Originally posted by dottewellThe answer can't be: "It just is". That's stupid. If I were to accept such answers I could be made to do just about anything. Like a soldier or a mindless citizen.
I think people overstate the role of reason in ethics. There are reasons to perform specific acts, but the framework is simply there. It is impossible to ask and answer questions about the foundations of ethics.
Why is it right to be compassionate? It just is. No other answer (utilitarian, Kantian, Christian) is sufficient.
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenSo what is the basis of your morality? What is the rock of which it is impossible to ask, "But why should I do that?"
The answer can't be: "It just is". That's stupid. If I were to accept such answers I could be made to do just about anything. Like a soldier or a mindless citizen.
Incidentally, you could not do anything. You could not do those things that are wrong.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere is a difference, though. If I know that basic assumptions that I've made in my life may be based on wanting to believe, I can do something about it. I can question them sincerely and without mercy to myself or the people around me who shares those assumptions.
Not really. I'm just pointing out that your rejoinder to ivanhoe applies just as well to yourself.
Granted, the net result is not pretty, but I prefer being lost than living a lie. But that's me, and you can choose not to question your belief (other than superficially), if you want to.
Of course, Ivanhoe says he is challenging his own beliefs over and over again and that he's given up quite a few so far. I'll just take his word for it, then. Uhum...
Originally posted by dottewellHu???
So what is the basis of your morality? What is the rock of which it is impossible to ask, "But why should I do that?"
Incidentally, you could not do anything. You could not do those things that are wrong.
I'm sorry, I'm not following you. I could write a post about the basis of my morality, the way I see it. But what's that about a rock?
Originally posted by stockenStocken: "I can question them sincerely and without mercy to myself ..."
There is a difference, though. If I know that basic assumptions that I've made in my life may be based on wanting to believe, I can do something about it. I can question them sincerely and without mercy to myself or the people around me who shares those assumptions.
Granted, the net result is not pretty, but I prefer being lost than living a lie. B ...[text shortened]... ain and that he's given up quite a few so far. I'll just take his word for it, then. Uhum...
If you want to discover the truth about yourself and others you won't get very far without being able to show mercy ....
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's your problem, isn't it? I'm not arguing anything at all.
What if I don't feel it is the decent thing to do? What if I feel it is the decent thing to do, but don't? What is, objectively, the decent thing to do here? Are you arguing that there is no such thing as objective decency/rightness/morality?
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenThere is a difference, though.
There is a difference, though. If I know that basic assumptions that I've made in my life may be based on wanting to believe, I can do something about it. I can question them sincerely and without mercy to myself or the people around me who shares those assumptions.
Granted, the net result is not pretty, but I prefer being lost than living a lie. B ain and that he's given up quite a few so far. I'll just take his word for it, then. Uhum...
Are you sure? I've pointed out to BdN in another thread that some people in the modern West have a tendency to be "anything BUT Christian".
If I know that basic assumptions that I've made in my life may be based on wanting to believe, I can do something about it.
That they "may" be based on wanting to believe does not mean they are based on wanting to believe. Further, even if they are, that still does not mean there isn't a perfectly reasonable reason to believe them, even if that isn't the one you originally had.
But that's me, and you can choose not to question your belief (other than superficially), if you want to.
There is an implication here that theists either choose not to question their belief or do so superficially. Correct?
Of course, Ivanhoe says he is challenging his own beliefs over and over again and that he's given up quite a few so far. I'll just take his word for it, then. Uhum...
What about you? Are you challenging your beliefs over and over again?
Originally posted by ivanhoeOn the contrary. Showing mercy (in the matter of belief, mind you) will only hold you back. If you're afraid to hurt others, fine. But never, ever, show mercy to yourself because you want something to be true. That's not questioning. That's called re-assuring on false premises.
Stocken: "I can question them sincerely and without mercy to myself ..."
If you want to discover the truth about yourself and others you won't get very far without being able to show mercy ....
The way I see it.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'll ask you to please stop taking single sentences out of context and answering them in part. My paragraphs are meant to discuss one main idea; stop chopping them up into soundbites. I have to respond in kind because of the way you structure your statements, but it is a poor way to communicate a central idea.
[b]So you assert, but you have no evidence to support such an assertion.
But your assertion is 100% backed by archaeological, anthropological and historical evidence, right? Please.
I would postulate that when primitive man became aware of his mortality he created a belief in an afterlife to sooth his fear.
The problem with this th o it? Especially if, as you claim, it was created specifically to counter the fear of death?[/b]
1) You concede you have no evidence. The rest of your statement is a non sequitur;
2) People create beliefs and then they filter reality through their beliefs. If the first person who came up with the idea of religion said " There can't just be this life; there has to be more" that's an appealling idea, isn't it? So people want to believe it, so they do. Then they tell their children to believe it and they do. Simple;
3) My hypothesis is internally consistent and you know it. Besides that, it accords with what we know about ourselves and our nature. Most fairy tales and myths are "internally consistent" but they don't accord with reality. It is illogical to believe in things that have no basis in reality like the Christian God;
4) What else is there? Besides, it's strongly culturally ingrained and in most places religion is strongly socially encouraged. It wasn't so long ago that people who didn't believe in religion were burned at the stake (at least the right religion). There actually are guns to people's heads in many places in the world to believe in a certain religion. So a concept created to get over your fear of death can get you killed if you don't believe in it. I'm not sure if that's fitting or ironic.