Slimebeast said:
The_vagabond7 said:
Slimebeast said:
The_vagabond7 said:
Slimebeast said:
Mise said:
Slimebeast said:
The_vagabond7 said:
Good and evil aren't real tangible objective things, they are entirely decided by the cultural zeitgeist of the day.
|
Really? So can think of a scenario where it's a good act to torture a baby?
Or rather, do you mean it is irrelevant to ever describe the act of torturing a child good/right or evil/wrong?
|
Don't know if this applies, but some cultures consider things like infant circumcision (without painkillers, of course) and ritual tattoos to be a good thing - and because both procedures tend to be quite painful, they could be considered physical torture by someone with a different point of view.
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with The_vagabond7.
|
Please put at least a little thought into this.
Your examples were horrible and don't apply here, because in your scenarios the procedure of cirumcising the child has a purpose, some kind of gain.
Instead think of a scenario where you have one guy in the woods alone with a baby. And he's got a hammer. There is no gain except for his own temporary pleasure.
Right or wrong? Good or evil?
|
If you're asking if I think it's acceptable to torture a baby, absolutely not, obviously. But if you're asking whether there is some intrinsic built in "sense of right and wrong" that tells me this, then no, because there are people that would think it is ok to torture a baby as in various examples already given above.
Humanity doesn't have some built in "protect all defenseless children" morality in them, at best they have a "protect the children that belong to my societal group" instinct. As with the Israelites, slaughtering children of other nationalities was perfectly acceptable, and encouraged, they were to protect their young. Alot of modern people though, don't draw the line in nationality or religious group anymore, but rather the human race, and thusly feel that torturing or executing any baby would be wrong. Sometimes people even extend it to all mammals or life that is sufficiently complex. Protect baby seals, or other wild life, but who cares about insect larva, ect ect. Where as others would just as soon hunt aa baby seal for profit. We have an instinct to a certain extent to protect our own young, and mirror neurons give a certain degree of empathy (that is to say we experience pain or pleasure that we see, even if the stimuli isn't being directly applied to us) but such things vary wildly and are hardly concrete, and certainly doesn't represent a unified morality.
|
So why is it not acceptable to torture a baby? Just because you happen to have genes that tell you so?
So what if I don't have those genes and I am not a product of your particular culture? Then your argument ends there. I would not listen to you and you would have no influence over my decisions.
|
Point being? Have you looked at the middle east? They don't listen to me, and my views on ethics don't influence their decisions, and my arguments would have no affect on them. That's kind of the point.
|
Exactly. Point being that atheist morals as you, highwaystar and others in this thread have presented them are practically worthless.
Why would I ever listen to you when we debate immigrant policies, racism or whatever?
And thus I've reached full circle in this thread:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
My real answer, events happen naturally , we are the ones that label them good and evil.
We also label these events in a spectrum. There is no such thing as good and evil per se, but good on one side of the spectrum and evil on the other, and everything exists as points in between.
|
The atheist view. Because everything that happens is predetermined (minus some randomness on the quantum level or whatever) there is no free will. And therefore no one is accountable for his actions. Thus there is no such thing as right or wrong, no good or evil.
|
|
The atheist viewpoint of morals are not worthless.
People or groups tend to do what we would call evil actions, mainly because they believe they are good and they have the moral "right". These boil down to 2 things:
1. Arrogance: The "I know I'm right and your wrong so I'm superior until you change your view" attitude.
2. Ignorance: When people literally don't have the complete picture or have been misled. For instance, in the UK some groups are up in arms after a tabloid ran a story saying that certain pubs would ban people wearing the England shirt, when it's actually not true.
Just because atheists accept that peoples morals are heavily based on when and where someone is raised or on a person's genes doesn't mean we don't have our own personal view as to what morals would benefit society. An atheist would typically try to educate others as to why they believe their moral viewpoint would benefit society.
Just because we're atheists doesn't mean we don't have a viewpoint on what is good or bad, nor does it mean we wouldn't wish to change someones viewpoint if we believed they were wrong. It just means we look at another person's culture and heritage and understand his/her viewpoint. And unlike religion where morals tend to be set in stone (e.g. don't use condoms, abortion, divorce, women should cover up their hair, don't eat pork etc.), the atheist is more likely to take in others view and makes his/her mind up.
Finally, you seem to have a flawed view of the atheist view. Atheists say nothing is pre-determined. Everything is down to our own choices but held by the laws of physics that govern us. Right and wrong are simply labels that we decide upon and are based on the views of the people. As different people have different views, everything is a shade of grey, not black and white as you seem to believe. The morals of the majority are enforced by law (accountability) to help benefit society. If good and evil truly existed, then every country should have identical laws, but this isn't the case.
Btw: I replied to your child torture scenario, I'd be interested in hearing your response.
