More Extremists In The Uk Than The...
News0 min ago
Is the belief in the equivalence of beliefs a definition of evil?
72 Answers
Materialism has led to the postmodern idea that all beliefs are equivalent, being rooted in culture, myth etc. According to this strand of philosophy there is no method of verifying any belief. If all beliefs are equivalent then child sacrifice is no worse than meditating. This philosophy cannot determine whether mass murder is less moral than helping your neighbour. If there is a meaning for the word "evil" should it be applied to the moral philosophy that stems from materialism?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Johnysid. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
JTP: "I think many moral philosophers particularly those who support this view would say that "good" and "evil" come down in essence to an indication of a societies' approval or disapproval of a certain behaviour. "
There are societies that approve of child sacrifice to this day although missionary influenced governments are trying to stamp it out. According to your definition child sacrifice can be good..
There are societies that approve of child sacrifice to this day although missionary influenced governments are trying to stamp it out. According to your definition child sacrifice can be good..
//Mibn.. you have given an excellent definition of old-style Marxist materialist moral foundations with:
"Our value to others rests on and is derived from a mutual recognition of our own value. "
It was this slope that cultural and moral relativism slid down.. Each tribe has its own norms.//
To understand morality you must understand that which in reality gives rise to it and makes it necessary.
Life is conditional, and we have acquired some understanding of those conditions and the alternatives which sustain and promote it. Morality is the pursuit of the knowledge of alternatives and acting according to those that sustain and promote the existence of moral beings through rational self-interest which entails an understanding of what as rational moral beings is in our mutual best interest. If you don't value your own life and the freedom to pursuit it, what incentive could you possibly have for thinking and acting on the behalf of others?
Tribalism is based on the false assumption that what is in ones own (tribes) best interest is not in another tribes best interest. Well perhaps their right . . . if the other is a tribe of cannibals.
"Our value to others rests on and is derived from a mutual recognition of our own value. "
It was this slope that cultural and moral relativism slid down.. Each tribe has its own norms.//
To understand morality you must understand that which in reality gives rise to it and makes it necessary.
Life is conditional, and we have acquired some understanding of those conditions and the alternatives which sustain and promote it. Morality is the pursuit of the knowledge of alternatives and acting according to those that sustain and promote the existence of moral beings through rational self-interest which entails an understanding of what as rational moral beings is in our mutual best interest. If you don't value your own life and the freedom to pursuit it, what incentive could you possibly have for thinking and acting on the behalf of others?
Tribalism is based on the false assumption that what is in ones own (tribes) best interest is not in another tribes best interest. Well perhaps their right . . . if the other is a tribe of cannibals.
vetuste..: "In your example "I" have worked out that the behaviour you're advocating is not something I'd like to happen to me. That is sufficient reason for my not doing it, or, if I do feeling "guilty" about it."
Empathy and love are noble aspirations that might also be embraced by the religious. However, lets press the materialist viewpoint and reduce these things to mirror neurons in your brain. If someone's mirror neurons are malfunctioning are they "bad" or just not subject to the biological control that you experience?
vetuste..: You won't buy any of this, of course, so now you tell me what makes murder and theft wrong. "
The point of this thread was to probe the moral foundations of materialism, especially Marxist Materialism, in the same way as Religious Ideas are probed in Answerbank. The religious person would usually invoke "God" who they believe laid down an absolute standard of moral behaviour. Look up any of the other threads in the religion section of Answerbank to see this belief under attack.
Empathy and love are noble aspirations that might also be embraced by the religious. However, lets press the materialist viewpoint and reduce these things to mirror neurons in your brain. If someone's mirror neurons are malfunctioning are they "bad" or just not subject to the biological control that you experience?
vetuste..: You won't buy any of this, of course, so now you tell me what makes murder and theft wrong. "
The point of this thread was to probe the moral foundations of materialism, especially Marxist Materialism, in the same way as Religious Ideas are probed in Answerbank. The religious person would usually invoke "God" who they believe laid down an absolute standard of moral behaviour. Look up any of the other threads in the religion section of Answerbank to see this belief under attack.
mibn... : "Morality is the pursuit of the knowledge of alternatives and acting according to those that sustain and promote the existence of moral beings through rational self-interest which entails an understanding of what as rational moral beings is in our mutual best interest. "
Isn't any group of people capable of developing its own norms to serve its mutual best interests? If a particular group is doing very well from this then why should it reduce its best interest to accommodate another group? The nuclear power might propose that it is in the mutual best interest for the backward tribe to hand over its land for exploitation, the alternative being annihalation of the natives.
Isn't any group of people capable of developing its own norms to serve its mutual best interests? If a particular group is doing very well from this then why should it reduce its best interest to accommodate another group? The nuclear power might propose that it is in the mutual best interest for the backward tribe to hand over its land for exploitation, the alternative being annihalation of the natives.
Neither 'God' nor 'society' establish moral standards. They are determined and enforced by reality. The degree to which ones own moral standards comply with reality and bear fruit in the real world determine their efficacy. Those who share a similar moral standard are in a position to enter into mutually beneficial relationships including mutual defence from those intent on the pursuit of any other kind.
@JohnySid
After 24 posts, we finally get some clarity as to what your OP and subsequent ones was about.
"The point of this thread was to probe the moral foundations of materialism, especially Marxist Materialism, in the same way as Religious Ideas are probed in Answerbank. The religious person would usually invoke "God" who they believe laid down an absolute standard of moral behaviour. Look up any of the other threads in the religion section of Answerbank to see this belief under attack"
Now, this has the potential to be an interesting topic. What underpins the moral codes of non-theists,why do some theists accept moral absolutes, whilst others don't, and why is one cultural morality in a situation adjudged good or bad?
Perhaps it is just me, and perhaps others can comment, but your posts lack clarity and are, to put it charitably, jargon-rich.Others, less charitably, might describe it as pretentious. I am still not sure, for instance, what the relationship is that you imagine between Ohms Law, Voltage, cold blooded and warm blooded animals, and how that relates to morality...............
After 24 posts, we finally get some clarity as to what your OP and subsequent ones was about.
"The point of this thread was to probe the moral foundations of materialism, especially Marxist Materialism, in the same way as Religious Ideas are probed in Answerbank. The religious person would usually invoke "God" who they believe laid down an absolute standard of moral behaviour. Look up any of the other threads in the religion section of Answerbank to see this belief under attack"
Now, this has the potential to be an interesting topic. What underpins the moral codes of non-theists,why do some theists accept moral absolutes, whilst others don't, and why is one cultural morality in a situation adjudged good or bad?
Perhaps it is just me, and perhaps others can comment, but your posts lack clarity and are, to put it charitably, jargon-rich.Others, less charitably, might describe it as pretentious. I am still not sure, for instance, what the relationship is that you imagine between Ohms Law, Voltage, cold blooded and warm blooded animals, and how that relates to morality...............
//mibn... : "Morality is the pursuit of the knowledge of alternatives and acting according to those that sustain and promote the existence of moral beings through rational self-interest which entails an understanding of what as rational moral beings is in our mutual best interest. "
Isn't any group of people capable of developing its own norms to serve its mutual best interests? If a particular group is doing very well from this then why should it reduce its best interest to accommodate another group? The nuclear power might propose that it is in the mutual best interest for the backward tribe to hand over its land for exploitation, the alternative being annihalation of the natives.//
Rational people recognise the existence of one tribe only, the only one that can be dealt with in rational terms . . . rational human beings.
Isn't any group of people capable of developing its own norms to serve its mutual best interests? If a particular group is doing very well from this then why should it reduce its best interest to accommodate another group? The nuclear power might propose that it is in the mutual best interest for the backward tribe to hand over its land for exploitation, the alternative being annihalation of the natives.//
Rational people recognise the existence of one tribe only, the only one that can be dealt with in rational terms . . . rational human beings.
Evil is a human invention. It comes from a belief that some things are right and some wrong. Nothing really allows you to determine one action from another until you select some basic ideas to consider true and build on them. Most go by how they feel inside to select these foundations. All is then built up from these emotional reactions.
jomifl: "A moral statement is a judgemental construct of the human mind. ..... You cannot attach moral values to real things unless you think that water is good and chlorine evil in which case I leave you to continue this discusion without me. "
You seem to be saying morality is of the mind and then deny that the mind can be real ("you cannot attach moral values to real things"). Are you saying that the mind is unreal - in materialist terms it not exist?
You seem to be saying morality is of the mind and then deny that the mind can be real ("you cannot attach moral values to real things"). Are you saying that the mind is unreal - in materialist terms it not exist?
Old_geezer: "Most go by how they feel inside to select these foundations."
If good and bad are gut feelings then one set of people can have one set of gut feelings and another set of people a different set of gut feelings. Morality is then relative to a sort of "gut culture" and all beliefs of different cultures are equivalent - all justified by the group's gut feel. The child murderer becomes equivalent to the poet.
If good and bad are gut feelings then one set of people can have one set of gut feelings and another set of people a different set of gut feelings. Morality is then relative to a sort of "gut culture" and all beliefs of different cultures are equivalent - all justified by the group's gut feel. The child murderer becomes equivalent to the poet.
Mibn... "Rational people recognise the existence of one tribe only, the only one that can be dealt with in rational terms . . . rational human beings. "
Surely there must be rational differences of opinion. A small difference in opinion can lead to massive differences in culture. As an example, the last Chinese War Lord, Chairman Mao, was clear that the end justified the means and killed millions. The ex-gangster Stalin argued for a slight difference in this doctrine and killed fewer people. Both of these men were highly rational psychopaths.
Surely there must be rational differences of opinion. A small difference in opinion can lead to massive differences in culture. As an example, the last Chinese War Lord, Chairman Mao, was clear that the end justified the means and killed millions. The ex-gangster Stalin argued for a slight difference in this doctrine and killed fewer people. Both of these men were highly rational psychopaths.
LazyGun: "I am still not sure, for instance, what the relationship is that you imagine between Ohms Law, Voltage, cold blooded and warm blooded animals, and how that relates to morality"
This was also my point LazyGun, how on earth has materialism got anything to say about morality? I was making this point whilst analysing the details of another comment but you seem to have got the point.
This was also my point LazyGun, how on earth has materialism got anything to say about morality? I was making this point whilst analysing the details of another comment but you seem to have got the point.
@JohnySid
"This was also my point LazyGun, how on earth has materialism got anything to say about morality? I was making this point whilst analysing the details of another comment but you seem to have got the point."
No, I didn't get the point - I was bewildered by the analogy. It would have been much easier to understand the point you were trying to make had you just typed the sentence, above.
An individuals moral compass is defined by the synergy of many influences, ranging from the natural influence of genetics and biochemistry, through to the nurture received and values imprinted by parents and siblings.To this, you can add to that the influence of education, life experience, and peer pressure. Morality, at least about the more trivial things, is malleable. Much as I dislike the concept of Absolute Truths, it is probably fair to say there are a few universal moral truths, but it is tricky to arrive a definition agreeable to all.
I don't believe moral relativism to be evil - just absurd.
"This was also my point LazyGun, how on earth has materialism got anything to say about morality? I was making this point whilst analysing the details of another comment but you seem to have got the point."
No, I didn't get the point - I was bewildered by the analogy. It would have been much easier to understand the point you were trying to make had you just typed the sentence, above.
An individuals moral compass is defined by the synergy of many influences, ranging from the natural influence of genetics and biochemistry, through to the nurture received and values imprinted by parents and siblings.To this, you can add to that the influence of education, life experience, and peer pressure. Morality, at least about the more trivial things, is malleable. Much as I dislike the concept of Absolute Truths, it is probably fair to say there are a few universal moral truths, but it is tricky to arrive a definition agreeable to all.
I don't believe moral relativism to be evil - just absurd.
LazyGun: "Much as I dislike the concept of Absolute Truths, it is probably fair to say there are a few universal moral truths, but it is tricky to arrive a definition agreeable to all."
The issue here is how does a materialist arrive at any definition. Some comments have proposed using social norms but this leads to moral relativism.
You say "I don't believe moral relativism to be evil - just absurd." but if moral relativism is allowed then a group can claim that child sacrifice is good and you cannot gainsay it.
The issue here is how does a materialist arrive at any definition. Some comments have proposed using social norms but this leads to moral relativism.
You say "I don't believe moral relativism to be evil - just absurd." but if moral relativism is allowed then a group can claim that child sacrifice is good and you cannot gainsay it.
Latest Posts
Government To Give Away £13.7Bn In...
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.