Question for Non-Believers - Page 2

mrgold · #11 07-15-2005, 01:33 AM

I am a utilitarian and beleive something is right or wrong based on its impact on humanity (or whatever subset of creatures you are willing to assign value to). Moral principles are secondary to human happiness and are only important as a coordiantion mechanism by which societies net utility (happiness) can be maximized if we all agree to follow them (e.g. no murder, respect for property, etc...).

bronzepiglet · #12 07-15-2005, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove to me that murder is wrong in a purely moral sense? Purely moral meaning without any attached social considerations. That is: yes, it's generally considered bad for society, by is it an act that can be considered "wrong?"

[censored] · #13 07-15-2005, 02:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove to me that murder is wrong in a purely moral sense? Purely moral meaning without any attached social considerations. That is: yes, it's generally considered bad for society, by is it an act that can be considered "wrong?"

[/ QUOTE ]

the concepts of wrong and right by definition could never be proved. your question is rather silly.

bronzepiglet · #14 07-15-2005, 02:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The human brain is designed by evolution to make moral judgments

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Why should the brain be designed by evolution to make moral judgments? If one considers the currently accepted evolutionary model the brain should have been designed to conduct itself in such a way as to preserve its host body with no "moral" consideration at all.

Society is a very new thing. Why does right and wrong have any benefit for survival? What was right and wrong before there was any society to apply it to? The only factors in evolution should be 100% pragmatic. If right and wrong happen to coincide with the correct practical survival decision then fine, but otherwise it's useless complication and I don't see why evolution would design it in... you'd think evolution would design it out just as quickly as possible.

bronzepiglet · #15 07-15-2005, 02:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove to me that murder is wrong in a purely moral sense? Purely moral meaning without any attached social considerations. That is: yes, it's generally considered bad for society, by is it an act that can be considered "wrong?"

[/ QUOTE ]

the concepts of wrong and right by definition could never be proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. I hoped it would be obvious that this is what I'm trying to say. I wanted chezlaw to tell my why murder is wrong (without God, in particular), because he seems to think it is reasonable to think this.

So, chezlaw or anyone else, I'd like to see something that defends the belief that murder is "wrong" (in a strictly moral sense - no societal pragmatism) and that holding such a belief is rational.

[censored] · #16 07-15-2005, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove to me that murder is wrong in a purely moral sense? Purely moral meaning without any attached social considerations. That is: yes, it's generally considered bad for society, by is it an act that can be considered "wrong?"

[/ QUOTE ]

the concepts of wrong and right by definition could never be proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. I hoped it would be obvious that this is what I'm trying to say. I wanted chezlaw to tell my why murder is wrong (without God, in particular), because he seems to think it is reasonable to think this.

So, chezlaw or anyone else, I'd like to see something that defends the belief that murder is "wrong" (in a strictly moral sense - no societal pragmatism) and that holding such a belief is rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a person does not hold the belief that murder is wrong, then is can never be so to that person.

drudman · #17 07-15-2005, 02:46 AM

Men invented the golden rule. It was erroneously credited to a metaphysical entity.

But men invented it. For the reasons they thought that the God they wanted to worship should command it, I too live according to it.

[censored] · #18 07-15-2005, 02:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Men invented the golden rule. It was erroneously credited to a metaphysical entity.

But men invented it. For the reasons they thought that the God they wanted to worship should command it, I too live according to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't you argue that for it to work, that is to convince people on a mass scale it should followed, sometype of God and punishment & reward system was necessary?

Could the concept of God be considered one of man's greatest inventions?

bronzepiglet · #19 07-15-2005, 02:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If a person does not hold the belief that murder is wrong, then is can never be so to that person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're saying exactly what I am saying, that there is no way to prove moral implications to someone. I will add: this is true, specifically in the case of no god involved.

If you don't mind me asking, how would you justify your moral position on murder? From other posts you seem to think that it is reasonable to consider moral implications, so that is why I ask. One could consider effects on society and there are conclusions to be drawn from that, but that is not what I'm talking about.

What specifically makes murder "wrong" apart from all practical considerations.

bronzepiglet · #20 07-15-2005, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Men invented the golden rule. It was erroneously credited to a metaphysical entity.

But men invented it. For the reasons they thought that the God they wanted to worship should command it, I too live according to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you do this for practical reasons (because the favorable results can be observed/measured), or because you feel it is "right?" Or both?