— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
— — — —— — —
×
— —— —
← view full thread · Babylon Episode 7 Discussion
what Magase and Kaika are doing is what atheism leads to (not knowing or having an objective morale value)
lmao what the fuck are you on dog
religion does not create morals, morals are already in place regardless of your belief or lack of belief. Some people are just shitty people, but most have morals.
agreed that all humans are born with morals but society morals change like how the society in Nazi Germany agreed it was acceptable to burn Jews. so who decides which right or wrong? for religious people the answer is simple
[Removed]
yep crazy people do crazy things, you will always find people who twist religion, democracy, ...etc for their own gain, the difference is that we can return to the scripture and say this is wrong or right (objective not subjective moral anchor).
For religious people (applies also for non-religious fanatics) answer is simple, because they were told what to think, so they don't have to.
Sadly, that's often the similar case, when smart people who came up with some answers, in their opinion good enough to not look further (because they're so smart and great...) - with terrible consequences (as we see in this anime, it's good but imo lacks something to shine, or maybe i'm just nagger).
I rarely visit the forums and it never disappoints. Thank you, DarknessLord.
@Settonn you are welcome
I am just going to refute your statement.
Basic understanding of good and evil tends to be intuitive. Religions - at least, the ones that make sense - teach ways to live a virtuous life. It is not an universal truth, but teaching as dogmes you "accept" to believe or not.
Regarding atheism, believing or not does not necessarily make you unable to relate to "proper" morals. We do have laic teachings of civism, moral and justice.
"Objective morale value" : way to play with oxymorons when we know that values are far from what we shall call objective.
Even though Magase call herself an evil being, she is, as much as ever partner in crime, quite the amoral folk. She is just applying the logic of "evil people do wrong in purpose, since I do wrong in purpose, I'm evil".
She has no understanding of morals; how to say it, it is not like she does not know what is moral and what is immoral, but does not get why what is moral is moral and what is immoral is immoral. The fact that they are what they are does not make much sense.
Good people understand that but cannot fully explain it, mostly because it is intuitive : for normal people, bad actions create a visceral unpleasant feeling; that's how we get something is bad and such "intuitive understanding" has been shared through generations and generations. But how to explain it to someone who can't relate to that instinctive feeling what bad is? And how to rationally explain them that "instinctive feeling" that tells us about bad?
We all know killing is bad, but why? Many philosophers as Kant and Spinoza delivered us logical reasoning behind it, but that it is just a parallel that gives a relative and so-so answer to the problematic. We had a consensus about the definition of good and bad, but never actually find about their true meaning.
Are humans able to deliver a genuine and universal definition to good and to bad? And boi, the debate is still on-going between morals' and justice's philosophers.
i agree with you on the "instinctive feeling" but is some people lose it due to desensitization or any different reason so where we draw the line? my point is having an objective moral value is better because it will not change.
"is some people lose it due to desensitization or any different reason so where we draw the line?"
Like I said, many philosophers as Kant and Spinoza delivered us logical reasoning behind it. Even if you are unable to feel that something is bad (intuition), as a normal individual, you may be able to associate that something to a reasoning that leads to the conclusion that it is bad (reason).
Most of those reasoning tend themselves to be amoral, some are just pure logic. You will still be able to classify "good" and "bad" relatively to those reasoning. But you will never be able to know what good and what bad truly are, because those concepts have no meaning by themselves (Nietzsche). Therefore, we do not refer to them as objective, but subjective to a school of thought or a society.
"having an objective moral value is better because it will not change"
There are two elements that are systematically incorrect in this saying : again that oxymoron and the affirmation that moral is static.
And like someone already said, morals change. Morals are brought out by humans. Morals are subjective to humans. If humans change their way of thinking, morals change with them. Such things are not objective because they are dependant of humans' judgement.
i see your point, but for me god is the one who determines what is right and what is wrong (other poeple morals may change but mine not).
Morals are actually objective and not just a matter of perspective, they don't really change, what changes is how people face them.
There is no such a thing as wishing to be murdered or raped or anything you might wanna think about that is inherently harmful to you. You can't be killed when you wish to be killed. You can't be robbed when you wish to be robbed. You can't be raped when you wish to be raped.
Contrary to what you say Nietzsche claims, good and bad are easy to figure out actually. Taking the examples I just made, such acts are completely tied to morality. Regardless of whatever acts serving a purpose or having reasoning behind them, all you have to do is apply the law of Christ (funny, huh?) which is basically to not cause upon others what you do not wish for yourself.
"Morals are actually objective". No. Simple example : they are country where it (still) is okay to chope thieves' hands. Even though, we "instinctively" know it is bad. Some believe bad should be punished with bad - which is why we usually say "justice" is most of the time not moral.
This "fact" (example) shows that the Golden rule (not cause upon others what you do not wish for yourself) could be approached differently, relatively, therefore "subjectively". Really, I doubt many would "intrinsically" wish to have their hands chopped or will be fine with that. However, in those countries, there is some kind of "consensus" that "believes" that such act is right (justice), even "good" (moral). In consequence, it exists people that would wish to be punished in this manner if they commited the crime in question. Therefore, with such "mentality", the Golden rule can be "perverted" to the point of justifying crimes against humanity.
"There is no such a thing as wishing to be murdered [...]" Marginally and depending of the circumstances, Such things exist and could even be supported.
Plus, you may be mixing wine and water (objectivity and subjectivity). First, you say "Morals are actually objective and not just a matter of perspective" then "Morals are strictly human made, a perspective at that too, they aren't part of nature". Morals are unable to be stricto sensu "objective" for the slightly evocated elements : individual, societal, historic and cultural relativism. Still, by definition (in philosophy), "moral" by itself could not dare enter the field of "objectivity". Yet, depending of the way you tackle it, you could find yourself saying it is objective (as recurrent premisses in religion); still, something that is objective in a subjective field is "dependant" of that field, making him again stricto sensu non objective outside of that field.
Deontologism, for example, tries to approach moral in an "objective" way. But at the end of the day, humans should never stop asking themselves : "what is truly a good decision?". Because again, even the most refined logic (commonly amoral) could be twisted to justify atrocities.
"Contrary to what you say Nietzsche claims, good and bad are easy to figure out actually." Here, I will quote myself "Basic understanding of good and evil tends to be intuitive", "But you will never be able to know what good and what bad truly are, because those concepts have no meaning by themselves (Nietzsche)". I was referring to Nietzsche's interpretation of subjectivity. I would not pretend to know all the man's works, but having an understanding of his philosophy allows to suggest that there is no contraction. Even if he actually stated the easiness of figuring out those elements, their core meaning (truth) would remain unknown the human realm since to begin, everything that has meaning in this world does not actually have it on its own. As a result, what are truly behind "Good" and "Evil" are still an open case.
ITT: Angry atheist weeaboos without a shred of knowledge, that never read anything worthy anything giving out their opinions as facts.
Please only comment when you have actually spent several hours of your life over the topic instead of just blindingly following what your lefty high school or college teacher spewed out. Go at least read some C.S. Lewis for crying out loud.
(this is not a response to you, DarknessLord, just wanted to put it here).
lmaooo okay bud, I know I'm right because I am. How am I wrong?
The fact you are saying something like that should be enough to not take you remotely seriously.
Btw, replying to your comment up there "religion does not create morals, morals are already in place regardless of your belief or lack of belief. Some people are just shitty people, but most have morals."
Morals are strictly human made, a perspective at that too, they aren't part of nature. You say that most have morals, well that's actually thanks to religion because that created a system that works in order to keep society with morals. It was only thanks to that stability that later on people could question religion and make arguments for morals as an objective thing. The only atheist model that lays down morals and ethics properly is UPB and yet that is basically the law of Christ. Like I said, go actually read something worthwhile, I already suggested an author that used to be atheist and then after going through this kind of subject for years he decided to become Christian, writing and spreading his arguments regarding that too.