Quote:
|
Originally Posted by One World
^I can see how your mind works and why did you put morality in the mix. I was trying very hard to keep up with your analysis but mention of morality actually made me say something. If you are corelating morality with chastity or asceticism (what I think you are) then that is a big problem. So, a law abiding citizen who practice safe sex and does not follow any major religion would be immoral by that weird definition.
|
I put morality in the mix because moral objectivity (in an absolute sense) and moral oughtness cannot be explained/defined without God or an external reference. Example: Is killing wrong?
1. Unless you believe in God who blessed earthy bodies with soul, you cannot argue that human beings have any intrinsic value in the grand scheme of things. And if there is no intrinsic value, killing cannot be wrong. Everything came out of nothing - everything is just random amalgamation of molecules and atom, and by killing, you are simply rearranging those molecules and atoms.
2. You can argue that harm/pain is objective and can be proven scientifically, and thus I have no right to cause harm unto others by killing them. Even if harm is objective, it can also be relative when you bring in Utilitarianism. Say a group of 50 cannibals are starving to death - and if they kill one of them for food, they will save 49 lives at the expense of one. Is killing moral in this scenario? Also, if inflicting harm is immoral, does it mean humanity altogether should go vegan?
3. What incentive should I have to not kill if it increases my life value assuming I can get away with it and there are no metaphysical consequences for my actions? Why should Monsanto stop poisoning the environment and harming and killing millions of people? They have
legally bribed the politicians who have written laws in their favor. They are causing cancers and killing people, but their corporate profit keeps growing, and thereby maximizing their executives' enjoyment of 'you only live once' life.