tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2734436609454412269..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Grieving as an atheistRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35858717657891350382018-12-17T10:29:27.454-05:002018-12-17T10:29:27.454-05:00“...my preferred metaethics: goodness is about wha...“...my preferred metaethics: goodness is about what is good-for something, and goodness for humanity is about what is “good for” humans. There are objective facts of the matter about that in any given situation, determined by the brute facts of our biology collectively and individually.”<br /><br />I don’t know what “brute facts of our biology” he’s referring to. Given neo-Darwinism, humans evolve, and given human evolution, what’s to stop our sense of morality from changing in the future? Suppose we evolve to think rape is moral because it’s “good for” and in fact better for our collective survival as a species to forcibly engage in sex with our females rather than letting them choose mates. That’s something atheist philosopher Michael Ruse has pointed out.Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54788181709537135802018-12-17T10:17:05.546-05:002018-12-17T10:17:05.546-05:00I had similar thoughts when I read that line. Ind...I had similar thoughts when I read that line. Indeed, one could easily argue that it is good for humans to evolve in directed paths, and therefore Social Darwinism--sacrificing the "undesirables" so they don't mate--would, by definition, be good for humanity.<br /><br />But the view also betrays a human-centric code of ethics, as if nothing else matters in the universe, when atheism clearly cannot establish humanity as the pinnacle of anything. I can easily imagine scenarios wherein human suffering is good for other creatures more advanced than we are. What if there are aliens who can feed only off our suffering and we are in their farm? The utilitarian argument means that our suffering would increase the overall good in the entire universe just in the same way that us eating any food--including vegetation--does. Just because it sucks for the food doesn't make it immoral in the grand scheme of things. In fact, any attempts for us to lessen our suffering is, in fact, immoral to them because we are depriving them of their sustenance.<br /><br />Ultimately, here's the problem with secular ethics summarized. A lion eats a zebra. The zebra would prefer not to be eaten. The lion doesn't care. What good does it do for the zebra to assert the lion has no moral right to eat the zebra? None. Therefore, the zebra convinces himself that lions don't exist.<br /><br />Similarly, man has his moral views. God has His moral views. On atheism, man doesn't like God's morality and thinks it is evil. What good does it do for man to assert his morality over God? None. Therefore, man convinces himself that God doesn't exist.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48444551023675290782018-12-17T07:58:21.223-05:002018-12-17T07:58:21.223-05:00I'd like to comment on a remark he made in the...I'd like to comment on a remark he made in the beginning: "goodness for humanity is about what is “good for” humans" - My question to that would be: Who gets to decide? Is it majority rule? If it's not majority rule, how do you enforce it? Is it an abitrary selection based on whatever criteria sounds good? And, whatever you use to determine it, is it just & fair or is it just the best we can do? And is it good in the long term? Do we even have the capability to determine that? Much as I disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy (a lot!) & hold that her writing is far too heavily painted with a broad brush, there is one point I do love in Atlas Shrugged. She, in my opinion, puts a spotlight on a core problem of communism/socialism - Sure, 'from each according to their abilities: to each according to their needs' sounds like a lovely rule. But the problem is the same as this man's argument - Who decides? jttaylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07685214787632195669noreply@blogger.com