I Can't Find A Santa Emoji Anywhere.
ChatterBank1 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.
Materialism incites the concept of no absolute truths as a starting point from where morality is built while religionism presumes a definition of morality that is beyond question.
Materialism is quite capable of constructing and developing a moral framework based on objective rationality.
The immutable precepts of "Religionism" are incapable of development and in practice are havens for primitive tribal jingoism. They are inevitably subjective because the proponents refuse to consider any perspective beyond their prejudice.
Any objective reading of the "holy texts" the Abrahamic faiths reveals the deep flaws in the philosophy that exist precisely because of their blinkered outlook.
Materialism is quite capable of constructing and developing a moral framework based on objective rationality.
The immutable precepts of "Religionism" are incapable of development and in practice are havens for primitive tribal jingoism. They are inevitably subjective because the proponents refuse to consider any perspective beyond their prejudice.
Any objective reading of the "holy texts" the Abrahamic faiths reveals the deep flaws in the philosophy that exist precisely because of their blinkered outlook.
This is an important question because a lot of decent and otherwise intelligent people accept the JohnySid proposition that a naturalistic (I’ll use that word rather than the ambiguous materialistic) view of the world reduces all moral judgment to gut-feel or opinion. They conclude from this that there has to be Something Else at the heart of things, or as the cause of things or as the End of things which is in some essential way moral and it is that Something which allows us to say with certainty (even with Authority) that, for example, child murder is wrong. This faulty reasoning is the thing, perhaps, that gives religion its biggest purchase on the human imagination and accounts for its enduring presence in human society. What JohnySid’s views on religion are we’ve yet to find out. Will the real JohnySid please stand up at some stage, I wonder?
JohnySid, a naturalistic judgment such as child murder is wrong is not falsified because it has neurological “causes” or associations; it is validated by the simple observation that the act is bad for the child.
It’s no good my repeating the earlier question, is it: what does JohnySid think gives validity to moral judgments?
JohnySid, a naturalistic judgment such as child murder is wrong is not falsified because it has neurological “causes” or associations; it is validated by the simple observation that the act is bad for the child.
It’s no good my repeating the earlier question, is it: what does JohnySid think gives validity to moral judgments?
@JohnySid
I am getting tired of this game. You set up an OP, with, once everyone can decipher its meaning, a fairly interesting topic at its heart. You then presume to sit as arbiter on high, passing judgement on all posts. Rather than you attempting to take some sort of high ground, lets hear some definitive position statements from you.
I really dislike the use of the term materialism. Others have already explained why. V-E's use of the word naturalistic fits much better.
"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"
If I, or our society, dismiss MR as absurd, then that means I don't allow it. In the hypothetical scenario you describe, I could most certainly gainsay it, regardless of what the group itself claims.
Despite this, I do not like the idea of inflexible, unchallengeable universally applicable moral Truths, or the concepts of Good and Evil, come to that.
As best as I can tell, I would fall into this category, described by Wiki ( that is, if I am understanding the categories correctly )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
I am getting tired of this game. You set up an OP, with, once everyone can decipher its meaning, a fairly interesting topic at its heart. You then presume to sit as arbiter on high, passing judgement on all posts. Rather than you attempting to take some sort of high ground, lets hear some definitive position statements from you.
I really dislike the use of the term materialism. Others have already explained why. V-E's use of the word naturalistic fits much better.
"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"
If I, or our society, dismiss MR as absurd, then that means I don't allow it. In the hypothetical scenario you describe, I could most certainly gainsay it, regardless of what the group itself claims.
Despite this, I do not like the idea of inflexible, unchallengeable universally applicable moral Truths, or the concepts of Good and Evil, come to that.
As best as I can tell, I would fall into this category, described by Wiki ( that is, if I am understanding the categories correctly )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
//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.
Rationality is not about opinion, it's objective is to ascertain and conform to reality.
//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.//
"...highly rational psychopaths"? Erm . . . perhaps you might wanna check your premise?
The end never justifies the means when the end is, itself, unjustifiable.
Surely there must be rational differences of opinion. A small difference in opinion can lead to massive differences in culture.
Rationality is not about opinion, it's objective is to ascertain and conform to reality.
//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.//
"...highly rational psychopaths"? Erm . . . perhaps you might wanna check your premise?
The end never justifies the means when the end is, itself, unjustifiable.
-- answer removed --
Johnysid. What I would like to know is this - has materialism led to the freethinking juxtaposition of myth versus plain knowledge of a higher being with regard to the undertaking of man versus machine in the real world ?
The higher thought that a meditational chakra being MAY or may not impose upon a child's thought radiator. The central part of the thinking could impart a tulip to the dark matter of the pharynx helmet weavil. I mean for heaven's sake! what could be more interpolistical than a quark candle on a pube mantel with the judgemental result being that a mermintrude could open up an entire exodus on the trounce bandicoot!
The higher thought that a meditational chakra being MAY or may not impose upon a child's thought radiator. The central part of the thinking could impart a tulip to the dark matter of the pharynx helmet weavil. I mean for heaven's sake! what could be more interpolistical than a quark candle on a pube mantel with the judgemental result being that a mermintrude could open up an entire exodus on the trounce bandicoot!
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
AP and Birdie
A very high grade of nonsense - congratulations. I think I understood APs post more quickly than i did JohnySids OP :)
Having read this from AP
" I mean for heaven's sake! what could be more interpolistical than a quark candle on a pube mantel with the judgemental result being that a mermintrude could open up an entire exodus on the trounce bandicoot!"
It all became miraculously clear.... :)
A very high grade of nonsense - congratulations. I think I understood APs post more quickly than i did JohnySids OP :)
Having read this from AP
" I mean for heaven's sake! what could be more interpolistical than a quark candle on a pube mantel with the judgemental result being that a mermintrude could open up an entire exodus on the trounce bandicoot!"
It all became miraculously clear.... :)
//agenbite of inwit?//
I was beginning to think this thread would never get back on track!
http://
I was beginning to think this thread would never get back on track!
http://
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.