This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
If There is No God... (debate)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
182246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ghoso
If the super ego is internal, and it defines right from wrong, then if someone's super ego defines mass murder as right, then is it ok to mass murder? What is the counter definition of wrong? Popular opinion between mass egos?
no, because his super ego is out of tune with the rest of society, that would make him crazy by this definition
So it is POPULAR opinion that decides right from wrong within society? What about the opressed minorities in societies? Is slavery ok if most people believe it is? Is human scarafice? Genocide? ETC? What makes these things wrong, if most of society believe they are right? If it IS ok, then what is the purpose of the UN? Why do we fight what we believe are injustices, if we are the minority?
In essence, yes. But you have to remember that there are sub cultures within all cultures. So while murder (for example) is acceptable in the beliefs of a group of people, that same group is within a larger society which deems murder as immoral. You cannot expect to act the way you want and not be punished for it when you know fully that the overwhelming majority do not agree with your understanding of right an wrong. If it is the case that your subconscious cannot pick up on what others would experience as unwelcome, then you are unfit to be in that grouping of people. either repress your feelings (which would be an active super ego) or embrace them among , and only visible to your compliant subculture. or thirdly, attempt to make a change among your larger society to embrace the ideas of your sub culture.
"In essence, yes. But you have to remember that there are sub cultures within all cultures." This is why there is never going to be 1 answer to any question that isn't scientific law. And no one will always, every second of every day feel that there beliefs are in tune with there larger society, unless we all become Borgs
sorry i responded an hour and a half later
Post by
IFking
In society, no.
In your mind, it depends because as said before the law or god is or isn't personally important to some people. You make the choice.
That was at MyTie's last question.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Well I think everyone agrees that the point of living is to enjoy life.
So, if someone isn't enjoying themselves, is it acceptible to kill them, since there is no point to thier life?
Not to me personally, but to someone else perhaps. Do you think it is acceptiable? They do this in some countries already by the way, it's called assisted suicide or euthenasia.
When I said enjoyment is the purpose, maybe I should've said, pursuit of enjoyment is the purpose. One is obviously not going to enjoy every second of life, sometimes you have to do things you don't enjoy to do things or get things you do enjoy later. To me personally, it doesn't mean I should kill myself or someone should kill me because I'm not going to enjoy my workday. I get through the workday and enjoy my night playing warcraft =)
The meaning of life is World of Warcraft?
Post by
Malgayne
You cannot proove or disproove the existence of god. Ultimately it's up to an individual to believe and have faith. All religions speak greatly of faith for this very purpose. I can drop a ball and show you that gravity exists and if you still deny it then I can deny that you are intelligent, but no matter how much evidence of god one presents, there is ultimately no proof, and it's a matter of faith.
Says who?
The "It's a matter of faith" argument gets thrown around a lot by people who don't like gathering evidence, I think. But by that logic, EVERYTHING is a matter of faith. I don't have any scientific proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. Evolution is just a theory—because "theory" is about as close to truth as the scientific method can take us. We accept an idea because that idea best fits the evidence. So why is it that "no matter how much evidence one presents, there is ultimately no proof" is convincing when you apply it to God, but not when you apply it to, say, the laws of physics?
Post by
Malgayne
I have to head out for a few minutes but here's my parting shot:
The reason I find the idea that man (by majority) decides his own morality is because morality is supposed to be a code that you follow—a set of rules that govern your life. Every man is
subject
to his own moral code. If I believe that killing is always wrong and I kill someone, then I have
broken
my moral code. I have behaved counter to my own morals—even though at the time killing someone seemed like the only thing to do, I didn't just revise my moral code, I
broke
it. It stayed the same. I changed.
If mankind decides for himself what his own moral code is, then how is it even POSSIBLE to break your own moral code? I can break YOUR moral code, or society's moral code, sure—but how can I break my own? My own moral code is just 'whatever I decide it is' anyway, isn't it?
Mankind cannot be
subject
to itself. If a moral code determines what my behavior should be, it has to come from something bigger than me. The mass opinions of hundreds or thousands of other people just like me doesn't cut it—because it's just more people.
If we're talking moral codes here, WHY does the majority rule? Who says that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? If the majority of society agrees that people should behave a certain way, then maybe there are consequences (like jail time) for NOT behaving that way, sure. But surely we all agree that not all consequences are morally correct either. If consequences were the only way of judging, then the world would (by definition) be a fundamentally just place, and I think we agree that it isn't.
"Majority Rules" is the same as saying "Might Makes Right". Do all of you REALLY believe that?
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Toldu
So why is it that "no matter how much evidence one presents, there is ultimately no proof" is convincing when you apply it to God, but not when you apply it to, say, the laws of physics?
Because the laws of physics are within our realm of understanding. An omniscient, omnipotent God that exists outside our realm of time and space cannot be fully fathomed by our minds. It can be accepted (by faith) but not proven or fully understood.
Sorry that this is slightly off topic but it's a question I felt the need to answer.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Ghoso
Im just going to add a scenario:
World opinion: The choice is A and B, but never C or D
National opinion: we agree A and B, but D is acceptable to us
Local Opinion: we agree with national opinion, except B is only for special circumstances
Small group opinion: A is great, but screw B, C and D
Two friends within group: A is garbage, B is correct because the outside world agrees.
it doesn't matter what the letters represent, or if they are religious. the point is, how you can determine what is right and wrong depends on how visible you are, or how visible you feel you are, or how far your super ego extends.. (i think thats what i mean, im not too sure myself, its a big question here)
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Malgayne
Says who?
The "It's a matter of faith" argument gets thrown around a lot by people who don't like gathering evidence, I think.
By the way, just to be clear—I mean that "It's a matter of faith" is used as an argument by religious people who don't like to do research, and I don't think it should be used as a basis for a belief in God any more than atheists would. No offense was intended to anyone here.
I reject the idea, though, that religious truth belongs to some other fundamental "category" than literal truth. There are a lot of people who seem to feel that in some weird way the facts proposed by the Christian religion and the Hindu religion and the Jewish religion and the Islamic religion can somehow all be true at the same time, in some weird mystical definition of the word "truth" that doesn't apply to anything other than religion, and I think that's silly.
I don't think it's necessarily possible to understand the mind of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. I DO think, however, that it's perfectly valid to apply the same tests for truth to the statement "There is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God" that you would to the statement "An object in motion tends to stay in motion" etc.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Says who?
The "It's a matter of faith" argument gets thrown around a lot by people who don't like gathering evidence, I think. But by that logic, EVERYTHING is a matter of faith. I don't have any scientific proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. Evolution is just a theory—because "theory" is about as close to truth as the scientific method can take us. We accept an idea because that idea best fits the evidence. So why is it that "no matter how much evidence one presents, there is ultimately no proof" is convincing when you apply it to God, but not when you apply it to, say, the laws of physics?
"I really don't know what the outside universe is like at all for certain."
All we're doing is assuming that what we perceive to be reality is in fact reality. So yeah, in a round about matter everything is just a matter of faith. The only difference in this case is you perceive something to be there or have some sort of tangible influence, therefore you conclude it exists. It seems illogical to not perceive something, and to realize something lacks any sort of direct influence, and conclude it exists.
Anyways, the notion that you can't break your own moral code is total bull. I can believe that killing an unarmed man is wrong, but in a rage I could lose my head and kill someone. That doesn't mean I said "Nah, killing is now a-ok", I just broke my code. If situations like this didn't exist, we would never feel guilt.
Post by
blademeld
This is still dodging the question a little bit, if you don't mind my saying so. Let me ask it this way: Do you believe that if slavery could be prevented, it would be a good thing?
Likewise, racism still
contines
to be widely prevalent throughout the United States. It's fairly clear that no matter what we preach as our actual "moral code", the vast majority of citizens of the United States still feel that some degree of racism is acceptable. If majority rules, then is racism ethically correct?
Morally good and good are two different things.
For example, killing off all the homeless people will probably be better for the economy, but it's not morally good.
Anyways, I think the majority of people in USA aren't completely racist, after all, Obama is the current president, is he not?
Post by
TheMediator
For example, killing off all the homeless people will probably be better for the economy, but it's not morally good.
I think the point you're making is the difference between
Utilitarianism
and
Deontological ethics
.
I wouldn't one say one is more based on morals than the other. One is based on saying what is best for "the greater good", and one is based on what infringes on others.
Post by
blademeld
Kind of, but I'm taking the moral bit out of utilitarianism in the sense that I'm saying that it's morally wrong yet it makes more sense if it happened that way.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.