Christianity as a viral meme complex

[El_Machinae]

Human sacrfice would also be good then if the people being sacrificed believed it was good?

Self-sacrifice is one the "The Goods" that I mentioned earlier. The person being sacrificied would likely agree to be sacrificied if they believed that it was 'worth it'.

Throwing yourself on a grenade. Running back into a burning building. Charging a criminal to allow others to escape. Donating a kidney.

These are all actions which can be considered good, and they all can conceiviably lead to the martyr's death.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Why is god the only possible source of objective good or objective morality? I don't think there's an objective morality, or an objective definition of 'good', but I can't see how there being one would imply god.

Well if theres such a thing as absolute, non relative good, what would be the difference betwen that, and god?

Self-sacrifice is one the "The Goods" that I mentioned earlier. The person being sacrificied would likely agree to be sacrificied if they believed that it was 'worth it'.

Throwing yourself on a grenade. Running back into a burning building. Charging a criminal to allow others to escape. Donating a kidney.

These are all actions which can be considered good, and they all can conceiviably lead to the martyr's death.

El, so then the things we consider to be wrong, like murder, rape, genocide, torture, they arent really wrong in an objective sense. It just depends on how you look at it?

 

[nonconformist]

El, so then the things we consider to be wrong, like murder, rape, genocide, torture, they arent really wrong in an objective sense. It just depends on how you look at it?

Why do you think genocide happens, my dear Bozo?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Why do you think genocide happens, my dear Bozo?

I know what you mean, but isnt genocide just wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well if theres such a thing as absolute, non relative good, what would be the difference betwen that, and god?

El, so then the things we consider to be wrong, like murder, rape, genocide, torture, they arent really wrong in an objective sense. It just depends on how you look at it?

Death and suffering happen, whether perpetrators are there or not. If God exists, then He is either directly or indirectly responsible for those deaths and suffering. If causing death and suffering (either through action, or inaction) is wrong, then God is guilty.

But let's go back to looking at the perpetrator and the victim. In your four cases, the perpetrator can be assumed to derived some 'Good' from his actions (murder and genocide reduce resource competition, torture gives needed information, rape - is too political to touch). Now, the Good that the perpetrator receives is easily lumped into the "Personal Good" category, but none of the others. Can you set up a case where I would agree that murder, genocide and torture were 'worth it'? Or course you can. Can I set up scenarios where I would get you to agree that it wasn't 'worth it'? Of course. From a utilitarian perspective, it's easy to go either way.

I know what you mean, but isnt genocide just wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks?

Genocide happens all the time, it's just the rate of genocide that seems to spark interest. By encouraging family planning, I'm reducing the reproductive rate of my competition. By attempting to integrate cultures, we are slowly killing their cultures. If genocide was de facto evil, then the rate of genocide wouldn't matter, just the end effect. But rate does seem to matter.

 

[nonconformist]

I know what you mean, but isnt genocide just wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks?

I'm really in a devil's advocate position here, but what if you thought you were saving the human race from infection, or inferior, then you'd do it.
Many of the guards at concentration camps still have little remorse, or think that they were doing right at the time.

Not to mention most people would commit genocide anyway.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

You know what guys? This is all quantum philosophy. Very interesting but it has no bearing on the human world. Human society and civilization would cease to exist if this relativist insanity was really adopted. Thats why its complete b.s. If it can only exist in a green house on top of an ivory tower, then its an invalid, false philosophy. The reality is, everyone is born with an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. That instinct can be overridden by outside pressure and lead to things like concentration camps and torture, but that doesnt mean that those things arent wrong, all it means is that groups of people can go astray.

 

[sanabas]

Well if theres such a thing as absolute, non relative good, what would be the difference betwen that, and god?

Because an absolute, non-relative good is simply a subset of most definitions I've heard for god.

If you assume the universe has been created by god, I don't have a problem assuming that the universe has been set up with absolute, non-relative good as defined by god. But the universe can have absolute, non relative constants without the necessity of god. It has other constants like that now, why is god the only one able to supply a constant to measure good against?

El, so then the things we consider to be wrong, like murder, rape, genocide, torture, they arent really wrong in an objective sense. It just depends on how you look at it?

What El_Machinae said above. I can think of situations in which I could justify most of those. The majority of people alive now seem to think humans are more important than other animals, it's not that different to redraw those boundaries to say one particular subset of humans (your family, your tribe for instance) is more important than the others, and it's good (as in morally correct) to choose actions that benefit your group at the expense of other groups.

 

[nonconformist]

You know what guys? This is all quantum philosophy. Very interesting but it has no bearing on the human world. Human society and civilization would cease to exist if this relativist insanity was really adopted. Thats why its complete b.s. If it can only exist in a green house on top of an ivory tower, then its an invalid, false philosophy. The reality is, everyone is born with an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. That instinct can be overridden by outside pressure and lead to things like concentration camps and torture, but that doesnt mean that those things arent wrong, all it means is that groups of people can go astray.

We aren't. That's why this sort of thing happens.
Why do you think wars happen? Civbil rights clashes? All that stuff?

 

[El_Machinae]

???

When you get groups of people deciding on morality, then the Utilitarianism Good is often looked for, and other goods are balanced in. Personal Good will likely take a back seat to Greater Good. Self-Sacrifice will be encouraged. Etc.

If it can only exist in a green house on top of an ivory tower, then its an invalid, false philosophy.

That's my view of everyone's definition of God. Except that I just say that it's not useful.

Bozo: what you didn't answer was ... if rape, genocide, murder, and torture are ALWAYS wrong, then why do you accept it when God does it? Either it's not always wrong, or He's not always good.

 

[sanabas]

You know what guys? This is all quantum philosophy. Very interesting but it has no bearing on the human world. Human society and civilization would cease to exist if this relativist insanity was really adopted. Thats why its complete b.s. If it can only exist in a green house on top of an ivory tower, then its an invalid, false philosophy. The reality is, everyone is born with an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong. That instinct can be overridden by outside pressure and lead to things like concentration camps and torture, but that doesnt mean that those things arent wrong, all it means is that groups of people can go astray.

Prerequisite for our current society and civilisation != objectively good in my eyes. If you decree that our current society and civilisation is the way things are supposed to be, then yeah, you can be reasonably objective about some of the moral choices required to get there. But I don't see that we're meant to have our current society. From my personal, subjective point of view, I'd rather have civilisation than not have it. But by what objective standard is civilisation & human society better than no civilisation?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

That's my view of everyone's definition of God. Except that I just say that it's not useful.

Which brings us back to what started the discussion: god. Look what happens when people shut themselves off from god. They drift around without a compass, not knowing whats right or whats wrong. In fact, not even aware that theres a right and wrong. Congratulations, youve found a way to give the Apple back to the Serpent, and now we can become beasts again and lay down in the Garden, with no judgement:thumbdown

 

[El_Machinae]

Bozo: what you didn't answer was ... if rape, genocide, murder, and torture are ALWAYS wrong, then why do you accept it when God does it? Either it's not always wrong, or He's not always good.

There are no purely good actions, because every human action will indirectly hurt someone else. The only thing people can do is avoid the damage they do, which requires reasoning and information. I can guess what hurts you, and I can guess what hurts me. I HAVE to put relative pain into my determination. For example, I put current people above future people in relative worth.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Prerequisite for our current society and civilisation != objectively good in my eyes. If you decree that our current society and civilisation is the way things are supposed to be, then yeah, you can be reasonably objective about some of the moral choices required to get there. But I don't see that we're meant to have our current society. From my personal, subjective point of view, I'd rather have civilisation than not have it.

Wouldnt you say that we've progressed? Isnt human existence 'kinder and gentler' than when we first fell out of the trees? We seem to be moving in a certain direction dont we?

But by what objective standard is civilisation & human society better than no civilisation?

Huh? Having a civilization isnt an objective good? Running around nude, being chased by dire wolves, and shivering in the cold and dark, can be just as good, depending on how you look at it?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Bozo: what you didn't answer was ... if rape, genocide, murder, and torture are ALWAYS wrong, then why do you accept it when God does it? Either it's not always wrong, or He's not always good.

God decided that living things die. The universe, as we know it, will also die. So to you, this means god is a murderer?

 

[El_Machinae]

Dude, if I kill someone, or allow someone to be killed through inaction, are you going to applaud me?

Yes, I consider God to be responsible for every shred of misery in the universe, because He started it. Just like I am directly responsible for every shred of suffering my offspring experience. Now, I will do everything in my power to reduce my offspring's suffering, but I don't see God doing the same thing. I can also admit that having a son was a selfish action, and I can also weigh his birth from a Utilitarian perspective. But I cannot say that having him was 'pure good'.

How can you say that God didn't cause the suffering that exists?

 

[El_Machinae]

God decided that living things die.

If genocide is an ABSOLUTE WRONG, then deciding that all living things die is an affirmative, and evil action. To say that it's 'sometimes wrong' or 'wrong for some' is to dilute the murder in relativism.

edit: Booyah

 

[sanabas]

Wouldnt you say that we've progressed? Isnt human existence 'kinder and gentler' than when we first fell out of the trees? We seem to be moving in a certain direction dont we?

Huh? Having a civilization isnt an objective good? Running around nude, being chased by dire wolves, and shivering in the cold and dark, can be just as good, depending on how you look at it?

By my standards? Yeah, the current situation is better than what it would have been 10000 years ago. But that's not an objective good. That's a good thing by my subjective standards. By a dodo's subjective standard's, human civilisation sucks. By my own subjective standards, and having not experienced either one, I think I'd prefer running around nude being chased by wolves than I would living in a massively overpopulated thirld world country.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think I'd prefer running around nude being chased by wolves than I would living in a massively overpopulated thirld world country.

Luckily, we're living in a world where one can watch a (improvingly realistic) movie about being chased by wolves while living in a 3rd world country! So, we're doing okay.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Dude, if I kill someone, or allow someone to be killed through inaction, are you going to applaud me?

Yes, I consider God to be responsible for every shred of misery in the universe, because He started it. Just like I am directly responsible for every shred of suffering my offspring experience. Now, I will do everything in my power to reduce my offspring's suffering, but I don't see God doing the same thing. I can also admit that having a son was a selfish action, and I can also weigh his birth from a Utilitarian perspective. But I cannot say that having him was 'pure good'.

How can you say that God didn't cause the suffering that exists?

Ok lets get back to the basics: God set up a system. In this system, living things have a finite lifespan. They derive nourishment mostly from other living things. In this system, these living things have nerves, which transmit two primary messages from the outside world, pleasure and pain (good and evil). How does that make god a murderer, torturer and rapist?