Dodece said: @KungKras What you are describing is to the letter the justification for Genocide, Slavery, Colonialism, Inquisitions, Misogyny, Pogroms, Terrorism, Ethnic Cleansing, Bigotry, Concentration Camp, Environmental Exploitation, and just about every war in the history of mankind. In other words you may need to rethink your positions on this question. I doubt you would care too much for your option if you were in the minority.

Since when were genocides justified by "The most abmount of people will benefit from this"?

It was always "Our people will benefit from this" that led to those things. Some colonialists didn't even think of the people in the lands they conquered as humans.

I fail to see the similarity. More human suffering and death = less moral, and more human well-being = more moral. Seems like a perfectly good definition to me.

Of course it does. Absolute morals require a God. Only a God can make morals absolute.

Non-believers' morals are subjective and relative in that they're dependent on a bunch of ever-changing factors in the individual and in society.

Slimebeast said: Of course it does. Absolute morals require a God. Only a God can make morals absolute. Non-believers' morals are subjective and relative in that they're dependent on a bunch of ever-changing factors in the individual and in society.

Well, the morals of religious people change over time as well.

Consider the mainstream Christian positions on slavery, then civil rights, and most recently gay marriage/partnerships.

Read Immanuel Kant Metaphysic of Morals

You're redefining what's "good" and "bad" as beneficial for society instead of a moral "good" or "bad." It may have ultimately been good for America to exterminate the Native Americans to form their own society and advance the world, but it doesn't make it morally okay.

RCTjunkie said: You're redefining what's "good" and "bad" as beneficial for society instead of a moral "good" or "bad." It may have ultimately been good for America to exterminate the Native Americans to form their own society and advance the world, but it doesn't make it morally okay.

What's best for society is what's best for the most people possible, which is usually what's best for each individual in the longterm. If that's not an accurate definition of "good", then what is? I'm not asking for examples of morally good behavior, I'm asking you for what "morally good" means. What is the definition of "morally good"? If your response isn't "what's best for the most people possible", then the definition of "morally good" is pretty meaningless. In which case, humans have no obligation to do "morally good" behavior as it has no tangible benefits for anyone.

BTW, your American example includes harm done to Native Americans which contradicts with being beneficial for society (by society, I'm including all people involved in a decision)

Jay520 said: RCTjunkie said: You're redefining what's "good" and "bad" as beneficial for society instead of a moral "good" or "bad." It may have ultimately been good for America to exterminate the Native Americans to form their own society and advance the world, but it doesn't make it morally okay. What's best for society is what's best for the most people possible, which is usually what's best for each individual in the longterm. If that's not an accurate definition of "good", then what is? I'm not asking for examples of morally good behavior, I'm asking you for what "morally good" means. What is the definition of "morally good"? If your response isn't "what's best for the most people possible", then the definition of "morally good" is pretty meaningless. In which case, humans have no obligation to do "morally good" behavior as it has no tangible benefits for anyone.

Good question. A definition of "good" would be reflecting God's character (compassion, fairness, kindness, etc.) which in a way is what's best for the most people possible, I suppose. That's not the point, however. I'm questioning why morality has to have its basis as tangible benefits. I'm a firm believer in the rule that "no good deed goes unpunished," meaning that when people do a good deed for others, there can be backlash and punishment for doing what is right. If one is to redefine "morally good" meaning what is most beneficial, then there's no God-given life, liberty, or persuit of happiness guaranteed, and at any moment one could be martyred or ostricized for whatever "beneficial" reason the people can declare, as well as people not going out to do good for others at more cost to them because there won't be a tangible benefit for the person. I hope this made sense....

RCTjunkie said: Jay520 said: RCTjunkie said: You're redefining what's "good" and "bad" as beneficial for society instead of a moral "good" or "bad." It may have ultimately been good for America to exterminate the Native Americans to form their own society and advance the world, but it doesn't make it morally okay. What's best for society is what's best for the most people possible, which is usually what's best for each individual in the longterm. If that's not an accurate definition of "good", then what is? I'm not asking for examples of morally good behavior, I'm asking you for what "morally good" means. What is the definition of "morally good"? If your response isn't "what's best for the most people possible", then the definition of "morally good" is pretty meaningless. In which case, humans have no obligation to do "morally good" behavior as it has no tangible benefits for anyone. Good question. A definition of "good" would be reflecting God's character (compassion, fairness, kindness, etc.) which in a way is what's best for the most people possible, I suppose. That's not the point, however. I'm questioning why morality has to have its basis as tangible benefits. I'm a firm believer in the rule that "no good deed goes unpunished," meaning that when people do a good deed for others, there can be backlash and punishment for doing what is right. If one is to redefine "morally good" meaning what is most beneficial, then there's no God-given life, liberty, or persuit of happiness guaranteed, and at any moment one could be martyred or ostricized for whatever "beneficial" reason the people can declare, as well as people not going out to do good for others at more cost to them because there won't be a tangible benefit for the person. I hope this made sense....

We can value life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because these things are universally deemed to be good on at least a personal level (e.g. while not all people might think that everyone deserves to be free, every individual will value his or her freedom).

Essentially (i told all y'all in this thread to read some Kant) the Golden Rule can serve as a god substitute, because we have these things that are universally valued on an individual level, such that we can know that violating these things is inherently wrong.

The questions come from the definitions of life (as seen in the questions of abortion and physician assisted suicide) liberty (namely the extent of property rights) and pursuit of happiness (is gratification a prime source of happiness), but we all can agree that none of us would like to be deprived of these things, and therefore understand that it is bad to do these things to others.

Mr Khan said: RCTjunkie said: Jay520 said: RCTjunkie said: You're redefining what's "good" and "bad" as beneficial for society instead of a moral "good" or "bad." It may have ultimately been good for America to exterminate the Native Americans to form their own society and advance the world, but it doesn't make it morally okay. What's best for society is what's best for the most people possible, which is usually what's best for each individual in the longterm. If that's not an accurate definition of "good", then what is? I'm not asking for examples of morally good behavior, I'm asking you for what "morally good" means. What is the definition of "morally good"? If your response isn't "what's best for the most people possible", then the definition of "morally good" is pretty meaningless. In which case, humans have no obligation to do "morally good" behavior as it has no tangible benefits for anyone. Good question. A definition of "good" would be reflecting God's character (compassion, fairness, kindness, etc.) which in a way is what's best for the most people possible, I suppose. That's not the point, however. I'm questioning why morality has to have its basis as tangible benefits. I'm a firm believer in the rule that "no good deed goes unpunished," meaning that when people do a good deed for others, there can be backlash and punishment for doing what is right. If one is to redefine "morally good" meaning what is most beneficial, then there's no God-given life, liberty, or persuit of happiness guaranteed, and at any moment one could be martyred or ostricized for whatever "beneficial" reason the people can declare, as well as people not going out to do good for others at more cost to them because there won't be a tangible benefit for the person. I hope this made sense.... We can value life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because these things are universally deemed to be good on at least a personal level (e.g. while not all people might think that everyone deserves to be free, every individual will value his or her freedom). Essentially (i told all y'all in this thread to read some Kant) the Golden Rule can serve as a god substitute, because we have these things that are universally valued on an individual level, such that we can know that violating these things is inherently wrong. The questions come from the definitions of life (as seen in the questions of abortion and physician assisted suicide) liberty (namely the extent of property rights) and pursuit of happiness (is gratification a prime source of happiness), but we all can agree that none of us would like to be deprived of these things, and therefore understand that it is bad to do these things to others.

My issue is in regards to why we think that we have moral worth when we are just byproducts of an accidental evolution? In the grand scheme of things, being microspecks in a grand universe with no purpose except to eventually die off, why think our moral intrinsic value as any greater than a flea's? What actual basis of the golden rule ultimately makes that way of living any better than any selfish creature only looking out for his own best interests when looked upon from an atheistic point of view? There's no reasoning to think it would be bad to deprive others because with such a worldview, one cannot have inherently wrong and right morals based on anything. Nature is morally neutral. 

C.S.Lewis would argue yes, I guess:

“Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires - one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.”