lol, the only moral system?!? oh man, i'd love to hear this one. i'll start working on how it's pure evil and we can match them up later (or you can wait until i'm done and then rip it apart or vice versa if that's easier).
EDIT: btw Big Mike, may i ask what your educational background is? am i getting into a debate with an expert lol? i'm still up for it, mind you, but just curious. i'm no political philosophy expert i'll admit, but i do feel like i have an above average understanding on the subject.
EDIT 2: is it strange that i'm terribly excited about this now? probably.
Unless it can be proved otherwise, I'm going to believe that Walter Williams read this forum to come up with the idea for this video:
Also, I can't believe it's been almost two years since we discussed this. Time sure flies.
i'll try to watch it when i get a chance. i'll be honest though. i'd much rather read the info than watch it (lol yeah, i'm like a dying breed of human).
I’ll start my argument with the basic Kantian premise that all human persons, aka people, are (i) absolutely intrinsically, non-denumerably infinitely valuable, beyond all possible economics, which means they have dignity, and (ii) autonomous rational animals, which means they can act freely for good reasons, and above all they are (iii) morally obligated to respect each other and to be actively concerned for each other’s well-being and happiness, aka kindness, as well as their own well-being and happiness.
Therefore, it is rationally unjustified and immoral to undermine or violate people’s dignity, under any circumstances.
If it is rationally unjustified and immoral for ordinary people to undermine or violate the dignity of other people by commanding them and coercing them to obey those commands as a duty, then it must also be rationally unjustified and immoral for governments to undermine or violate the dignity of people by commanding them and coercing them to obey those commands as a duty, no matter how those governments got into power.
But all governments claim political authority in precisely this sense.
Therefore, there is no adequate rational justification for political authority, states, or other state-like institutions, and Kantian ethical anarchism is true.
(pretty much a reversal of the thread title but) why should i necessarily sacrifice to be a morally good person? yes, i strongly believe that to be a morally good person you must necessarily sacrifice (if you disagree with this, please explain why). also, just to clarify, being a morally good person means being good to everyone all the time, not just to those who you love or are good to you.
if your answer is because i will be rewarded in my next life, then i guess i'll need your proof of an afterlife which is off topic but, sure, i'd be interested in hearing your arguments and how they connect to being morally good.
i am starting to believe that being a morally good person is just a ruse by the majority of assholes in the world tricking the rest of us stupid people into allowing them to walk all over us. and the fact that i'm sure people will respond with comments such as "you can't expect to get rewards for being morally good as that itself is counter to being morally good" seems to just cement the notion that it's all a trick as i'm not even allowed to ask the question.
if there are literally no worldly benefits to being morally good, and all the benefits of being morally good come either in your next life or are simply internal feelings of happiness for being such a fucking great person in your own personal opinion, then i don't think being morally good is actually a worthwhile endeavor.
so if you're up for it, please convince me to not become a terrible, immoral person.
well, i guess either everyone doesn't give a shit if i'm immoral (fair enough), or everyone is immoral and sees no reason to defend morality (which seems quite possible). lol.
(pretty much a reversal of the thread title but) why should i necessarily sacrifice to be a morally good person? yes, i strongly believe that to be a morally good person you must necessarily sacrifice (if you disagree with this, please explain why). also, just to clarify, being a morally good person means being good to everyone all the time, not just to those who you love or are good to you.
if your answer is because i will be rewarded in my next life, then i guess i'll need your proof of an afterlife which is off topic but, sure, i'd be interested in hearing your arguments and how they connect to being morally good.
i am starting to believe that being a morally good person is just a ruse by the majority of assholes in the world tricking the rest of us stupid people into allowing them to walk all over us. and the fact that i'm sure people will respond with comments such as "you can't expect to get rewards for being morally good as that itself is counter to being morally good" seems to just cement the notion that it's all a trick as i'm not even allowed to ask the question.
if there are literally no worldly benefits to being morally good, and all the benefits of being morally good come either in your next life or are simply internal feelings of happiness for being such a fucking great person in your own personal opinion, then i don't think being morally good is actually a worthwhile endeavor.
so if you're up for it, please convince me to not become a terrible, immoral person.
My personal philosophy is that you should be good. Even without a proof.
Although in another thread I started a new religion, the challenge today is to be good without religion.
My personal philosophy is that you should be good. Even without a proof.
Although in another thread I started a new religion, the challenge today is to be good without religion.
First, explain what you mean by "good" because it depends, and then explain how you decide what is good without providing proof. I wish it was as easy as you say but consider if universal morality was that everyone just acted on how they felt "without a proof" of what they, personally, felt what was "good"?
As for religion, I feel that it speaks to the masses but not to the individual. So, yeah, I agree with you that right now it really feels like morality is battling religion. This is a topic I struggle with a lot of the time.
First, explain what you mean by "good" because it depends, and then explain how you decide what is good without providing proof. I wish it was as easy as you say but consider if universal morality was that everyone just acted on how they felt "without a proof" of what they, personally, felt what was "good"?
As for religion, I feel that it speaks to the masses but not to the individual. So, yeah, I agree with you that right now it really feels like morality is battling religion. This is a topic I struggle with a lot of the time.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
I believe you should be kind to others, without explanation, or proof, or expectation of reward in an afterlife.
I fear there is no afterlife.
I think we have to make up our own purpose and meaning for our lives from moment to moment.
Sometimes we distract ourselves that we are not making out own purpose from moment to moment.
I believe you should be kind to others, without explanation, or proof, or expectation of reward in an afterlife.
I fear there is no afterlife.
I think we have to make up our own purpose and meaning for our lives from moment to moment.
Sometimes we distract ourselves that we are not making out own purpose from moment to moment.
Sounds like you're an existentialist. Existentialism is the belief that "existence precedes essence". This is actually a reversal of the standard philosophical view that the nature of a thing is more fundamental than the mere fact of its being. Basically, existentialists believe that there is no meaning in life - or more accurately, life does not provide us with essential meaning - and instead we create our own meaning.
To paraphrase (from Sartre and the book I'm currently reading):
Many people agree that the "discovery" that there is no god has led to a crisis of meaning since god was supposed to supply this meaning of life for us. We assumed that purpose and morality had their source in something outside of us (i.e. god). Sartre explains his perspective with an analogy of a paper-knife (like a letter opener). A paper-knife has a determinate essence because it was created by someone to fulfill a specific function (i.e. cut paper). Consider in contrast a sharp object like a piece of flint - it has no essence even though it too could be used to cut paper. It just so happens that humans found a use for flint.
Sartre is basically saying that humans have been assuming that we are like paper-knives instead of like pieces of flint. We believe that we have some kind of essential nature because God created us with a particular purpose in mind. However, if god does not exist, then this perspective must be incorrect. We are in fact just like a piece of flint. We may find uses for ourselves and others (i.e. find meaning), but the onus is on the individual to create that meaning.
Some people find this idea very upsetting (i.e. existential angst), but others find it liberating - one can go out into the world and create one's own essence.
I grew up Long ago in a strange land called, "Ontario, Canada"
The law of the land at the time said:
Children must be given and Christian Education.
So I was "educated" about Christianity.
When I was about 5 or 6, I was "helping" my dad wash our 1960 Oldsmobile. I asked, "Dad, do you believe in Noah's ark and that stuff."
He replied, "Fairy tales!"
From then on I looked at Christian mythology with skepticism.
But I see so many people turn to religion when the can't answer big questions or they get a hurt that is too hard to bear.
There are people (called literalists) who believe that the stories of the bible are historical facts that actually happened. The other side of the coin are people (called contextualists) who believe that the stories of the bible are fictional and are just used to teach us lessons. I find it very difficult to agree with the literalists, so I'd agree with your dad that it is "fairy tales", but we can still learn something from them.
I was raised a Catholic and I took it upon myself to learn a lot about my religion especially since most people around me who considered themselves "real Catholics" didn't seem to know much about the bible or what they were supposed to believe in. Most Catholics I know pick and choose what parts of the bible they agree with and follow and what parts are useless to them, and obviously this is very problematic.
I've always been a skeptic about basically everything. As far back as I can remember, I was always asking "why?" about everything, and I was even worse when the general responses from others to my inquiries were "just because" or "it's common sense" or "it's tradition" (I won't get into it here unless someone wants me to, but the "it's tradition" thing simply just boggles my mind sometimes).
I also see many people default back to faith in god when they are faced with something they can't deal with themselves. I always wondered how they could justify that faith with themselves, but if we're being honest, these types of people don't need or even want to consider justification of their decisions and beliefs - way too much time, effort, reasoning and self reflection involved.
I can't speak of other religions, but I know that Catholics basically have a "get out of hell free" card. We're taught that as long as you confess your sins and truly repent for them, then you will be forgiven. So I can be a terrible person my whole life, but if I truly repent on my death bed it's all good. And again, if we're being honest, even the worst people, when facing their ultimate demise, could possibly find it in themselves to discover a faith in god.
However, at the same time, I tend to lean towards a Buddhist perspective when it comes to people's faith in religion. That is, if faith in a god helps you deal with the general suffering of life, then go for it. Believe in whatever flying spaghetti monster you like. However, don't force your faith down the throats of others. Let them believe what they want. After all, you don't know you are right, you just believe that you are.
I'm reading "Ready Player One" The book is really good.
The worst thing about being a kid was that no one told me the truth about my situation. In fact, they did the exact opposite. And, of course, I believed them, because I was just a kid and I didn’t know any better. I mean, Christ, my brain hadn’t even grown to full size yet, so how could I be expected to know when the adults were bullshitting me?
So I swallowed all of the dark ages nonsense they fed me. Some time passed. I grew up a little, and I gradually began to figure out that pretty much everyone had been lying to me about pretty much everything since the moment I emerged from my mother’s womb.
This was an alarming revelation.
It gave me trust issues later in life.
I started to figure out the ugly truth as soon as I began to explore the free OASIS libraries. The facts were right there waiting for me, hidden in old books written by people who weren’t afraid to be honest. Artists and scientists and philosophers and poets, many of them long dead. As I read the words they’d left behind, I finally began to get a grip on the situation. My situation. Our situation. What most people referred to as “the human condition.”
It was not good news.
I wish someone had just told me the truth right up front, as soon as I was old enough to understand it. I wish someone had just said:
“Here’s the deal, Wade. You’re something called a ‘human being.’ That’s a really smart kind of animal. Like every other animal on this planet, we’re descended from a single-celled organism that lived millions of years ago. This happened by a process called evolution, and you’ll learn more about it later. But trust me, that’s really how we all got here. There’s proof of it everywhere, buried in the rocks. That story you heard? About how we were all created by a super-powerful dude named God who lives up in the sky? Total bullshit. The whole God thing is actually an ancient fairy tale that people have been telling one another for thousands of years. We made it all up. Like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
“Oh, and by the way … there’s no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. Also bullshit. Sorry, kid. Deal with it.
There are people (called literalists) who believe that the stories of the bible are historical facts that actually happened. The other side of the coin are people (called contextualists) who believe that the stories of the bible are fictional and are just used to teach us lessons. I find it very difficult to agree with the literalists, so I'd agree with your dad that it is "fairy tales", but we can still learn something from them.
I was raised a Catholic and I took it upon myself to learn a lot about my religion especially since most people around me who considered themselves "real Catholics" didn't seem to know much about the bible or what they were supposed to believe in. Most Catholics I know pick and choose what parts of the bible they agree with and follow and what parts are useless to them, and obviously this is very problematic.
I've always been a skeptic about basically everything. As far back as I can remember, I was always asking "why?" about everything, and I was even worse when the general responses from others to my inquiries were "just because" or "it's common sense" or "it's tradition" (I won't get into it here unless someone wants me to, but the "it's tradition" thing simply just boggles my mind sometimes).
I also see many people default back to faith in god when they are faced with something they can't deal with themselves. I always wondered how they could justify that faith with themselves, but if we're being honest, these types of people don't need or even want to consider justification of their decisions and beliefs - way too much time, effort, reasoning and self reflection involved.
I can't speak of other religions, but I know that Catholics basically have a "get out of hell free" card. We're taught that as long as you confess your sins and truly repent for them, then you will be forgiven. So I can be a terrible person my whole life, but if I truly repent on my death bed it's all good. And again, if we're being honest, even the worst people, when facing their ultimate demise, could possibly find it in themselves to discover a faith in god.
However, at the same time, I tend to lean towards a Buddhist perspective when it comes to people's faith in religion. That is, if faith in a god helps you deal with the general suffering of life, then go for it. Believe in whatever flying spaghetti monster you like. However, don't force your faith down the throats of others. Let them believe what they want. After all, you don't know you are right, you just believe that you are.
Comments
Unless it can be proved otherwise, I'm going to believe that Walter Williams read this forum to come up with the idea for this video:
Also, I can't believe it's been almost two years since we discussed this. Time sure flies.
A world with persons but without states | OUPblog
if your answer is because i will be rewarded in my next life, then i guess i'll need your proof of an afterlife which is off topic but, sure, i'd be interested in hearing your arguments and how they connect to being morally good.
i am starting to believe that being a morally good person is just a ruse by the majority of assholes in the world tricking the rest of us stupid people into allowing them to walk all over us. and the fact that i'm sure people will respond with comments such as "you can't expect to get rewards for being morally good as that itself is counter to being morally good" seems to just cement the notion that it's all a trick as i'm not even allowed to ask the question.
if there are literally no worldly benefits to being morally good, and all the benefits of being morally good come either in your next life or are simply internal feelings of happiness for being such a fucking great person in your own personal opinion, then i don't think being morally good is actually a worthwhile endeavor.
so if you're up for it, please convince me to not become a terrible, immoral person.
i enjoyed it while it lasted!
Stay tuned. I may have time tonight.
My personal philosophy is that you should be good. Even without a proof.
Although in another thread I started a new religion, the challenge today is to be good without religion.
As for religion, I feel that it speaks to the masses but not to the individual. So, yeah, I agree with you that right now it really feels like morality is battling religion. This is a topic I struggle with a lot of the time.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
I believe you should be kind to others, without explanation, or proof, or expectation of reward in an afterlife.
I fear there is no afterlife.
I think we have to make up our own purpose and meaning for our lives from moment to moment.
Sometimes we distract ourselves that we are not making out own purpose from moment to moment.
Sounds like you're an existentialist. Existentialism is the belief that "existence precedes essence". This is actually a reversal of the standard philosophical view that the nature of a thing is more fundamental than the mere fact of its being. Basically, existentialists believe that there is no meaning in life - or more accurately, life does not provide us with essential meaning - and instead we create our own meaning.
To paraphrase (from Sartre and the book I'm currently reading):
Many people agree that the "discovery" that there is no god has led to a crisis of meaning since god was supposed to supply this meaning of life for us. We assumed that purpose and morality had their source in something outside of us (i.e. god). Sartre explains his perspective with an analogy of a paper-knife (like a letter opener). A paper-knife has a determinate essence because it was created by someone to fulfill a specific function (i.e. cut paper). Consider in contrast a sharp object like a piece of flint - it has no essence even though it too could be used to cut paper. It just so happens that humans found a use for flint.
Sartre is basically saying that humans have been assuming that we are like paper-knives instead of like pieces of flint. We believe that we have some kind of essential nature because God created us with a particular purpose in mind. However, if god does not exist, then this perspective must be incorrect. We are in fact just like a piece of flint. We may find uses for ourselves and others (i.e. find meaning), but the onus is on the individual to create that meaning.
Some people find this idea very upsetting (i.e. existential angst), but others find it liberating - one can go out into the world and create one's own essence.
Have you read this https://aeon.co/essays/why-philosophy-is-taking-its-time-to-answer-the-big-questions
no. i'll check it out.
I grew up Long ago in a strange land called, "Ontario, Canada"
The law of the land at the time said:
Children must be given and Christian Education.
So I was "educated" about Christianity.
When I was about 5 or 6, I was "helping" my dad wash our 1960 Oldsmobile. I asked, "Dad, do you believe in Noah's ark and that stuff."
He replied, "Fairy tales!"
From then on I looked at Christian mythology with skepticism.
But I see so many people turn to religion when the can't answer big questions or they get a hurt that is too hard to bear.
There are people (called literalists) who believe that the stories of the bible are historical facts that actually happened. The other side of the coin are people (called contextualists) who believe that the stories of the bible are fictional and are just used to teach us lessons. I find it very difficult to agree with the literalists, so I'd agree with your dad that it is "fairy tales", but we can still learn something from them.
I was raised a Catholic and I took it upon myself to learn a lot about my religion especially since most people around me who considered themselves "real Catholics" didn't seem to know much about the bible or what they were supposed to believe in. Most Catholics I know pick and choose what parts of the bible they agree with and follow and what parts are useless to them, and obviously this is very problematic.
I've always been a skeptic about basically everything. As far back as I can remember, I was always asking "why?" about everything, and I was even worse when the general responses from others to my inquiries were "just because" or "it's common sense" or "it's tradition" (I won't get into it here unless someone wants me to, but the "it's tradition" thing simply just boggles my mind sometimes).
I also see many people default back to faith in god when they are faced with something they can't deal with themselves. I always wondered how they could justify that faith with themselves, but if we're being honest, these types of people don't need or even want to consider justification of their decisions and beliefs - way too much time, effort, reasoning and self reflection involved.
I can't speak of other religions, but I know that Catholics basically have a "get out of hell free" card. We're taught that as long as you confess your sins and truly repent for them, then you will be forgiven. So I can be a terrible person my whole life, but if I truly repent on my death bed it's all good. And again, if we're being honest, even the worst people, when facing their ultimate demise, could possibly find it in themselves to discover a faith in god.
However, at the same time, I tend to lean towards a Buddhist perspective when it comes to people's faith in religion. That is, if faith in a god helps you deal with the general suffering of life, then go for it. Believe in whatever flying spaghetti monster you like. However, don't force your faith down the throats of others. Let them believe what they want. After all, you don't know you are right, you just believe that you are.
The worst thing about being a kid was that no one told me the truth about my situation. In fact, they did the exact opposite. And, of course, I believed them, because I was just a kid and I didn’t know any better. I mean, Christ, my brain hadn’t even grown to full size yet, so how could I be expected to know when the adults were bullshitting me?
So I swallowed all of the dark ages nonsense they fed me. Some time passed. I grew up a little, and I gradually began to figure out that pretty much everyone had been lying to me about pretty much everything since the moment I emerged from my mother’s womb.
This was an alarming revelation.
It gave me trust issues later in life.
I started to figure out the ugly truth as soon as I began to explore the free OASIS libraries. The facts were right there waiting for me, hidden in old books written by people who weren’t afraid to be honest. Artists and scientists and philosophers and poets, many of them long dead. As I read the words they’d left behind, I finally began to get a grip on the situation. My situation. Our situation. What most people referred to as “the human condition.”
It was not good news.
I wish someone had just told me the truth right up front, as soon as I was old enough to understand it. I wish someone had just said:
“Here’s the deal, Wade. You’re something called a ‘human being.’ That’s a really smart kind of animal. Like every other animal on this planet, we’re descended from a single-celled organism that lived millions of years ago. This happened by a process called evolution, and you’ll learn more about it later. But trust me, that’s really how we all got here. There’s proof of it everywhere, buried in the rocks. That story you heard? About how we were all created by a super-powerful dude named God who lives up in the sky? Total bullshit. The whole God thing is actually an ancient fairy tale that people have been telling one another for thousands of years. We made it all up. Like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
“Oh, and by the way … there’s no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. Also bullshit. Sorry, kid. Deal with it.
I like this!
I've been reading https://aeon.co/essays/theres-no-philosophy-of-life-without-a-theory-of-human-nature