Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins 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.
Well, I've been away surfing. I can see that the old gang of postmodern materialists have gathered together and even demonstrated postmodern nonsense argument - genius, thank you!
The best that comments could achieve was to say that morality was a consensus activity. This leads to cultural relativism and moral drift. It places the moral expectations of people in the hands of a mass media that doesn't give a damn.
It seems to me that materialists do indeed provide a new definition of evil.
The best that comments could achieve was to say that morality was a consensus activity. This leads to cultural relativism and moral drift. It places the moral expectations of people in the hands of a mass media that doesn't give a damn.
It seems to me that materialists do indeed provide a new definition of evil.
@JohnySid
I think you have misunderstood the last few posts Johny. First and foremost, they are a criticism of your lack of clarity. Secondly, they are a criticism of your continued use of jargon meaningless to anyone outside of academia.
You are entitled to your opinion,but that opinion seems to be gaining little traction or respect here.
Drawing the conclusion that a materialist philosophy recognising cultural differences in morality is evil is just facile.
I think you have misunderstood the last few posts Johny. First and foremost, they are a criticism of your lack of clarity. Secondly, they are a criticism of your continued use of jargon meaningless to anyone outside of academia.
You are entitled to your opinion,but that opinion seems to be gaining little traction or respect here.
Drawing the conclusion that a materialist philosophy recognising cultural differences in morality is evil is just facile.
//If there is a meaning for the word "evil" should it be applied to the moral philosophy that stems from materialism?//
No. If I’m reading the question correctly it assumes that anyone who is devoid of faith is necessarily devoid of sound moral judgment. All religious beliefs are equivalent in as much as none can be proven to be valid, but it doesn’t follow that the practices of each are considered by materialists to be equivalent. Lack of belief does not equate to a lack of ethical values – and neither does it equate to a lack of common sense – which is what this proposal appears to suggest. The question is a nonsense.
No. If I’m reading the question correctly it assumes that anyone who is devoid of faith is necessarily devoid of sound moral judgment. All religious beliefs are equivalent in as much as none can be proven to be valid, but it doesn’t follow that the practices of each are considered by materialists to be equivalent. Lack of belief does not equate to a lack of ethical values – and neither does it equate to a lack of common sense – which is what this proposal appears to suggest. The question is a nonsense.
-- answer removed --
jomifl, respondents did convincingly argue that materialism considers moral codes to be generally accepted behaviours in particular cultures. What is "good" in one culture can be "evil" in another but materialism describes these good and evil behaviours as equivalent - simply cultural norms. It has no independent way of differentiating between good and evil, materialism is amoral.
Is amorality "evil"? Well, it is according to any of the moral codes within any culture. Materialist amorality accepts child sacrifice or genital mutilation or blasphemy etc. as no more than cultural norms whereas particular cultures find these to be "evil" and those who accept them to be "evil".
Of course, materialists deny that "evil" has any meaning because they have no moral code. If this were not the case they would not continue to be evil and would cease being materialists.
Is amorality "evil"? Well, it is according to any of the moral codes within any culture. Materialist amorality accepts child sacrifice or genital mutilation or blasphemy etc. as no more than cultural norms whereas particular cultures find these to be "evil" and those who accept them to be "evil".
Of course, materialists deny that "evil" has any meaning because they have no moral code. If this were not the case they would not continue to be evil and would cease being materialists.
Evaluating a society based on its worst individual/s or condemning an individual based on the society they live in is the worst form of equivocation denying the virtue of the individual who acknowledges responsibility and should be held accountable only for their own thoughts, beliefs, choices and actions, the cornerstone of any moral society, to the extent that such an entity is conceivable.
Beliefs are never the basis for a rational discussion of what one should believe . . . and why, without which you will not recognise the truth when it's staring you in the face.
Beliefs are never the basis for a rational discussion of what one should believe . . . and why, without which you will not recognise the truth when it's staring you in the face.
Mibn.. I agree about the danger of beliefs. However, moral codes can be founded on beliefs or on something more objective so the choice is not between a somewhat arbitrary belief system and amorality.
The question that heads this thread asks if the Belief in the Equivalence of Beliefs is a Definition of Evil. To put this in simpler terms, the question asks if moral relativism is evil and the answer still seems to be yes, to someone who has a moral code moral relativism will always condone evil.
The question that heads this thread asks if the Belief in the Equivalence of Beliefs is a Definition of Evil. To put this in simpler terms, the question asks if moral relativism is evil and the answer still seems to be yes, to someone who has a moral code moral relativism will always condone evil.
What is moral is moral. Why obfuscate the issue by adding baggage to or dissecting it apart from its essential meaning with unnecessarily burdensome prefixes and/or suffixes? The roadmap, ethics, to be viable must conform to the road, morality, for which it is intended to be a guide. To differentiate (evil) from that which it is not one must first determine what it (good) is.
All successful journeys to a prescribed and desired goal begin from an appreciation for and understanding of the starting point, essential to determining where we want to go from where we are and how to get there. The hundredth floor can not be reached without the first, nor even that apart from the foundation upon which the entire edifice must rest.
Morality is defined by that which makes it essential and necessary, choice, in the face of an alternative, life or death and that which makes all the rest possible . . . reason. Morality is that which gives rise to moral beings and makes such a distinction possible. Morality, like the moral individual, is self-supporting, self-sustaining and self-promoting through the virtue of its own inherent value and right to exist. It is through and by virtue of our own individual understanding that we derive the benefits it provides to us all.
All successful journeys to a prescribed and desired goal begin from an appreciation for and understanding of the starting point, essential to determining where we want to go from where we are and how to get there. The hundredth floor can not be reached without the first, nor even that apart from the foundation upon which the entire edifice must rest.
Morality is defined by that which makes it essential and necessary, choice, in the face of an alternative, life or death and that which makes all the rest possible . . . reason. Morality is that which gives rise to moral beings and makes such a distinction possible. Morality, like the moral individual, is self-supporting, self-sustaining and self-promoting through the virtue of its own inherent value and right to exist. It is through and by virtue of our own individual understanding that we derive the benefits it provides to us all.
mibn... Ah, saving lives and body counts as a basis for morality. This leads into deep water. Is a person their body? Would you switch the points on a train line to stop a train being derailed if, by doing so you killed a mother and three young children crossing the other line (ie: murdered them)? What is so special about other human beings that they should be saved, are you sure that you are not just assuming that they have an exalted value?
//mibn... Ah, saving lives and body counts as a basis for morality. This leads into deep water. Is a person their body? Would you switch the points on a train line to stop a train being derailed if, by doing so you killed a mother and three young children crossing the other line (ie: murdered them)? What is so special about other human beings that they should be saved, are you sure that you are not just assuming that they have an exalted value?//
What is so special about any of us? What makes anyone of us any more exalted than a slab of meat? It is our minds and or capacity to reason that distinguishes us as rational beings for the common herd enabling us as individuals to achieve and claim our own independence and to establish and prove our own self-worth, to grow and aspire as children to becoming responsible self-sufficient adults.
We are neither body nor mind alone but entities that rely on the mutual interdependent contribution and cooperation of both without which neither can sustain itself and continue to exist. Life is self-sustaining regenerative action but the body has no choice in the matter. It is the mind which must choose to live and to learn and come to understand what that process entails and then choose to do it. We survive and thrive by virtue of the value we place on our own continued existence. Our value lies not in and is not to be measured by what we have been given but in our potential as rational beings to the extent we are able to realise and achieve it.
It matters not how deep the waters depth but rather how well we have learned to swim. Only an amount sufficient to fill the lungs is needed to drown.
What is so special about any of us? What makes anyone of us any more exalted than a slab of meat? It is our minds and or capacity to reason that distinguishes us as rational beings for the common herd enabling us as individuals to achieve and claim our own independence and to establish and prove our own self-worth, to grow and aspire as children to becoming responsible self-sufficient adults.
We are neither body nor mind alone but entities that rely on the mutual interdependent contribution and cooperation of both without which neither can sustain itself and continue to exist. Life is self-sustaining regenerative action but the body has no choice in the matter. It is the mind which must choose to live and to learn and come to understand what that process entails and then choose to do it. We survive and thrive by virtue of the value we place on our own continued existence. Our value lies not in and is not to be measured by what we have been given but in our potential as rational beings to the extent we are able to realise and achieve it.
It matters not how deep the waters depth but rather how well we have learned to swim. Only an amount sufficient to fill the lungs is needed to drown.
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.