Killing people, for example.... is "wrong" because people generally don't wish to be killed and it infringes upon their right to avoid this outcome. However, we generally seek to justify this with adding conditions (hence, more relativism) such as it being permissable to kill someone if:
They are attacking or attempting to kill you or your family
They are collateral damage in an attack on a foreign enemy
Well maybe we are "indoctrinated (in the loosest sense) to think harming others is wrong but it sure seems as if not wanting to harm others (especially our tribe) is an evolutionary imperative and since so far we are the only intelligent creatures known, then being against harming one another is universal morality. Are there exceptions? Yes, but for the most part, we all are against harming others. We can just work our way out from there.
Secularly, the moralities of different religions are equally right and wrong. However, religiously, they are absolute, as the followers say they are; and if God turns out to be real, then they are correct. Surely, if there were a god, God's morals would be absolute, especially if this God created the universe. I do believe, however, if this god said murder is okay, human nature would change that we don't feel it's wrong in every cell of our body, but feel more apathetic about it.
You might want to look at; The Case for Objective Morality
by Francois Tremblay
This argument seems to rely on the axiom 'life is better than no life'. If you accept this idea then you can construct a logical framework for moral values.
It's very refreshing to hear someone say "I don't know" without using it as an excuse.
@67bandit67 I was with you up until you said that morals are culturally relative. Who gives a fuck how many people agree? You have to make your own decisions about what's right and wrong. Or are you just going to go along with "the herd" who might believe nonsense like stoning people to death for working on Sunday? Or burning "witches"?
Interesting video. Often, most moral actions - not all, but a lot - trace back to the desire not to infringe upon another human's rights, something that is respected in most countries. Why we don't murder for instance, because that denies a person a right to live. Perhaps those universal human rights are moral absolutes, or perhaps they are just arbitrary, but seem to make sense to enough people to adopt them. But I know less than know on this issue.
Morals are opinion. What some people percieve as good, others may think is bad. In fact there are no good or bad in this world, just what the human mind percieves.
It depends on a persons values. It may be seen as bad for children to swear as it's not traditional whereas it may be seen as age-ist for them not to as it would be equal.
So it comes down to tradition vs equality as the 2 conflicting values in society.
The only way to have reasonable society would be to base our morals from facts.
"God hates Lady gaga! Shut up! Shut up, Rebel, you talk, God don't hear a thing! He hates all you do cause you love fornicating! She aint got, she aint got no poker face! She just got she just got yeahhhhhhhhhhhh she just got her whoreish face! Lady gaga said god loves fags and she calls her filth holy! She is doomed and if lady gaga reads this comment she will heath these words or face destruction from god almighty!!!! She will go she will go straight to hell cause god hates faaaggs!!!"
I dunno if I believe in absolute morals, hell I barely understand the concept, but I do believe that people have certain innate morals. If you ask a child who has never been told that murder is wrong, they will probably tell you that yes, it is bad to make another person stop breathing, stop responding, stop *insert death allusion here* People just seem to inherently know not to murder each other (most of the time)
@wood9670 What's the point of absolute morals if we don't all agree on what they are? I agree that it is absolutely wrong to torture a baby in any circumstance, for any reason...but, that's still just my opinion. There are people who love torturing babies, and I think they should be stopped/imprisoned...does that make it absolute? Just because I said so...then aren't the opinions of baby torturers also absolute in their minds? What's the point?
Well if you're looking for absolute morals I might be able to provide an answer,but this is just my own opinion. With my Buddhist perspective, I can tell you that there are no absolute morals. The right thing can vary depending on the situation, and for the most part something is only wrong if it hurts someone. For example,there is a difference between stealing a ferrari for yourself and some bread for starving children, so there is no absolute"stealing is bad.period." It depends on situation.
@dzamo Sure...anyone can attempt to do anything they want...that doesn't mean anyone else will agree with them and/or try to stop/punish them for doing it. You can rape children if you want, but if we catch you, you'll be going to prison, lol.
Morals , as I think they are, is any thought incouraging an act that will help in anyway build a better life and increase it through years and ages , for example , any act that will increase peace in the world is a moral act , even if it was war by itself , another example could be killing dangerously bad people to help others live a peaceful life, Also knowing that the word dangerously bad here means that their acts are if allowed to spread will make life decrease through years and ages.
Life is complex and there is no one answer to things, this is how human thinking wants to be because it is programmed to take the shortest route to be faster in learning and living life, In my opinion there has to be an upper hand (God) or in my case (Allah) to rearrange chaos and make nature and it's rules and these rules then apply also by God's well and interferrence to build life and humans and all the complex things in life.
because we are programed by nature to want to survive if we kill than we lessen the chances we will survive by some part of a percent no matter how tiny
@ZJemptv Have you read "The Moral Landscape" by leading atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris? He has some strong points refuting moral relativism. He argues that "the most basic facts about human flourishing must transcend culture" (pg.35). He exemplifies the practice of genital mutilation, which to him its "learned psychopathy". He argues that there are facts about human well being which are not relative. If you haven't read it dl the audiobook at torrent site or find the ebook online.
Saying that there are no moral absolutes is fine and acceptable because there is no empirical proof that will ever exist that will point to objective morals. However, if you really do believe this, then please write to your congressmen and senators and beg them to let every prisoner out of jail and throw out every court case. Nobody has any right to tell anybody else that what they do is immoral. Murder, rape, theft, and assault can all be justified and nobody is in any position to not allow it.
That's not an acceptable answer. I used to make my parents angry because I would never accept "because I said so" as an answer.
If my parents had explain that they didn't want me to cross the street because people drive fast and they don't want me to get it, I would have accepted it... but they didn't. :)
A better question would be, why does the question of good and evil arise in the first place? Why does the concept of morality arise at all? Why have so many people expended so much energy grappling with the question of absolute morality? Why do we care?
Morality is part instinctual. It evolved like all our other traits. Whatever contributes to the survival of the tribe. Those that are more moral than others i.e. don't get killed for killing somebody has more offspring etc.
I would like to know why God would say "it's wrong to kill". As for killing in absolute morality, it's like evolution:
A society that considers murder a crime has a higher chance to survive than a society that encourages murder, as it would literally die out very quickly.
Do not lie: you will upset people you lie to, therefore societies that discourage lying have a higher chance of staying organised than societies that encourage lying. The list goes on, it's all simple evolution.
Humans have no moral. We are like animals according to atheists. So why should have moral? There is no ultimate authority.
Why are you making videos? Why are you concerned about moral, atheist? Why are you trying to convince people that God does not exist? After all, if you are right, you have nothing to fear. Why should people NOT believe in God? It doesn't matter, right?
As atheist you should just not think about moral. But just do whatever you want. As Christian you should obey Jesus.
I dispute your very notion that morality even relies on being defined by an "ultimate authority".
"Why should people NOT believe in God? It doesn't matter, right?"
It matters because what people believe affects how they behave, and religious belief has some very harmful effects that I and others would like to reduce.
"As atheist you should just not think about moral. But just do whatever you want."
The supernatural is the only possibility left. What the supernatural is, we don''t know for sure. Wel I know for sure but I can't prove it to you.
Just look at the fullfillt prophecies in the bible. I recommend you using google for this.
''Religion has harmfull effects''
Are you kidding me? Why aren't you focussing on Islam. Jesus brought a message of peace. We can't always link violence to religion. Bad people have been ''Christian'' and Stalin was an atheist. There is NO relation.
If it can't be proven, then please don't make statements claiming it's "the only possibility left". Especially if "we don't know for sure".
And if you're going to detach religion from the violence it inspires, what point is there to saying "Jesus brought a message of peace"? If "there is NO relation", why should that matter?
No it can't be proven. But what do you think of the prophecies that all have been fullfilled? The OT talks about the messiah. Jesus fullfillt that. So thousends of years before He was there they allready knew about Him. Coincidence? And Also the prophecies about our time are coming true. Hitler was predicted. Even the reich!
The problem is, is that atheist live by sight. They want everything to be proven. Just because you can't see or prove something doesn't mean it is not there.
And about ''the only possibily left.'' If you can't give a logical explenation to the creation, but your just denying the fact that God was involved according to the bible, what kind of evidence is that? You know in the past people thought the earth was flat. Now we can see that that isn't the case. But with God it's different.
"God was involved according to the bible" is not evidence just like "Allah was involved according to the Quran" is not evidence and "Brahma was involved according to the Vedas" is not evidence.
Scientists conduct research to continue developing an evidence-based picture of how the cosmos came to be, so please think before saying things like "you can't give a logical explenation to the creation". Religious followers seem to be incapable of any sort of investigation into their creation myths.
May I remind you that Isaac Newton was a very religious man. Scientists are researching God's creation.
Let me tell you this: Genesis is a mythical book. It is not meant as a scientific book. This is a misconception. If God wanted to explaine all of His creation your mind would explode.
The bible actually is a historical book. And this is also something atheist deny. Because it involves God its is not historical but mythical? Yes if you want to exclude God of taking part in history.
The bible is not a historical book get an education and you'd know that. The books that would be included were decided upon from many. In some of them not included Jesus is married.
ZJ if you wouldn't mind im gonna comment here and answer those three questions there.
1. You mean the vague one or the ones that could come true with human interactions.
2. I don't know about ZJ but I was a Christian until less than one year ago. I can still recite bible verses that i remember. I'm pretty sure I've read it.
3. Mass cannot be created or destroyed why should I believe that it ever was. I mean God is suppose to be eternal why should I believe that mass isn't. The only difference between God and mass is I know mass exist and can not be created or destroyed
For once, I agree with your thesis. Ought statements" cannot be rationally justified, regardless of whether they're rooted in religion or in something else.
But you lost me towards the end by seemingly contradicting yourself. You said, "There are some circumstances where it is not wrong to kill everything on earth." This hints (but does not prove) that you think there are situations where it *is* wrong to kill everything on earth. Is this assertion justified or unjustified? End of 500 chars.
Sorry for the multiple posts, but also you can bend any rule or law back on itself by using this. Example. A child asks his mother why no glass containers are allowed at the pool. She says that glass can break and people will step on it. The child says, "Why should I care?" She says.."Well, do you like stepping on glass? Guess what, no one else does either."
You will also find that all moral codes and laws fall back to this one code. They all stem from it. You don't really need a religious text or anything to tell you that, although most are founded on it, even if the text does contradict it. Christians would have you believe that these codes and laws are significant only to Christianity, when really they are found in all religious texts and even secular texts.
I think the only absolute moral is to treat people how you want to be treated. You will find this moral code in any religious text as well as secular texts. You will find that all other morals and ethics fall back upon themselves if you hold them to this code. Why is it wrong to kill someone? Well you wouldn't want them to kill you, would you? Why not steal? Well you don't like it when someone steals from you. It forces the questioner, to turn the situation back on themselves for clarity.
there is no definitive moral law, morality is based on ones own personal opinions,religion, experiences, environment, lifestyle, etc. seeing as there is no definitive moral law because what is good to some may be evil to others. for there to be an absolute moral law there has to be a moral law giver. no giver, no moral law. seeing as morals vary from culture to culture, or even household to household. there can be no absolute moral code. therefore no moral law giver. morality is subjective.
morality is socially ingrained in children from birth. There is clearly no objective morality, as morality changes from culture to culture, person to person, and even within the same person over time. Christians like to make claims of some monopoly on absolute morality, but read a few verses out of their Pentateuch and a few out of their gospels, shift is astounding.
Please do not be offended, but I recommend for you a dark turtleneck sweater, much larger earrings and either contact lenses or much more impactful glasses frames.
. My motivation -1 I think this is part of our evolutionary success so I am driven by genetics. 2 I have empathy, or I would hope that you would assist me were the circumstances reversed. 3 I wish to live in a civil society and I see cooperation as both a lever and a goal of that civil society. 4 I am part of a group where my status is increased when I (can claim to) help others. 5. when I help you it makes me feel superior to you.
Ultimately the individual serves the collective: I help you for no other reason than you need help. This behavior, when practiced by the culture, adds to the probable success of all individuals in the culture and thus increases the probability of success for the entire culture. My motivation
Ultimately the individual serves themselves. I do not strike you because 1-I do not wish you to strike me, 2-I do not wish your protectors to exact retribution 3- generally I wish to live in personal safety, so I do not ad to the level of violence. [I see this as an evolutionary argument]
Moral is directed by culture (society, religion,). [Law is often, unfortunately, the result of morality rather than the reflection of ethical behavior]
Ethic is directed by Philosophy and Science.
A society may decide anything at all to be moral. Boys dont wear earrings, girls dont wear pants, witches need burning, it is good to kill for god.
If an atheist does something wrong we know the only way to make it right is t make it up to the person or people we harmed. A christian basically thinks the forgiveness of the person they hurt is irrelevant. Why does it matter? You get your punishment and reward in the end? If god let something bad happen to them they must have deserved it......right? Maybe he's testing their faith. LOL
Christians Total=76.5% Prison=80% Atheists Total=.4% Prison=.2% Anyone else see the difference? Total to Prison Christian % Difference 104.57...% Atheist % Difference 50% I think that's a strong indicator of the likelihood of religion being a morality sucking ideology. That is, only in contrast with atheists... I'm not 100% sure if I did this right, so if anyone wants to correct me, go ahead.
I think the reason that there are more Christians in prison is because christians think that they only have to answer to god, and god will forgive them if they're sorry, and then they'll get to go to heaven for being sorry. Where an atheist thinks that this is all they, and future generations will ever have so they try to make it a better world so we can actually attain heaven on earth one day instead of waiting for death. At least that's how I feel.
there are no absolute morals but we can make general agreements like. i wont kill you if you dont kill me... i think its called the social contract. Or we generally agree that killing is wrong because we all want a chance at life... but of course we can collectivly agree to kill for the greater good of all life...
..."The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
"The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written."...continued
I would guess it boils down to instinctual empathy. Empathy + human reasoning = morality.
Due to empathy, killing a person may feel wrong. But if killing this person saved the life of a hundred people humans can use their understanding of future consequences to justify it morally and overcome this primitive empathy which is where the value of preserving human life came from
Wherever this empathy instinct comes from, it appears to vary between individuals - subjective or in cases non-existent
Mr ZJ ive watched your video and can see that you make very good logical sense and appreciate the fact that you dont know everything, and use logic to make your findings credible. i believe that there are no absolute morals but more universal ethics that are present in all cultures documented. you have not clarified the difference between morals and ethics. can you please do so?
To understand why it is wrong to kill, you would have to feel it, mostly. ...and think about how if there is a murder by one person to another, the chances that you will be the victim, why you would do it to another person and whether you could be sure that your victim really was that much of an idiot or not. and also how it has an influence on others' perception of murder to be one more person choosing to do it yourself. All of these things don't stand very well on their own.
But they are about the only reasons we have for not doing it. I find it's a lot easier to try warping my mind to be like an ant. Remember the potential genetic advantages of altruism.
In the bible it tells one to follow their conscience, can't remember the book and line. I'd hoped their were more atheists or other, as it seems prison and drug rehab programs unnecessarily use xianity as a base for therapy. Now we have an individual who believes Jesus cured their drug problem. My cousin while using drugs, prostituting, robbing others, etc.. started assaulting and calling other members of the family the Devil because of these kind of brain wash programs. Is this not immoral?
I am confused as to what point you are trying to make. You don't know the answer to the morality question, but you seem to reject any source that does claim to have an answer. If you don't know the truth about morality, then where do you find it logical to assert that Christianity does not have the answer? You yourself claim not know. Therefore, you are not qualified to decide what is right or wrong.
You would be such an asset to the Kingdom..what a shame it is to use the intellect and creativity given to you By the Creator to destroy His credibility amongst human kind. I pray that one day you have a true encounter before its too late and be a vessel for Him.
"That's not good enough." "It's not a satisfying answer." Tell me, by what standard do you determine what "good enough" and "sufficiently satisfying" are? Enough for whom? Satisfying to whom? Surely you're not suggesting that YOU should be the universal arbiter of truth for the rest of us?
To cite one example: If you have a big enough view of God -- a truly biblical view of your Creator -- then it becomes plain that He did indeed have every right to destroy that which He Himself created.
But it explains a lot. Why so far behind the rest of the world? I mean behind in that in 2005 16% of the population was Atheist making it the third largest group so to speak. This has grown everywhere else other than the U.S. it seems, what a burden for .4% to stop the rest blowing the whole place up.
Morality is always relative. I have what hopefully can generally be considered as a strong sense of morality and integrity. While society defines the context of morality (and there's nothing to be proud about for being a sheep), I'd like to think I'm a good person. And I've done it without the bible or any other text defining what being a good person means. It is more rewarding to be a good person because you're a good person than it is if a book told you to be.
For me, it's not just secular morality, but evolved morality - the traits of a parent who is inclined to eat its young is not going to have young to produce more with that inclination - the parent that's inclined to care for their young will have young that will tend to care for THEIR young, and so on. Then there's environmental: don't kill a peer, because it causes pain to relatives, and snuffs out a seemingly harmless person without reason. But those can have why's, too...
I think the study of religios identification may have been unacceptably inaccurate, the atheist (non-believer) population is closer to 10-15% according to every study I've heard of on the subject. This makes your argument even stronger still.
Don't want to step in the middle of your arguement, but 'murder' by the legal definition is universally wrong.
However, 'murder' is part of the larger category of 'killing people', and since there are legitimate times when killing people is allowed, the concept is not absolute.
So, murder is consistently wrong, killing people, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
By some definition you are allowed to murder people in war and combat. So, to some extent, there are exceptions to murder too.
I think we can safely say that certain action are universally immoral or at least illegal.
It is not the universal rule that anyone questions, it is the list of exceptions.
We agree killing is wrong, we just disagree on those particular occasion when we or other feel it is right.
In general, if I can commit murder or wrong against you, the equally you can commit it against me. Since I don't want you to, we mutually agree not to harm each other.
According to recent articles in the Daily Mail, Telegraph, and Times Online (all UK) it seems that monkey demonstrate traits that we would deem as moral or morality.
Now that doesn't surprise me, I suspect we find the same thing in dogs and cats, it is just harder to test.
Apparently the idea that animals have moral conflicts with religion in the sense that morality is God's gift strictly to humans.
Dogs have a far different "morality" than monkeys. They protect their young UNLESS they are defective, in which case they either eat them or abandon them in most cases. They protect the top of their pack, but will try to kill him or her if they weaken with age or have seizures. I have raised feral dogs and their rules are harsh but effective as it applies to their survival.
Hey, your stats are wrong. In the ARIS(2001), .4% may have have marked athiest, but that doesn't include other categories of non-belief which are essentially atheism: secular & no religion. The percentage you want for atheists is closer to 13.6.
Although... "No religion" doesn't necessarily mean atheist. You may want find a survey that specifically asks if the person being surveyed believes in a higher power, base your atheism stat off of that.
There may not be Absolute Morals, but there do seem to be Universal Morals. We generally agree in all societies that it is wrong to kill people, but we do make exceptions to that. So, while we universally agree, if is not absolute.
The same is true of stealing. It is universally accepted as wrong, but again, we make exceptions. So, universal, but not absolute.
In this sense, I agree there is no absolute morality, and what morality we have is more guided by survival and society than religion.
Stealing is not universally accepted as wrong. It depends on who you steal from. There are a few cultures that not only condone stealing, but are trained from childhood that it is part of their livelihood. They only steal from outsiders, however.
Remember that the 0.4% is a positive claim. There are many who claim not to believe in a god but do not make the positive claim. Also keep in mind that the Muslim population in the US is 0.5% yet they make up for over 7% of the prison population
Also, I don't accept your "that's just the way it is" is not a good enough answer.
cause sometimes the way things are, IS just the way things.
You could say 2+2=4. And I could ask why. And you could explain and I could ask, ok, why is that. You explain some more. Ok, whys that? And so on and so on forever.
Being able to question something(justifiably or even unjustifiably), doesn't make something not so.
We may not LIKE murder, we may DETEST murder...but by what evidence do you call it a UNIVERSAL and ABSOLUTE truth. Just because you don't care for it? That's opinion, subjective; it's not absolute or universal.
And there are gray areas here; what's the difference between murder, killing, manslaughter, killing in self-defense or defense of another, killing in war...at what point is killing a universally wrong murder?
Tell me what you will accept as proof and I shall prove it.
Also, I told you what the difference between murder and all those other types of killing was. Please understand terms before you argue them. So, sorry. There is no gray area when you understand the difference between murder and manslaughter, wartime, etc.
Proof must be empirical. Are you familiar with the word empirical in this context? Other than that, I put no limits whatsoever on what I will accept.
And, no, you HAVEN'T provided an explanation for the difference between murder and any other kind of killing. All you said was that it has to be for no good reason, and nobody can just SAY it's a good reason...so whatinhell CONSTITUTES a good reason, hmm? What constitutes a bad one? And how is ANY of that not completely subjective?
Ah so I see. You make no standard of what you will accept, so you can conveniently reject anything that you don't like. Sorry, I wont bother trying to prove something to someone when they wont tell me their standards of proof. Or even something they will accept.
Actually I did define murder. I'm sorry that you have additional questions, but I defined it none the less.
Also, I don't appreciate your clumsy attempt to call me stupid. I'm very aware of what "empirical" means.
Im not a fool. I know its a trap. And I wont fall for it. Because, anything I say that goes against your beliefs you can, and will, dismiss as "my opinion" or "an appeal to emotion".
Why? Because you are a moral relativist, and therefore have no reason to have intellectual integrity or to be trust worthy.
But in the end you all turn out to be hypocrites anyway. Cause I bet if someone murdered your entire family, youd KNOW it was wrong, not just believe it was.
Excuse me, but let me make my OWN fucking arguments, thankyouverymuchindeed. *glare*
Second of all, if someone murdered my entirely family, I'd be outraged...but I wouldn't be outraged because it was WRONG, I'd be outraged because of what was taken from me without my permission.
I'd have actual REASONS why I was unhappy, rather than some nebulous appeal to "right and wrong".
Now either start illuminating your arguments, or concede, because this is getting REALLY OLD.
Truth to tell, I can't IMAGINE what would make me say that, because frankly, I don't believe in it. If I'm going to say that, you're going to have to surprise me with something that I haven't thought of before, so I can't GIVE you an example.
You defined murder being wrong as a UNIVERSAL and ABSOLUTE moral...but that's simply patently false from my perspective. First of all, it's not universal; many people don't believe it...which means it's also not absolute. Where do absolutes come from?
Murder isn't a math sum without alternative "conditions". Nothing is absolute that has conditions. Is it an absolute wrong to kill someone who is trying to murder you? Rape you? You may try not to. If murder being wrong is an absolute, then you better not be eating any meat or vegetables or ... anything, since the act of consumption to support one organism REQUIRES the death, or murder of another organism. And distinguishing the life of any organism on purpose is murder, by definition.
Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. On second thought, maybe you need to put the dictionary down. I think the word you were looking for was EXTINGUISHING, not distinguishing.
If you are going try to use big words in an effort to sound super smart....use the correct ones.
I could barely understand what you were trying to say anyway. If I was an English teacher, you would have received an F on your grammar and sentence structure.
Oh goodness, i used a word in error, i must be human.
Sounds like someone got up on the cranky side of the bed this morning.
Fine, i'll just accept you are too willing to be ignorant to actual reality (wherein all forms of life are no more or less important - in relation to whether they live or do not live, as life is just a mechanical/electrical function, and was never a divine "gift") to be even worth arguing with. You dodged the questions like a pro loser of an argument.
I think morality is a byproduct of a valuation of liberty. If you believe that it is right to determine your own path, then most if not all existing moral laws follow logically from that point. Murder is choosing someone else's path for them, that is wrong, so is rape, injury, theft, and a myriad of other concepts. Theft comes into play when we consider extraneous implements as being assistants to a person's goals but thats a little hazy in the construction I have worked out in my head.
I'd like to add that a study of 17developed nations in 2005 found an unmistakable correlation between higher rates of belief in and warship of a creator with HIGHER rates of murder, juvenile mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and subsequently a higher abortion rate.
Your analysis of prison population is faulty, even if the numbers you quote were right (I believe there are far more atheists than 0.4% of the population), the proportion of believers in prison is far higher than non-believers. Christians at 80% prison population vs. 76.5% general population is more than twice the ratio of atheists (.2% vs .4%).
Of course there are more christians is prison because there are more christians in the general population, but that doesn't affect the ratios, it is a meaningless statistic.
You should also look at world wise statistics, you will find much lower crime rates in secular societies like the Scandinavian countries, as well as most of Europe and Canada, vs. religious societies like America.
1 There are no absolutes except that there are no absolutes
2 There is no good and evil, there is only beneficial and harmful, with permission and without permission
3 Morals which SEEM universal are not; you can always find one person who disagrees
4 We don't commit immoralities against each other when we know we won't get caught out of enlightened self-interest; if WE can do it then OTHERS can do it, too. It's an unspoken social contract to keep us safe.
Well then according to you, Hitler wasn't evil. And the holocaust MAY have been justified. Because in theory, eugenics could be VERY beneficial to the human race. Hitler could have set us on the path to perfection and utopia. And therefore, killing the sick or the weak or slightly "defective" is completely justified.
You missed part of #2: beneficial versus harmful is one thing, but there's also with permission and without permission.
Hitler did a lot of things WITHOUT PERMISSION; even if he was actually correct--which I don't think he was; many of the standards by which one judges the effectiveness of eugenics are subjective--he didn't have permission for what he did to people.
So, it ISN'T completely justified; the only person you can make decisions for and stay moral is YOU, unless you have consent.
If I could prove that killing you and your entire family would benefit all of mankind....would you be ok with that? I doubt it. You'd prolly scream, "You cant do that, we have rights!"
Really? Says who?
And what obligates me to respect your "rights"?
The law? Well, what obligates me to respect the law?
No wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket. Its people like you who tell people that nothing they do is wrong.
Again, I point to the second part of #2: with permission or without permission. i put it in there; you just ignored it, apparently.
You also seem to have missed #4. What obligates you to respect the law? Because when people violate the social contract we have to behave YOU GET PUNISHED. The law doesn't depend on your good will; it is ENFORCED.
And why is "wrong" more important than "harmful and without permission"? The only difference is whether or not that judgment is subjective or objective.
Instead of asking "Why is this right or wrong?" try framing your questions as "What should I do in this given situation?" and "Why sould I do that?" Every time your inquiries seem to yield something in terms of things being right/wrong, reframe that question or answer in terms of how you should behave.
It's not an answer, but it's an exercise that will open your mind to new ways of thinking.
absolute moral no.1: don't destroy the multiverse(a multiverse is a collection of universes)
doombybbr 1 month ago
Killing people, for example.... is "wrong" because people generally don't wish to be killed and it infringes upon their right to avoid this outcome. However, we generally seek to justify this with adding conditions (hence, more relativism) such as it being permissable to kill someone if:
They are attacking or attempting to kill you or your family
They are collateral damage in an attack on a foreign enemy
They are sentenced to death by a court of law
etc.
DharmaDaniel 5 months ago
Well maybe we are "indoctrinated (in the loosest sense) to think harming others is wrong but it sure seems as if not wanting to harm others (especially our tribe) is an evolutionary imperative and since so far we are the only intelligent creatures known, then being against harming one another is universal morality. Are there exceptions? Yes, but for the most part, we all are against harming others. We can just work our way out from there.
DepressedAnnnie 5 months ago
please debate shockofgod
theden 9 months ago
you sound like a robot
theden 9 months ago
Secularly, the moralities of different religions are equally right and wrong. However, religiously, they are absolute, as the followers say they are; and if God turns out to be real, then they are correct. Surely, if there were a god, God's morals would be absolute, especially if this God created the universe. I do believe, however, if this god said murder is okay, human nature would change that we don't feel it's wrong in every cell of our body, but feel more apathetic about it.
OramAndy 1 year ago
16% of Americans are non-believers.
krmaguire 1 year ago
Comment removed
krmaguire 1 year ago
You might want to look at; The Case for Objective Morality
by Francois Tremblay
This argument seems to rely on the axiom 'life is better than no life'. If you accept this idea then you can construct a logical framework for moral values.
It's very refreshing to hear someone say "I don't know" without using it as an excuse.
2357Brian 1 year ago
Everyone has a (Right) to live.
Everyone has a (Right) to die.
It is equal and humans cannot stand it when things are equal.
Humans want control but cannot have it after death.
Morals are based on a % of humans who agree.
67bandit67 1 year ago 7
@67bandit67 I was with you up until you said that morals are culturally relative. Who gives a fuck how many people agree? You have to make your own decisions about what's right and wrong. Or are you just going to go along with "the herd" who might believe nonsense like stoning people to death for working on Sunday? Or burning "witches"?
AvonFoxglove 4 months ago
Can we just love one another.....:)!!!
EusebioPharezZerah 1 year ago
Interesting video. Often, most moral actions - not all, but a lot - trace back to the desire not to infringe upon another human's rights, something that is respected in most countries. Why we don't murder for instance, because that denies a person a right to live. Perhaps those universal human rights are moral absolutes, or perhaps they are just arbitrary, but seem to make sense to enough people to adopt them. But I know less than know on this issue.
FibonaziProductions 1 year ago
Morals are opinion. What some people percieve as good, others may think is bad. In fact there are no good or bad in this world, just what the human mind percieves.
It depends on a persons values. It may be seen as bad for children to swear as it's not traditional whereas it may be seen as age-ist for them not to as it would be equal.
So it comes down to tradition vs equality as the 2 conflicting values in society.
The only way to have reasonable society would be to base our morals from facts.
00Xander00 1 year ago
you a bitch lazy eye
hahaha bitch
dumb bitch
ilovesarah66 1 year ago
"God hates Lady gaga! Shut up! Shut up, Rebel, you talk, God don't hear a thing! He hates all you do cause you love fornicating! She aint got, she aint got no poker face! She just got she just got yeahhhhhhhhhhhh she just got her whoreish face! Lady gaga said god loves fags and she calls her filth holy! She is doomed and if lady gaga reads this comment she will heath these words or face destruction from god almighty!!!! She will go she will go straight to hell cause god hates faaaggs!!!"
TheTess123456 1 year ago
I dunno if I believe in absolute morals, hell I barely understand the concept, but I do believe that people have certain innate morals. If you ask a child who has never been told that murder is wrong, they will probably tell you that yes, it is bad to make another person stop breathing, stop responding, stop *insert death allusion here* People just seem to inherently know not to murder each other (most of the time)
MissLissaLindsey 1 year ago
Are their absolute morals
Yes, it is absolutely wrong to torture a baby for fun.
Any worldview that doesn't absolutely affirm the above doesn't have the right to criticize any religion
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670 What's the point of absolute morals if we don't all agree on what they are? I agree that it is absolutely wrong to torture a baby in any circumstance, for any reason...but, that's still just my opinion. There are people who love torturing babies, and I think they should be stopped/imprisoned...does that make it absolute? Just because I said so...then aren't the opinions of baby torturers also absolute in their minds? What's the point?
adean2 1 year ago
seriously though..
psychoticmagician 1 year ago
Well if you're looking for absolute morals I might be able to provide an answer,but this is just my own opinion. With my Buddhist perspective, I can tell you that there are no absolute morals. The right thing can vary depending on the situation, and for the most part something is only wrong if it hurts someone. For example,there is a difference between stealing a ferrari for yourself and some bread for starving children, so there is no absolute"stealing is bad.period." It depends on situation.
PrincessLeia100 1 year ago
I want to do you. jk
psychoticmagician 1 year ago
@psychoticmagician
You're great.
wash0087 1 year ago
Soo...anyone can do anything they want?
dzamo 1 year ago
@dzamo Sure...anyone can attempt to do anything they want...that doesn't mean anyone else will agree with them and/or try to stop/punish them for doing it. You can rape children if you want, but if we catch you, you'll be going to prison, lol.
adean2 1 year ago
I really feel bad for you, Here just watch this and I want to see what it makes you think.
watch?v=4HGnTBvLrT8
Andyrolled 1 year ago
Morals , as I think they are, is any thought incouraging an act that will help in anyway build a better life and increase it through years and ages , for example , any act that will increase peace in the world is a moral act , even if it was war by itself , another example could be killing dangerously bad people to help others live a peaceful life, Also knowing that the word dangerously bad here means that their acts are if allowed to spread will make life decrease through years and ages.
iseekeen 1 year ago
Life is complex and there is no one answer to things, this is how human thinking wants to be because it is programmed to take the shortest route to be faster in learning and living life, In my opinion there has to be an upper hand (God) or in my case (Allah) to rearrange chaos and make nature and it's rules and these rules then apply also by God's well and interferrence to build life and humans and all the complex things in life.
iseekeen 1 year ago
it is wrong to kill
why
because life has value
why
because we are programed by nature to want to survive if we kill than we lessen the chances we will survive by some part of a percent no matter how tiny
6611nitro 2 years ago
*sniff*
RIP Bunk bed. The last video where it is seen :(
OniLordMiki 2 years ago 8
Here: watch?v=ohyqIrE92Ws
ZJemptv 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand. What was that video supposed to answer?
OniLordMiki 2 years ago
@ZJemptv Have you read "The Moral Landscape" by leading atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris? He has some strong points refuting moral relativism. He argues that "the most basic facts about human flourishing must transcend culture" (pg.35). He exemplifies the practice of genital mutilation, which to him its "learned psychopathy". He argues that there are facts about human well being which are not relative. If you haven't read it dl the audiobook at torrent site or find the ebook online.
esiosan 11 months ago
You could have a feeling-based moral... :) or a democratic-based.
deusAtheismus 2 years ago
ethics and morals can never be concrete...
crankycactus 2 years ago
Saying that there are no moral absolutes is fine and acceptable because there is no empirical proof that will ever exist that will point to objective morals. However, if you really do believe this, then please write to your congressmen and senators and beg them to let every prisoner out of jail and throw out every court case. Nobody has any right to tell anybody else that what they do is immoral. Murder, rape, theft, and assault can all be justified and nobody is in any position to not allow it.
barifkin31 2 years ago
That's not an acceptable answer. I used to make my parents angry because I would never accept "because I said so" as an answer.
If my parents had explain that they didn't want me to cross the street because people drive fast and they don't want me to get it, I would have accepted it... but they didn't. :)
DblOSmith 2 years ago
Comment removed
YouTees 2 years ago
A better question would be, why does the question of good and evil arise in the first place? Why does the concept of morality arise at all? Why have so many people expended so much energy grappling with the question of absolute morality? Why do we care?
kmsoileau 2 years ago
Morality is part instinctual. It evolved like all our other traits. Whatever contributes to the survival of the tribe. Those that are more moral than others i.e. don't get killed for killing somebody has more offspring etc.
artman2oo3 2 years ago
I would like to know why God would say "it's wrong to kill". As for killing in absolute morality, it's like evolution:
A society that considers murder a crime has a higher chance to survive than a society that encourages murder, as it would literally die out very quickly.
Do not lie: you will upset people you lie to, therefore societies that discourage lying have a higher chance of staying organised than societies that encourage lying. The list goes on, it's all simple evolution.
handplanty 2 years ago
Humans have no moral. We are like animals according to atheists. So why should have moral? There is no ultimate authority.
Why are you making videos? Why are you concerned about moral, atheist? Why are you trying to convince people that God does not exist? After all, if you are right, you have nothing to fear. Why should people NOT believe in God? It doesn't matter, right?
As atheist you should just not think about moral. But just do whatever you want. As Christian you should obey Jesus.
Ritsaart 2 years ago
"There is no ultimate authority."
I dispute your very notion that morality even relies on being defined by an "ultimate authority".
"Why should people NOT believe in God? It doesn't matter, right?"
It matters because what people believe affects how they behave, and religious belief has some very harmful effects that I and others would like to reduce.
"As atheist you should just not think about moral. But just do whatever you want."
What if what I want is to live ethically?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
The supernatural is the only possibility left. What the supernatural is, we don''t know for sure. Wel I know for sure but I can't prove it to you.
Just look at the fullfillt prophecies in the bible. I recommend you using google for this.
''Religion has harmfull effects''
Are you kidding me? Why aren't you focussing on Islam. Jesus brought a message of peace. We can't always link violence to religion. Bad people have been ''Christian'' and Stalin was an atheist. There is NO relation.
Ritsaart
Ritsaart 2 years ago
If it can't be proven, then please don't make statements claiming it's "the only possibility left". Especially if "we don't know for sure".
And if you're going to detach religion from the violence it inspires, what point is there to saying "Jesus brought a message of peace"? If "there is NO relation", why should that matter?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
No it can't be proven. But what do you think of the prophecies that all have been fullfilled? The OT talks about the messiah. Jesus fullfillt that. So thousends of years before He was there they allready knew about Him. Coincidence? And Also the prophecies about our time are coming true. Hitler was predicted. Even the reich!
The problem is, is that atheist live by sight. They want everything to be proven. Just because you can't see or prove something doesn't mean it is not there.
Ritsaart 2 years ago
I could say the same thing about Islam, Judaism, Shinto, Buddhism or any other religion ever presented. There have been countless.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
And about ''the only possibily left.'' If you can't give a logical explenation to the creation, but your just denying the fact that God was involved according to the bible, what kind of evidence is that? You know in the past people thought the earth was flat. Now we can see that that isn't the case. But with God it's different.
Ritsaart 2 years ago
"God was involved according to the bible" is not evidence just like "Allah was involved according to the Quran" is not evidence and "Brahma was involved according to the Vedas" is not evidence.
Scientists conduct research to continue developing an evidence-based picture of how the cosmos came to be, so please think before saying things like "you can't give a logical explenation to the creation". Religious followers seem to be incapable of any sort of investigation into their creation myths.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
May I remind you that Isaac Newton was a very religious man. Scientists are researching God's creation.
Let me tell you this: Genesis is a mythical book. It is not meant as a scientific book. This is a misconception. If God wanted to explaine all of His creation your mind would explode.
The bible actually is a historical book. And this is also something atheist deny. Because it involves God its is not historical but mythical? Yes if you want to exclude God of taking part in history.
Ritsaart 2 years ago
The bible is not a historical book get an education and you'd know that. The books that would be included were decided upon from many. In some of them not included Jesus is married.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
You are trying to avoid things here.
Few questions:
1. What do you think about the fullfillt prophecies in the bible?
2. Have you EVER read the bible?
3. What is your view on this world? How did the cosmos came into existense?
My answer to the third one is: read the bible (not to precise).
Ritsaart 2 years ago
ZJ if you wouldn't mind im gonna comment here and answer those three questions there.
1. You mean the vague one or the ones that could come true with human interactions.
2. I don't know about ZJ but I was a Christian until less than one year ago. I can still recite bible verses that i remember. I'm pretty sure I've read it.
blingking880 2 years ago
3. Mass cannot be created or destroyed why should I believe that it ever was. I mean God is suppose to be eternal why should I believe that mass isn't. The only difference between God and mass is I know mass exist and can not be created or destroyed
blingking880 2 years ago
no it's not. The bible states that the earth is flat.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Comment removed
Luigi84289 2 years ago
See you guys set Morals = Utility. That is the problem here. Morals don't exist.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
For once, I agree with your thesis. Ought statements" cannot be rationally justified, regardless of whether they're rooted in religion or in something else.
But you lost me towards the end by seemingly contradicting yourself. You said, "There are some circumstances where it is not wrong to kill everything on earth." This hints (but does not prove) that you think there are situations where it *is* wrong to kill everything on earth. Is this assertion justified or unjustified? End of 500 chars.
tantzer 2 years ago
Sorry for the multiple posts, but also you can bend any rule or law back on itself by using this. Example. A child asks his mother why no glass containers are allowed at the pool. She says that glass can break and people will step on it. The child says, "Why should I care?" She says.."Well, do you like stepping on glass? Guess what, no one else does either."
john422401 2 years ago
You will also find that all moral codes and laws fall back to this one code. They all stem from it. You don't really need a religious text or anything to tell you that, although most are founded on it, even if the text does contradict it. Christians would have you believe that these codes and laws are significant only to Christianity, when really they are found in all religious texts and even secular texts.
john422401 2 years ago
I think the only absolute moral is to treat people how you want to be treated. You will find this moral code in any religious text as well as secular texts. You will find that all other morals and ethics fall back upon themselves if you hold them to this code. Why is it wrong to kill someone? Well you wouldn't want them to kill you, would you? Why not steal? Well you don't like it when someone steals from you. It forces the questioner, to turn the situation back on themselves for clarity.
john422401 2 years ago
there is no definitive moral law, morality is based on ones own personal opinions,religion, experiences, environment, lifestyle, etc. seeing as there is no definitive moral law because what is good to some may be evil to others. for there to be an absolute moral law there has to be a moral law giver. no giver, no moral law. seeing as morals vary from culture to culture, or even household to household. there can be no absolute moral code. therefore no moral law giver. morality is subjective.
Bluemagus 2 years ago
morality is socially ingrained in children from birth. There is clearly no objective morality, as morality changes from culture to culture, person to person, and even within the same person over time. Christians like to make claims of some monopoly on absolute morality, but read a few verses out of their Pentateuch and a few out of their gospels, shift is astounding.
angelwhite 2 years ago
Please do not be offended, but I recommend for you a dark turtleneck sweater, much larger earrings and either contact lenses or much more impactful glasses frames.
nealart 2 years ago
killing is wrong because it weakens society.
cadonus 2 years ago
I need learn more about youtube. My posts are backwards, or upside-down, I suffered from tooooooooo long post . apologies
.
blue0axe 2 years ago
. My motivation -1 I think this is part of our evolutionary success so I am driven by genetics. 2 I have empathy, or I would hope that you would assist me were the circumstances reversed. 3 I wish to live in a civil society and I see cooperation as both a lever and a goal of that civil society. 4 I am part of a group where my status is increased when I (can claim to) help others. 5. when I help you it makes me feel superior to you.
blue0axe 2 years ago
Ultimately the individual serves the collective: I help you for no other reason than you need help. This behavior, when practiced by the culture, adds to the probable success of all individuals in the culture and thus increases the probability of success for the entire culture. My motivation
blue0axe 2 years ago
Ultimately the individual serves themselves. I do not strike you because 1-I do not wish you to strike me, 2-I do not wish your protectors to exact retribution 3- generally I wish to live in personal safety, so I do not ad to the level of violence. [I see this as an evolutionary argument]
blue0axe 2 years ago
A society may decide anything at all to be moral. Boys dont wear earrings, girls dont wear pants, witches need burning, it is good to kill for god.
Ethics is/are independent of civil or religious dictum
A moral may indeed be ethically correct, but does not need be!
blue0axe 2 years ago
I separate moral and ethical.
Moral is directed by culture (society, religion,). [Law is often, unfortunately, the result of morality rather than the reflection of ethical behavior]
Ethic is directed by Philosophy and Science.
A society may decide anything at all to be moral. Boys dont wear earrings, girls dont wear pants, witches need burning, it is good to kill for god.
blue0axe 2 years ago
If an atheist does something wrong we know the only way to make it right is t make it up to the person or people we harmed. A christian basically thinks the forgiveness of the person they hurt is irrelevant. Why does it matter? You get your punishment and reward in the end? If god let something bad happen to them they must have deserved it......right? Maybe he's testing their faith. LOL
hoodmilk 2 years ago
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
I think the reason that there are more Christians in prison is because christians think that they only have to answer to god, and god will forgive them if they're sorry, and then they'll get to go to heaven for being sorry. Where an atheist thinks that this is all they, and future generations will ever have so they try to make it a better world so we can actually attain heaven on earth one day instead of waiting for death. At least that's how I feel.
hoodmilk 2 years ago
there are no absolute morals but we can make general agreements like. i wont kill you if you dont kill me... i think its called the social contract. Or we generally agree that killing is wrong because we all want a chance at life... but of course we can collectivly agree to kill for the greater good of all life...
j0llyblackgiant 2 years ago
..."The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
uitodtrbrmhr 2 years ago
Everybody watch out, QUOTE MINER!!!!! LOL Was there a point you were trying to make? Do you know anything about Einstein or his work?
hoodmilk 2 years ago
Quoth Einstein himself:
"The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written."...continued
uitodtrbrmhr 2 years ago
I would guess it boils down to instinctual empathy. Empathy + human reasoning = morality.
Due to empathy, killing a person may feel wrong. But if killing this person saved the life of a hundred people humans can use their understanding of future consequences to justify it morally and overcome this primitive empathy which is where the value of preserving human life came from
Wherever this empathy instinct comes from, it appears to vary between individuals - subjective or in cases non-existent
TopHatStuff 2 years ago
Mr ZJ ive watched your video and can see that you make very good logical sense and appreciate the fact that you dont know everything, and use logic to make your findings credible. i believe that there are no absolute morals but more universal ethics that are present in all cultures documented. you have not clarified the difference between morals and ethics. can you please do so?
kkmarivate 2 years ago
To understand why it is wrong to kill, you would have to feel it, mostly. ...and think about how if there is a murder by one person to another, the chances that you will be the victim, why you would do it to another person and whether you could be sure that your victim really was that much of an idiot or not. and also how it has an influence on others' perception of murder to be one more person choosing to do it yourself. All of these things don't stand very well on their own.
Saohesc 2 years ago
But they are about the only reasons we have for not doing it. I find it's a lot easier to try warping my mind to be like an ant. Remember the potential genetic advantages of altruism.
Saohesc 2 years ago
satan's puppet ...prensenting evil as good
tucazzoti 2 years ago
Satan is my puppet.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago
In the bible it tells one to follow their conscience, can't remember the book and line. I'd hoped their were more atheists or other, as it seems prison and drug rehab programs unnecessarily use xianity as a base for therapy. Now we have an individual who believes Jesus cured their drug problem. My cousin while using drugs, prostituting, robbing others, etc.. started assaulting and calling other members of the family the Devil because of these kind of brain wash programs. Is this not immoral?
HEIBAOSHEN 2 years ago
ZJemptv
holyfire232 2 years ago
I am confused as to what point you are trying to make. You don't know the answer to the morality question, but you seem to reject any source that does claim to have an answer. If you don't know the truth about morality, then where do you find it logical to assert that Christianity does not have the answer? You yourself claim not know. Therefore, you are not qualified to decide what is right or wrong.
holyfire232 2 years ago
Who is?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
You would be such an asset to the Kingdom..what a shame it is to use the intellect and creativity given to you By the Creator to destroy His credibility amongst human kind. I pray that one day you have a true encounter before its too late and be a vessel for Him.
milliebx1 2 years ago
morally bankrupt here
you look kinda funny
loserloserlosers 3 years ago
Gravity exists because that's just the way it is.
Novjunulo 3 years ago
"That's not good enough." "It's not a satisfying answer." Tell me, by what standard do you determine what "good enough" and "sufficiently satisfying" are? Enough for whom? Satisfying to whom? Surely you're not suggesting that YOU should be the universal arbiter of truth for the rest of us?
To cite one example: If you have a big enough view of God -- a truly biblical view of your Creator -- then it becomes plain that He did indeed have every right to destroy that which He Himself created.
ShepT513422 3 years ago
Are you suggesting that your alleged god should, in fact, be a universal arbiter of truth? If so, by what standard have you determined that?
ZJemptv 3 years ago
.4% Atheism in the U.S. Is that correct?
But it explains a lot. Why so far behind the rest of the world? I mean behind in that in 2005 16% of the population was Atheist making it the third largest group so to speak. This has grown everywhere else other than the U.S. it seems, what a burden for .4% to stop the rest blowing the whole place up.
peterogr 3 years ago
Morality is always relative. I have what hopefully can generally be considered as a strong sense of morality and integrity. While society defines the context of morality (and there's nothing to be proud about for being a sheep), I'd like to think I'm a good person. And I've done it without the bible or any other text defining what being a good person means. It is more rewarding to be a good person because you're a good person than it is if a book told you to be.
djmccormick 3 years ago
For me, it's not just secular morality, but evolved morality - the traits of a parent who is inclined to eat its young is not going to have young to produce more with that inclination - the parent that's inclined to care for their young will have young that will tend to care for THEIR young, and so on. Then there's environmental: don't kill a peer, because it causes pain to relatives, and snuffs out a seemingly harmless person without reason. But those can have why's, too...
limegreensquid 3 years ago
I think the study of religios identification may have been unacceptably inaccurate, the atheist (non-believer) population is closer to 10-15% according to every study I've heard of on the subject. This makes your argument even stronger still.
rjswolfman 3 years ago
Don't want to step in the middle of your arguement, but 'murder' by the legal definition is universally wrong.
However, 'murder' is part of the larger category of 'killing people', and since there are legitimate times when killing people is allowed, the concept is not absolute.
So, murder is consistently wrong, killing people, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
By some definition you are allowed to murder people in war and combat. So, to some extent, there are exceptions to murder too.
blueboyblue 3 years ago
Good points.
limegreensquid 3 years ago
To SuperFlyNB and Bionic Dance,
I think we can safely say that certain action are universally immoral or at least illegal.
It is not the universal rule that anyone questions, it is the list of exceptions.
We agree killing is wrong, we just disagree on those particular occasion when we or other feel it is right.
In general, if I can commit murder or wrong against you, the equally you can commit it against me. Since I don't want you to, we mutually agree not to harm each other.
blueboyblue 3 years ago
According to recent articles in the Daily Mail, Telegraph, and Times Online (all UK) it seems that monkey demonstrate traits that we would deem as moral or morality.
Now that doesn't surprise me, I suspect we find the same thing in dogs and cats, it is just harder to test.
Apparently the idea that animals have moral conflicts with religion in the sense that morality is God's gift strictly to humans.
blueboyblue 3 years ago
Dogs have a far different "morality" than monkeys. They protect their young UNLESS they are defective, in which case they either eat them or abandon them in most cases. They protect the top of their pack, but will try to kill him or her if they weaken with age or have seizures. I have raised feral dogs and their rules are harsh but effective as it applies to their survival.
gorilladogs 3 years ago
Hey, your stats are wrong. In the ARIS(2001), .4% may have have marked athiest, but that doesn't include other categories of non-belief which are essentially atheism: secular & no religion. The percentage you want for atheists is closer to 13.6.
Aenema 3 years ago
Although... "No religion" doesn't necessarily mean atheist. You may want find a survey that specifically asks if the person being surveyed believes in a higher power, base your atheism stat off of that.
Aenema 3 years ago
There may not be Absolute Morals, but there do seem to be Universal Morals. We generally agree in all societies that it is wrong to kill people, but we do make exceptions to that. So, while we universally agree, if is not absolute.
The same is true of stealing. It is universally accepted as wrong, but again, we make exceptions. So, universal, but not absolute.
In this sense, I agree there is no absolute morality, and what morality we have is more guided by survival and society than religion.
blueboyblue 3 years ago
Stealing is not universally accepted as wrong. It depends on who you steal from. There are a few cultures that not only condone stealing, but are trained from childhood that it is part of their livelihood. They only steal from outsiders, however.
gorilladogs 3 years ago
It universally accepted as wrong.
The quibble, the dispute among cultures is not over the Rule, but over the Exceptions.
Thou universally shall not steal except if it is an outsider.
You own statement proves my point, those who accept stealing as a way of life don't steal from each other.
So, again, the no stealing rule is there, but there exceptions are different than ours. There is honor among thieves.
Good point about Dogs in your other post. I was thinking dog/human interaction.
blueboyblue 3 years ago
Remember that the 0.4% is a positive claim. There are many who claim not to believe in a god but do not make the positive claim. Also keep in mind that the Muslim population in the US is 0.5% yet they make up for over 7% of the prison population
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
Also, I don't accept your "that's just the way it is" is not a good enough answer.
cause sometimes the way things are, IS just the way things.
You could say 2+2=4. And I could ask why. And you could explain and I could ask, ok, why is that. You explain some more. Ok, whys that? And so on and so on forever.
Being able to question something(justifiably or even unjustifiably), doesn't make something not so.
girzwald3 3 years ago
Murder is wrong. Universal absolute truth.
With the understanding that murder = killing someone without a good reason.
And someone saying "well I think its a good enough reason" doesn't necessarily make it so.
Just because we cant define absolute morals with our limited language or pinpoint them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
If forever and ever everyone always thought 2+2=6, that wouldn't change that it was incorrect.
We just do our best to try to do whats moral.
girzwald3 3 years ago
"Murder is wrong. Universal absolute truth."
Prove it.
We may not LIKE murder, we may DETEST murder...but by what evidence do you call it a UNIVERSAL and ABSOLUTE truth. Just because you don't care for it? That's opinion, subjective; it's not absolute or universal.
And there are gray areas here; what's the difference between murder, killing, manslaughter, killing in self-defense or defense of another, killing in war...at what point is killing a universally wrong murder?
Proof, please.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Although I detest murder and war, I believe it is wrong and cannot justify it ...
You are right
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
Fair enough, then.
There's nothing at all WRONG with not liking these things, though it helps to be able to articulate why.
But people like to point at their own feelings and declare them universal, which to me seems like a fallacy...
BionicDance 3 years ago
It is a fallacy,
Personal incredulity
SuperFlyNB 3 years ago
Tell me what you will accept as proof and I shall prove it.
Also, I told you what the difference between murder and all those other types of killing was. Please understand terms before you argue them. So, sorry. There is no gray area when you understand the difference between murder and manslaughter, wartime, etc.
girzwald3 3 years ago
Proof must be empirical. Are you familiar with the word empirical in this context? Other than that, I put no limits whatsoever on what I will accept.
And, no, you HAVEN'T provided an explanation for the difference between murder and any other kind of killing. All you said was that it has to be for no good reason, and nobody can just SAY it's a good reason...so whatinhell CONSTITUTES a good reason, hmm? What constitutes a bad one? And how is ANY of that not completely subjective?
BionicDance 3 years ago
Ah so I see. You make no standard of what you will accept, so you can conveniently reject anything that you don't like. Sorry, I wont bother trying to prove something to someone when they wont tell me their standards of proof. Or even something they will accept.
Actually I did define murder. I'm sorry that you have additional questions, but I defined it none the less.
Also, I don't appreciate your clumsy attempt to call me stupid. I'm very aware of what "empirical" means.
girzwald3 3 years ago
I TOLD you what I would accept: anything empirical. Anything objective. Would it be easier if I told what I WON'T accept?
I WON'T accept opinion, appeals to emotion, ethereal and non-falsifiable god-concepts, or any violations of the Logical Fallacies.
That gives you a VERY wide field to play in...and yet you see that as a TRAP? *raises eyebrow*
You said that "murder is wrong" is an ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL truth; prove it within the above parameters, if you can.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Im not a fool. I know its a trap. And I wont fall for it. Because, anything I say that goes against your beliefs you can, and will, dismiss as "my opinion" or "an appeal to emotion".
Why? Because you are a moral relativist, and therefore have no reason to have intellectual integrity or to be trust worthy.
But in the end you all turn out to be hypocrites anyway. Cause I bet if someone murdered your entire family, youd KNOW it was wrong, not just believe it was.
girzwald3 3 years ago
Excuse me, but let me make my OWN fucking arguments, thankyouverymuchindeed. *glare*
Second of all, if someone murdered my entirely family, I'd be outraged...but I wouldn't be outraged because it was WRONG, I'd be outraged because of what was taken from me without my permission.
I'd have actual REASONS why I was unhappy, rather than some nebulous appeal to "right and wrong".
Now either start illuminating your arguments, or concede, because this is getting REALLY OLD.
BionicDance 3 years ago
I accept the fact that the burden of proof is on me, all you have to do is tell me a reasonable condition that you will accept what I say as proof.
I.E. I say something, and you would go....."hmmmmm, you have a good point" and/or "hmmm I guess I was wrong and you were right"
Do so, and I shall dazzle you.
girzwald3 3 years ago
Truth to tell, I can't IMAGINE what would make me say that, because frankly, I don't believe in it. If I'm going to say that, you're going to have to surprise me with something that I haven't thought of before, so I can't GIVE you an example.
You defined murder being wrong as a UNIVERSAL and ABSOLUTE moral...but that's simply patently false from my perspective. First of all, it's not universal; many people don't believe it...which means it's also not absolute. Where do absolutes come from?
BionicDance 3 years ago
Fallacy.
The claim that since other people CAN believe something else, makes it subjective...... is a laughable notion.
I don't believe 2+2=4. Does that make math subjective? No, it just makes ME wrong.
Just because someone personally believes that murder(for whatever reason) is fine does not make it so.
girzwald3 3 years ago
Mathematics is an exact science; you're talking MORALITY. The two are not equal and that is a comparison which cannot be taken seriously.
And I can turn your argument right back on you: just because someone personally believes that "murder is bad" is universal does not make it so.
Back to square one; PROVE. IT.
...and quickly, please; this is getting old. You didn't even ATTEMPT to prove it in this most recent message, you just re-asserted it.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Murder isn't a math sum without alternative "conditions". Nothing is absolute that has conditions. Is it an absolute wrong to kill someone who is trying to murder you? Rape you? You may try not to. If murder being wrong is an absolute, then you better not be eating any meat or vegetables or ... anything, since the act of consumption to support one organism REQUIRES the death, or murder of another organism. And distinguishing the life of any organism on purpose is murder, by definition.
limegreensquid 3 years ago
Murder doesn't include animals.
Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. On second thought, maybe you need to put the dictionary down. I think the word you were looking for was EXTINGUISHING, not distinguishing.
If you are going try to use big words in an effort to sound super smart....use the correct ones.
I could barely understand what you were trying to say anyway. If I was an English teacher, you would have received an F on your grammar and sentence structure.
girzwald3 3 years ago
Oh goodness, i used a word in error, i must be human.
Sounds like someone got up on the cranky side of the bed this morning.
Fine, i'll just accept you are too willing to be ignorant to actual reality (wherein all forms of life are no more or less important - in relation to whether they live or do not live, as life is just a mechanical/electrical function, and was never a divine "gift") to be even worth arguing with. You dodged the questions like a pro loser of an argument.
limegreensquid 3 years ago
Happy Valentine's day!
Guiguilemagicien 3 years ago
I think morality is a byproduct of a valuation of liberty. If you believe that it is right to determine your own path, then most if not all existing moral laws follow logically from that point. Murder is choosing someone else's path for them, that is wrong, so is rape, injury, theft, and a myriad of other concepts. Theft comes into play when we consider extraneous implements as being assistants to a person's goals but thats a little hazy in the construction I have worked out in my head.
MaisonDetre 3 years ago
I'd like to add that a study of 17developed nations in 2005 found an unmistakable correlation between higher rates of belief in and warship of a creator with HIGHER rates of murder, juvenile mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and subsequently a higher abortion rate.
themanofearth 3 years ago
"That's just the way it is"
werdsup 3 years ago
Nicely done. ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago
Your analysis of prison population is faulty, even if the numbers you quote were right (I believe there are far more atheists than 0.4% of the population), the proportion of believers in prison is far higher than non-believers. Christians at 80% prison population vs. 76.5% general population is more than twice the ratio of atheists (.2% vs .4%).
hal2017 3 years ago
Of course there are more christians is prison because there are more christians in the general population, but that doesn't affect the ratios, it is a meaningless statistic.
You should also look at world wise statistics, you will find much lower crime rates in secular societies like the Scandinavian countries, as well as most of Europe and Canada, vs. religious societies like America.
hal2017 3 years ago
It's actually pretty simple:
1 There are no absolutes except that there are no absolutes
2 There is no good and evil, there is only beneficial and harmful, with permission and without permission
3 Morals which SEEM universal are not; you can always find one person who disagrees
4 We don't commit immoralities against each other when we know we won't get caught out of enlightened self-interest; if WE can do it then OTHERS can do it, too. It's an unspoken social contract to keep us safe.
Simple.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Well then according to you, Hitler wasn't evil. And the holocaust MAY have been justified. Because in theory, eugenics could be VERY beneficial to the human race. Hitler could have set us on the path to perfection and utopia. And therefore, killing the sick or the weak or slightly "defective" is completely justified.
girzwald3 3 years ago
You missed part of #2: beneficial versus harmful is one thing, but there's also with permission and without permission.
Hitler did a lot of things WITHOUT PERMISSION; even if he was actually correct--which I don't think he was; many of the standards by which one judges the effectiveness of eugenics are subjective--he didn't have permission for what he did to people.
So, it ISN'T completely justified; the only person you can make decisions for and stay moral is YOU, unless you have consent.
BionicDance 3 years ago
If I could prove that killing you and your entire family would benefit all of mankind....would you be ok with that? I doubt it. You'd prolly scream, "You cant do that, we have rights!"
Really? Says who?
And what obligates me to respect your "rights"?
The law? Well, what obligates me to respect the law?
No wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket. Its people like you who tell people that nothing they do is wrong.
girzwald3 3 years ago
Again, I point to the second part of #2: with permission or without permission. i put it in there; you just ignored it, apparently.
You also seem to have missed #4. What obligates you to respect the law? Because when people violate the social contract we have to behave YOU GET PUNISHED. The law doesn't depend on your good will; it is ENFORCED.
And why is "wrong" more important than "harmful and without permission"? The only difference is whether or not that judgment is subjective or objective.
BionicDance 3 years ago
Instead of asking "Why is this right or wrong?" try framing your questions as "What should I do in this given situation?" and "Why sould I do that?" Every time your inquiries seem to yield something in terms of things being right/wrong, reframe that question or answer in terms of how you should behave.
It's not an answer, but it's an exercise that will open your mind to new ways of thinking.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago