Good and Evil

[Gary Childress]

I can say harm and malice are harmful and therefore "immoral". You'd just reject it on the grounds that I'm agnostic, though.

So far you've told me that "malice is malice." Now "harm is harmful."

I'm sorry, Gary...it's just tautologies.

Let me try again: how does this "harm" thing end up being "immoral"? Lions "harm" gazelles; but nobody calls them "immoral." Sunbathers "harm" mosquitoes, but nobody calls them "immoral" either. Heck, athletes "harm" their own muscles, and people praise them for working out and staying fit.

How do you logically connect "harm" and "immorality"?

Don't worry about it. Apparently, you can't be moral unless God tells you to. You'll never understand.

[Immanuel Can]

I can say harm and malice are harmful and therefore "immoral". You'd just reject it on the grounds that I'm agnostic, though.

So far you've told me that "malice is malice." Now "harm is harmful."

I'm sorry, Gary...it's just tautologies.

Let me try again: how does this "harm" thing end up being "immoral"? Lions "harm" gazelles; but nobody calls them "immoral." Sunbathers "harm" mosquitoes, but nobody calls them "immoral" either. Heck, athletes "harm" their own muscles, and people praise them for working out and staying fit.

How do you logically connect "harm" and "immorality"?

Don't worry about it.

I don't have to. As an objectivist, I can do it. But I haven't seen you do it.

Have a try.

[Gary Childress]

So far you've told me that "malice is malice." Now "harm is harmful."

I'm sorry, Gary...it's just tautologies.

Let me try again: how does this "harm" thing end up being "immoral"? Lions "harm" gazelles; but nobody calls them "immoral." Sunbathers "harm" mosquitoes, but nobody calls them "immoral" either. Heck, athletes "harm" their own muscles, and people praise them for working out and staying fit.

How do you logically connect "harm" and "immorality"?

Don't worry about it.

I don't have to. As an objectivist, I can do it. But I haven't seen you do it.

Have a try.

You're no more an "objectivist" than anyone else is. You're clueless. Maybe you'll figure it out when you die. You're going to the grave like the rest of us and your body will rot just the same. Delusional idiot.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't worry about it.

I don't have to. As an objectivist, I can do it. But I haven't seen you do it.

Have a try.

You're no more an "objectivist" than anyone else is.

Well, even if you were right (and you're not, of course) it wouldn't help you to connect "harm" and "immoral." That's a justification you have to come up with yourself.

Not going to try? Or just can't?

[Gary Childress]

I don't have to. As an objectivist, I can do it. But I haven't seen you do it.

Have a try.

You're no more an "objectivist" than anyone else is.

Well, even if you were right (and you're not, of course) it wouldn't help you to connect "harm" and "immoral." That's a justification you have to come up with yourself.

Not going to try? Or just can't?

One way to morality is for someone to proclaim that murder is wrong according to what God told them. Another way to morality is for people to come together as a society and vote on what is right and what is wrong. Most human societies have some sense of unjust killing--murder. Most human societies have sexual taboos, etc.

You say murder is wrong because it's written in the Bible. I say murder is wrong because as a society most of us have voted that murder is wrong, most likely because few if any of us want to be murdered ourselves.

Your "foundation" is more rigid and you yourself don't seem to adhere to its rigidity (in so far as you condone Israel's retaliation against the Palestinians in Gaza which is resulting in the death of some innocent civilians). My "foundation" is a little more flexible in that it is something we agree to. It can be changed to fit specific circumstances or cases. So it's a bit counterintuitive that I don't condone Israel's response to Hamas but you do. You are an odd "Christian".

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think violence that victimizes random bystanders is conducive to long-term peace and harmony. So in a sense, I'm a consequentialist I suppose. However, I am a bit deontological when it comes to the sanctity of human life in so far as I believe it's best for all of us to respect each other's well-being as much as possible.

[Sculptor]

You're no more an "objectivist" than anyone else is.

Well, even if you were right (and you're not, of course) it wouldn't help you to connect "harm" and "immoral." That's a justification you have to come up with yourself.

Not going to try? Or just can't?

One way to morality is for someone to proclaim that murder is wrong according to what God told them. Another way to morality is for people to come together as a society and vote on what is right and what is wrong. Most human societies have some sense of unjust killing--murder. Most human societies have sexual taboos, etc.

You say murder is wrong because it's written in the Bible. I say murder is wrong because as a society most of us have voted that murder is wrong, most likely because few if any of us want to be murdered ourselves.

Your "foundation" is more rigid and you yourself don't seem to adhere to its rigidity (in so far as you condone Israel's retaliation against the Palestinians in Gaza which is resulting in the death of some innocent civilians). My "foundation" is a little more flexible in that it is something we agree to. It can be changed to fit specific circumstances or cases. So it's a bit counterintuitive that I don't condone Israel's response to Hamas but you do. You are an odd "Christian".

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think violence that victimizes random bystanders is conducive to long-term peace and harmony. So in a sense, I'm a consequentialist I suppose. However, I am a bit deontological when it comes to the sanctity of human life in so far as I believe it's best for all of us to respect each other's well-being as much as possible.

Moral systems were made long before there was ANY kind of formal religion.
The bible is a patchwork collection of many of the moral ideas that already existed.

[Gary Childress]

Well, even if you were right (and you're not, of course) it wouldn't help you to connect "harm" and "immoral." That's a justification you have to come up with yourself.

Not going to try? Or just can't?

One way to morality is for someone to proclaim that murder is wrong according to what God told them. Another way to morality is for people to come together as a society and vote on what is right and what is wrong. Most human societies have some sense of unjust killing--murder. Most human societies have sexual taboos, etc.

You say murder is wrong because it's written in the Bible. I say murder is wrong because as a society most of us have voted that murder is wrong, most likely because few if any of us want to be murdered ourselves.

Your "foundation" is more rigid and you yourself don't seem to adhere to its rigidity (in so far as you condone Israel's retaliation against the Palestinians in Gaza which is resulting in the death of some innocent civilians). My "foundation" is a little more flexible in that it is something we agree to. It can be changed to fit specific circumstances or cases. So it's a bit counterintuitive that I don't condone Israel's response to Hamas but you do. You are an odd "Christian".

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think violence that victimizes random bystanders is conducive to long-term peace and harmony. So in a sense, I'm a consequentialist I suppose. However, I am a bit deontological when it comes to the sanctity of human life in so far as I believe it's best for all of us to respect each other's well-being as much as possible.

Moral systems were made long before there was ANY kind of formal religion.
The bible is a patchwork collection of many of the moral ideas that already existed.

Yes. That is my understanding as well. However, evangelical Christians don't seem to believe that, so I don't know what else to someone who refutes truth in favor of fiction.

[Sculptor]

One way to morality is for someone to proclaim that murder is wrong according to what God told them. Another way to morality is for people to come together as a society and vote on what is right and what is wrong. Most human societies have some sense of unjust killing--murder. Most human societies have sexual taboos, etc.

You say murder is wrong because it's written in the Bible. I say murder is wrong because as a society most of us have voted that murder is wrong, most likely because few if any of us want to be murdered ourselves.

Your "foundation" is more rigid and you yourself don't seem to adhere to its rigidity (in so far as you condone Israel's retaliation against the Palestinians in Gaza which is resulting in the death of some innocent civilians). My "foundation" is a little more flexible in that it is something we agree to. It can be changed to fit specific circumstances or cases. So it's a bit counterintuitive that I don't condone Israel's response to Hamas but you do. You are an odd "Christian".

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think violence that victimizes random bystanders is conducive to long-term peace and harmony. So in a sense, I'm a consequentialist I suppose. However, I am a bit deontological when it comes to the sanctity of human life in so far as I believe it's best for all of us to respect each other's well-being as much as possible.

Moral systems were made long before there was ANY kind of formal religion.
The bible is a patchwork collection of many of the moral ideas that already existed.

Yes. That is my understanding as well. However, evangelical Christians don't seem to believe that, so I don't know what else to someone who refutes truth in favor of fiction.

The arrogance of CHristians is monumental. But this delusion is not restricted to the evangelical ones.
And the general delusion is common to Islam and most tragically at the moment to Judaism.

[Immanuel Can]

...Another way to morality is for people to come together as a society and vote on what is right and what is wrong.

There's another term for that: mob rule. It means that you just trust that the majority can never be wrong. But we know for a fact that the majority has been wrong many, many times in history.

But here's the deeper problem: what principle tells you that you ought to do what is "voted on," and by what "society"? Where is that principle written?

Still, you haven't done a thing to connect the term "harm" to the term "moral." So I'm really interested in seeing you try that...if you can.

[Harbal]

Still, you haven't done a thing to connect the term "harm" to the term "moral." So I'm really interested in seeing you try that...if you can.

Simply knowing the dictionary definition of "moral" is enough to be able to connect the term, "harm" to it.

[Immanuel Can]

Still, you haven't done a thing to connect the term "harm" to the term "moral." So I'm really interested in seeing you try that...if you can.

Simply knowing the dictionary definition of "moral" is enough to be able to connect the term, "harm" to it.

It's not, actually. Because that definition is, according to subjectivism, purely arbitrary: it refers to no objective property of anything, including "harm" (whatever we interpret that to be).

[Harbal]

Still, you haven't done a thing to connect the term "harm" to the term "moral." So I'm really interested in seeing you try that...if you can.

Simply knowing the dictionary definition of "moral" is enough to be able to connect the term, "harm" to it.

It's not, actually. Because that definition is, according to subjectivism, purely arbitrary: it refers to no objective property of anything, including "harm" (whatever we interpret that to be).

Well I associate the idea of not doing harm with morality, and I suspect most other people do. Whether they are averse to doing harm is another matter, but they will still know it is part and parcel of morality.

[Gary Childress]

...Another way to morality is for people to come together as a society and vote on what is right and what is wrong.

There's another term for that: mob rule. It means that you just trust that the majority can never be wrong. But we know for a fact that the majority has been wrong many, many times in history.

But here's the deeper problem: what principle tells you that you ought to do what is "voted on," and by what "society"? Where is that principle written?

Still, you haven't done a thing to connect the term "harm" to the term "moral." So I'm really interested in seeing you try that...if you can.

The principle that tells me I ought to do what is voted on is to not get sanctioned by the justice system. Breaking laws can have consequences. As far as connecting harm to moral, it seems like a very instinctive connection to me. Doing harm of some kind is generally connected with just about every "immoral" act.

I agree that God would be necessary in order to ensure that justice is upheld "perfectly". Otherwise, some might be able to get away with immoral actions if not caught. However, that's a different problem than coming up with a list of things that could be considered harmful or immoral. People do that all the time. People who write books like the Bible come up with lists of things they deem wrong and then they tell us "God" told them it was wrong. People from many unconnected societies around the globe have come up with similar lists of rights and wrongs. Murder, taboo, adultery, incest. They're common archetypes among human societies. To me, that points to something innate in us or our circumstances. It's the same innate code that tells worker ants what to do in an ant colony and tells the queen what to do. I assume God doesn't tell worker ants to bring food to the queen. I assume they don't have pen and paper to write a list of "commandments" for their colony. They just do. It's "hard wired" into them, like cats playing with mice they catch. There are some things we do that we just do instinctively.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Immanuel Can]

Simply knowing the dictionary definition of "moral" is enough to be able to connect the term, "harm" to it.

It's not, actually. Because that definition is, according to subjectivism, purely arbitrary: it refers to no objective property of anything, including "harm" (whatever we interpret that to be).

Well I associate the idea of not doing harm with morality, and I suspect most other people do.

But if subjectivism is true, then that fact is worth precisely zero, at least in terms of showng that "harm" ought to be associated with immorality. What most people do is often not necessarily right...ask the people of Gaza, or those who lived under the Third Reich...the majority can go very, very wrong.

[Harbal]

It's not, actually. Because that definition is, according to subjectivism, purely arbitrary: it refers to no objective property of anything, including "harm" (whatever we interpret that to be).

Well I associate the idea of not doing harm with morality, and I suspect most other people do.

But if subjectivism is true, then that fact is worth precisely zero, at least in terms of showng that "harm" ought to be associated with immorality.

I never know what you mean by, "if subjectivism is true". Morality is about what we consider to be right and wrong, not what is true or false.

What most people do is often not necessarily right

What you do isn't necessarily right, and I personally think that some of your attitudes are morally wrong, just as you think some of mine are. That's the thing about morality; we don't always agree about what is right and wrong. I know you don't like it, but that is just the way it is.

ask the people of Gaza

Two sets of people killing each other, and both believing they have God on their side.