morality. What is required for slave morality to develop is hostile external conditions, oppressive conditions. Christianity is essentially jealous of anyone who has turned out well.
Existence exists, morals do not exist in reality but only as a social construct of man. Therefore it should be questioned who is creating the morals and for what purpose or aim. It took Nietzsche many volumes to say the equivalent of these two sentences.
Are you not familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? Misguided ascetic Christians might have taught this, but it is certainly not biblical. God hates greed and oppression because they deprive the poor of good things, not because wealth is inherently evil. However, it is seductive and deceptive, as it tends to harden one’s heart toward God and others. We are not to cling to our wealth, since it ultimately belongs to God and should be used to bless others. If morals are purely a social construct, then they are entirely arbitrary. Therefore, "good" and "evil" are literally meaningless terms. That’s why I said that morality is an absurd concept in an atheistic framework. It provides no objective basis for condemning the holocaust or the gulag. "Might" truly makes "right."
""Therefore, "good" and "evil" are literally meaningless terms."" Most of reality is a social construct, but that does not make it meaningless. In other words most realities are social, dependent upon man's interaction with himself. Intrinsically, the universe is niether benign nor hostile but merely exists. The statement: "If there is no God, everything is permited" really does not make sense because God and religion have already been used as an excuse for just about every horror imaginable. If there is no God, how would anything more be permited than God has already permited? I just don't see any evidence of morals existing in the fabric of reality independent of the mind. Not meaning to bash religion or anything, nothing personal.
HuckFinn, I checked out the link. I still maintain that absolutism has been the foundation of far greater injustices than relativism.
First, the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. pale in comparison to secular utopian horrors such as the French reign of terror, the Soviet gulag, and the killing fields of Mao and Pol Pot. Second, relativism provides no basis for condemning these injustices or even defining them as such.
the bible state that peace really so that everyone can live is the most important thing--in this there are laws so everyone has a little bit of everything. Good means that some one is following the right thing---that which creates peace bad means that someone is following the wicked path--that which does not create peace and tears apart humans lives---------------this can be seen in the babylon system--babylon was an old society that was great but they used slaves to get there This has carried over in time--like all things and is still around --- the USA is a great society but it used human suffering to get ahead --which is bad
Here is an interesting thought I've had. In our society, despite the fact that they are human constructs, we have ideas of good and bad. Without bad, there would be no way of determining if something is good. So aren't "bad" people really doing a "good" thing? But I have come to the conclusion that good and bad are really just a human invention to maintain order and structure. When man first started to form ideas of society and living together, order had to be maintained. People couldn't do whatever they pleased because then a society wouldn't work, at least not effectively. Everyone would have to pull his or her weight. So behavior that helped society was awarded, while behavior that was individualistic, or detrimental to society was condemned. Fast forward and we see the basic outline of our notions of good and bad. Good acts help society and people. Bad acts tend to help ourselves, but hurt society. It is social training.
Being honest. Being who you are. Experiencing things throughout your life that ill help you become the person you are really are and wer born as. Unlocking yourself. For me this is the path. But it is an independent way of living. Those you have a need to live deeply inrooted in the society they inhabit tend to mimic the behavior and beliefs that plan to go along with it...
You're right, Atheism doesn't provide a handy go-to guide for determining whether something was good or bad. You're left entirely on your own to determine whether the holocaust, crusades, or french reign of terror were bad things. honestly, if you need the help, there's no hope for you to start with. (in my case: Terrible but neccessary, terrible and unneccessary, the inevitable result of Aristocratic inbreeding and the hoarding of wealth). The Jews had slaves, too. and they built their ancient society on the blood soaked soil of others. Also peace is usually attained through the wholesale slaughter and destruction of other societies. Pax Romania and Pax Brittania, and in our day Pax Americana. when people choose the good (self determination, self rule, diplomacy) people tend to form factions, fight over limited resources, and then kill eachother. peace is what happens in shortly after the wars (nothing's more peaceful than a grave yard). Neitzsche believed that good, in it's origional sense, was that which increased the power (or drive to power) of the creature. If you read classical greek mythology, their heros were very immoral (Odyssess didn't even sacrafice to Poseidon), but were able to overcome great odds to attain glory. This view was replaced by the one you cited, probably due to the christianization of Europe, or the increasing complexity (and size) of civlization, where self-sacrafice and duty to others is elevated obove the good of the individual (our heros are the fire fighters on 9-11 and jesus christ, martyrs basically). I would if that baby was hitler. Or really, really, really loud at night and i shared a common wall. The Spartans killed their defective children, for the good of the common society and future gene poll. really, it just depends on who it's good for. obviously not the baby, but maybe everyone else (if the child was a carrier of a genetic disease or destined to kill people). I'm not sure if he'd be pissed or honored to hear that. probably just happy that someone appreciates him (he did die in obscurity).
