you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

So is luciferianism. The church of Satan. Every religion. Every non religious speculation of everything unprovable.

I agree, as an atheist, all these things are fiction to me.

It's not a good argument to push one fantasy with the claim that the other fantasy is a fantasy.

Now we're getting somewhere.

God is not created to resolve any issue with man's imperfection.

God was not created for resolution, but I did not suggest such. But the intervention of god was intended to resolve.

After all that is just your opinion and thier opinion says it's OK so long as they can justify it to themselves.

This is generally how civilization has evolved, we collectively come to an agreed moral code within our individual communities.

They are wrong.

They may beg to differ, buddy.

That is a belief intrinsic to your ideology.

I try to avoid alignment with any specific ideology. I joined this conversation for fun and some vague interest in the contradictory nature of religious and mythological history.

And what is the philosophical answer?

Where would you like to begin? The religious argument seems set on moral absolutism, whereas I might prefer a more relativistic approach. Nietzsche proposed that morality is connected to the individual culture. This is perhaps a better reflection of reality than that which religion attempts to push onto a culture.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nietzsche proposed that morality is connected to the individual culture.

I think Gauthier proposed an interesting framework of morality based on Natural Law and Game Theory (Prisoner's Dilemma). This theory shows that mutual agreement/consent and the Tit-for-Tat strategy result in optimal social outcomes, and form the basis of common morality.

I.E. We see in all cultures that theft and murder are considered immoral, and this relates to game theory and natural law. In a small community in the absence of laws, people will tend to form this agreement naturally, as it is benefits the everyone to not have to vigilantly watch for thefts. Even if one person out of a community of 10 were to use his strength to take what he wanted, natural law dictates the other 9 ought to form an agreement to work together as a stronger group to put down the strong individual, and thus even the bully agrees out of self interest, and the optimal condition is achieved by adhering to these agreed upon codes of conduct, and punishing those that fail to practice the optimal strategy and harm the group as well as themselves

In case you are interested in more than my ad hoc explanation that likely does not do these ideas justice, this is the work I refer to. I am a fan of Nietzsche, but admit I am partial to this theory, which is actually quite similar to Kaczynski's writing on morality. No hard feelings if this isn't your bag, I just share because its something I found interesting, and I hold your taste in high esteem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#David_Gauthier's_Morals_By_Agreement_(1986)

David Gauthier's Morals By Agreement (1986) Main article: Contractarian ethics David Gauthier "neo-Hobbesian" theory argues that cooperation between two independent and self-interested parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics.[23] Gauthier notably points out the advantages of cooperation between two parties when it comes to the challenge of the prisoner's dilemma. He proposes that, if two parties were to stick to the original agreed-upon arrangement and morals outlined by the contract, they would both experience an optimal result.[23][24] In his model for the social contract, factors including trust, rationality, and self-interest keep each party honest and dissuade them from breaking the rules.[23][24]

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In case you are interested in more than my ad hoc explanation that likely does not do these ideas justice, this is the work I refer to. I am a fan of Nietzsche, but admit I am partial to this theory, which is actually quite similar to Kaczynski's writing on morality. No hard feelings if this isn't your bag, I just share because its something I found interesting, and I hold your taste in high esteem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#David_Gauthier's_Morals_By_Agreement_(1986)

Thanks for this, I recall hearing of Gauthier's work discussed, perhaps this is in part where I'm picking this up from. I'll look into this further as it does interest me 👍

I'm currently reading John Locke who also wrote of natural law and the social contract, going on to say that human nature of reason and tolerance is not enough to maintain order so we created a civil society to deal with such things. Locke's work has fascinated me as what could be seen as a foundation of many areas of modern politics and influencing the American constitution. Importantly, defining the separation of the church and the state.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is generally how civilization has evolved, we collectively come to an agreed moral code within our individual communities.

This is generally how religion evolves. It is the multi generational moral framework that has stood the test of time and been analyzed and crafted by the wisdom of the ages. Therfore it is the best moral framework. God as an author is there so everyone doesn't feel they have the right to modify it according to thier whims.

Meanwhile we exist in a society controlled by elite pedophiles who only relatively recently secured power and are using that power to subvert that moral framework because they want to be allowed to rape children, hoard all the wealth and power, subjugate everyone, have young children sexualised and performing sexual acts on camera, chemically castrate young boys so they can have eunuch sex toys like the Romans had.

To that end they have brainwashed fools into rejecting the religious, and believing that morality is meaningless.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They may beg to differ, buddy.

Thier shit society proves they are wrong.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I try to avoid alignment with any specific ideology.

That's good, but you still have an ideology even if it is unique to you. Everyone does.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nietzsche proposed that morality is connected to the individual culture. This is perhaps a better reflection of reality than that which religion attempts to push onto a culture.

Religions ARE cultural constructs.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They can either be of divine origin or cultural constructs, which do you want it to be?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are kayfabe. And it doesn't matter what I want, they are what they are.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

So you want collectivism and tyranny of the majority. Mob rule is not a good idea.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I think you misunderstand, it is not mob rule that I would support, this has not backing of historical evolution of a legal process. We currently live in a society where law is decided as a collective, but through experience and understanding we come to what we believe is the best conclusion through ongoing case law or by jury, not by divine authority, to have developed localised legal systems that define what is right and.what is wrong.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Morality isn't subjective. It's pretty obvious even without divine authority, make a mutual agreement not to harm each other, and don't be a hypocrite. All religions admit this, from Christianity to Satanism to paganism and more, even if some of them add a lot more bullshit on top of it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Morality of killing an animal is subjective when talking with a vegan.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If they're conscious (99% chance) then I'd say it is objectively wrong. However there's not a whole lot you or I can do. If you don't eat them their meat will simply go to waste and their death will be in vain. I also think the way animals are treated is a much bigger problem than killing them for food.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But the point is that we hold different values, there cannot be a definitive answer. The church would simply argue that animals have no soul, therefore the killing of an animal is deemed acceptable. While others would consider the act of any killing to be barbaric and sinful.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The church's scriptures clearly say that animals do have souls.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The consensus among the Christian denominations seems to be that, as Pope John Paul II said in 1990, animals do have souls. But they don’t all agree on whether or not they’re welcomed into heaven along with people. https://qz.com/311346/pope-francis-says-all-pets-go-to-heaven-but-what-do-other-religions-say/

And...

The Bible doesn’t directly address whether our pets will be with us in heaven Because we love animals, often the question arises, “will our pets be in heaven?” However, the Bible is silent on this question. It neither confirms it nor denies it. https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/do-animals-go-heaven

I'm not sure about that. Biblical texts treat humans as not biologically related to animals, in that we were shaped by god and animals are just inferior creatures that know no right or wrong. If they had souls, would they not be mentioned as going to heaven?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is false. Both creation stories have humans alongside animals. Both animals and humans are given the same air of life and the same mind. Most religious websites are looking to make the Bible support traditional ideas, and they will ignore things that go against this. But Jewish ideas about life have always considered man as mortal as animal.