Comments on: Morality in the Absence of God

By: John

John — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:45:22 +0000

I have read this post and most comments. Maybe this point is brought up in comments that I missed, but here it is anyway.

“Why SHOULD you want to live?” I hate to sound nihilistic, but I don’t believe that there is any particular answer to this question. I DO want to live. But as ~I AM~ has pointed out, that is not the same thing. The question is on the same level as “Why should you want dinner?” You probably do want dinner, and can give at least a few motives (like “I’m hungry”), but none of them address the issue of dinner’s morality.

The problem with Objectivism is that it assumes there is absolute moral truth. How can there be? Everything is relative. (By the way, “contextual” is the same as “relative.” ) Certain morals, such as murder and theft taboos, seem to be objective because they are so prevalent. But are they? The definition of murder has very fuzzy edges. Are terrorist attacks murder? Was the fire-bombing of Dresden murder? It depends who you ask. It’s relative. This reminds me of the last discussion I had with a Christian friend (we are not friends anymore, because of it). I asked, “What makes your religion right, and all others wrong?” All of his answers came down to, “Because I believe it.” That’s relative, and I probably would have gotten the same argument from anyone, regardless of thier religion. Morality is typically defined by a person’s culture (or subculture). Similarity between several moral codes does not mean that the similar points are objective truths. Nor do disagreements mean that one is superior. It depends on your point of view.

By: Reluctant Atheist

Reluctant Atheist — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:16:06 +0000

Perhaps I haven’t gone to enough posts, but I haven’t seen 1 Ingersoll quote here.
Maybe I’m old-fashioned.
“‘Thou shalt not kill’ is as old as humanity itself, inasmuch as most men object to being murdered.”
I AM: I am what you are: human. Is that not enough?
Hmmm. I guess simplistic reductionism DOES have its uses, after all.
Cheers.

By: Tanooki Joe

Tanooki Joe — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:59:40 +0000

What? We don’t all say meh?

By: I Am

I Am — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:50:44 +0000

Aeger:
Yes. It’s the use of the word “Meh” that’s abnormal.

By: Aeger

Aeger — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:48:49 +0000

Oh ya! I remembered what I was gonna say now. Here’s my moral code:

1: do what’s best for the community, i.e. family, very good friends, and myself (I am part of the community)

2: do what’s best for myself

3: do what’s best for everyone else (strangers, worst enemies, etc.)

Is that normal? Meh.