1 edit
If we are just the product of millions of years of evolution, and when we die, we'll just be recycled into a plant, what is the purpose of life?
Surely it would be just to enjoy life while you have it, to your best definition of enjoy. What makes one any better than a serial rapist and murderer? They're just enjoying life to the fullest, while helping Darwin out with "survival of the fittest"?
Originally posted by Halitose"Helping Darwin out "? I think he's a bit beond anyone's help .
If we are just the product of millions of years of evolution, and when we die, we'll just be recycled into a plant, what is the purpose of life?
Surely it would be just to enjoy life while you have it, to your best definition of enjoy. What makes one any better than a serial rapist and murderer? They're just enjoying life to the fullest, while helping Darwin out with "survival of the fittest"?
Question for you - If I fall from an apple tree , am I helping Issac Newton out somehow ?
Originally posted by Moldy CrowMy point was, how could you look down on a murderer? He is just part of the evolutionary cog in eliminating the weaker and less inteligent of our species.
"Helping Darwin out "? I think he's a bit beond anyone's help .
Question for you - If I fall from an apple tree , am I helping Issac Newton out somehow ?
Originally posted by HalitoseFirst, why do you need a purpose for your life given to you “from outside,” so to speak?
If we are just the product of millions of years of evolution, and when we die, we'll just be recycled into a plant, what is the purpose of life?
Surely it would be just to enjoy life while you have it, to your best definition of enjoy. What makes one any better than a serial rapist and murderer? They're just enjoying life to the fullest, while helping Darwin out with "survival of the fittest"?
Second, what happens when I die? Haven’t the foggiest, and no longer find it particularly helpful to speculate.
Third, why am I better than a rapist/murderer? Because I haven’t raped or murdered anyone? (For a discussion of the need for a God to underlie morality, I suggest you start by reading through bbarr’s “Euthyphro and Divine Command Theory” thread; no sense duplicating all that here.)
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdBy what moral or ethical code is that decided, if there is no god? Why would murder be wrong? Why would not having murdered be considered good?
Third, why am I better than a rapist/murderer? Because I haven’t raped or murdered anyone? (For a discussion of the need for a God to underlie morality, I suggest you start by reading through bbarr’s “Euthyphro and Divine Command Theory” thread; no sense duplicating all that here.)
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseBy what moral or ethical code is that decided, if there is no god?
By what moral or ethical code is that decided, if there is no god? Why would murder be wrong? Why would not having murdered be considered good?
Somehow I thought you’d ask that. 🙂 Several ways to respond….
1) By what moral or ethical code is that decided, if there is a God?
2) From a purely personal point-of-view, I find such things as rape, torture, etc. to be personally abhorrent. If you ask why? I can’t really say; it’s not something I arrived at by logical thinking. Now, you could say, “But if you were a rapist, you wouldn’t find that behavior abhorrent.” Maybe, maybe not. I don’t understand the mind of a rapist, since I’ve never had the faintest desire to commit rape.
All of this however, I realize, is on the purely personal, subjective plane, and really doesn’t address the broader question of social morality.
3) I confess that I don’t have a well-defined moral philosophy at this point, which is why I read the threads here that deal with it with interest. One position would be simply that we live as social beings and that social moralities develop because of our needs to live together with some degree of harmony. Personally, I’m not prepared to stand on that one; it was just the simplest quick example that came to mind.
4) Regardless of the theory backing it up, it is clear that people who do not derive their morality from God, do have moral codes and, by and large, behave just as morally as, say, Christians—Buddhists for example.
Again, I urge you to read through bbarr’s thread for a start. Maybe some kind person on here can point us both to one or more of the past “moral theory” threads; if not, I’ll go searching.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseThere is no fixed "purpose" for one's life, handed down by some external source. Everyone must pursue and discover that on their own. It is this radical freedom that I think many christians fear or abhor. They'd much rather have some god tell them, "Your purpose in life is 'X'. Just do it." It would certainly make things much easier. Or perhaps "simplistic" would be a better word for it.
If we are just the product of millions of years of evolution, and when we die, we'll just be recycled into a plant, what is the purpose of life?
Surely it would be just to enjoy life while you have it, to your best definition of enjoy ...[text shortened]... est, while helping Darwin out with "survival of the fittest"?
Law abiding citizens are better than rapists and murderers because we recognize that rape and murder are wrong. We don't need some god to tell us this, it is something that is self evident. Generally speaking, people do not like being raped and murdered. Therefore, of their own accord, they make rape and murder crimes to be punished. You do not need a god for that bit of common sense. Of course, rape and murder were crimes long before christianity came upon the scene. And if you read the bible, it positively abounds with examples of rape and murder.
Social conduct has nothing to do with evolution. Furthermore, it was not Darwin who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", but rather Herbert Spencer. Spencer foolishly tried to apply evolution to social conduct and came up with what came to be known as "Social Darwinism", even though Darwin had nothing to do with it. It should be noted that Social Darwinism has been thoroughly discredited by everyone except a few rogue Ayn Rand nuts and laissez faire capitalists.
Originally posted by HalitoseAccording to your beliefs(educated guess here) , animals do not "believe in god" . Yet chimps , elk , gnus , geese , ants , name your species of social animals do not set upon each other and murder one another as a rule . Yet they have no moral code from god or prick from the holy ghost that you would call a conscience to prevent this . It seems for whtaever reason that order is more beneficial to a species than disorder . Is it a stretch that to most animals of the human species such order is favored over the disorder of "do whatever you want to whom ever you want to because it doesn't matter "?
By what moral or ethical code is that decided, if there is no god? Why would murder be wrong? Why would not having murdered be considered good?
The majority of human history is populated by societies that did not know your god . Yet many flourished for centuries without his specific moral code or presence keeping things together . Your god is irrelevant to peace and stability . Moral and ethical codes are decided by the popular concensus to achieve a higher civil goal , not by to spiritual obedience or conviction from the higher authority of a god .
Originally posted by Halitosebeware where you step when you start shoveling around the Divine Command Theory. if you believe the DCT is tenable then, please go to bbarr's thread and demonstrate why:
By what moral or ethical code is that decided, if there is no god? Why would murder be wrong? Why would not having murdered be considered good?
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=25771