sapphi_snake said:
What's irrational about not considering that morals have anything to do with a fantasy being? The imaginary deity that you worship is not in any way objective, the Bible is perfect proof of that. Someone's whim's are obviously a bad reason to take morals into account. And rationality is a certain way of thinking that implies certain things, therefore something rational will be absolute (situations like you described are only possible if either the people commit logical errors due to whatever circumstances). Morals aren't objective because more often then not they're not founded in rationality and logic, but rather on premises regarding superstition. Morals are determined by the cultural context in which they're born in (historical perion, geographical location), so you'll have have morals born in specific areas due to specific circumstances of those areas. While the moral rule may make sense in the cultural context in which it was born in, it would seem illogical to someone from another culture. Morals are also conservative in nature, so you'll have situations where the premises that lead to the borth of a certain moral rule change (due to new information, technological advancements etc.), thus making the moral rule irrelevant and illogical within the new cultural context, yet the moral rule will persist due to the conservative population that will continue to inforce it, even if the moral rule will cause harm at this point. Christian morality is a good example of this. Religions are false superstitions, therefore any moral based on a religion will start off from faulty premises, and will only incidentally be logical (sometimes this happens), but most often it will be illogical. Also, we were talking about civil rights and American society, so I was talking about a particular context, not humanity in general when I made that comment to NinjaguyDan. The US, as well as all Western countries, are founded on certain principles that do not (and should not) permit the opression of minorities. |
Ugh, that wasnt my point. i said , if you believe morals are an made than so is rationality, and thus it cant be good or bad. I wasnt talking about why morals are God given or man made or why beleiveng in either one of that is irrational. Do you think that Hitler thought that killing 6 million innocent people was irrational? To him, it is irrational that the Jews should have any kind of rights whatsoever. So was he an irrational person to him and to millions and millions of his followers ? No, because he thought that was perfectly rational. If morals can come out the way you described it (trough religion, historcal person etc etc...) than so can ''rational'' thoughts. Every person has diffrent definition of ''rational'' on diffrent subject. There is a certian way of thinking in rationality but it sure as hell not the same to every person in the world so it can not possibly be absolute. And dont say ''just because one think hes rational, doesnt make him so'' because the same thing can be said about morals too. There are no errors in rational thinking, just like there are no errors in morals (that is what you believe in, so I am going by your logic on morals, thats sure as hell not something I believe in). As for the part ''While the moral rule may make sense in the cultural context in which it was born in, it would seem illogical to someone from another culture'' <---- The same thing can be said about rational thoughts. Do you think Mein kampf is considered a rational book in Israel?
As for religion being a false superstition, you have absolutely zero evidance to make that statent, so I will just ignore it.
Im sorry, but you can not possibly explain rationality without objective morality. i've watched debate videos on this, and it is a confirmed fact.
