Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Strongpoint]

I think "we are righteous and you are subhuman for believing in idols and will suffer in the afterlife if you don't become like us" attitude of Christians is the main reason for persecution. Disrespecting the gods of the empire, rulers of the empire, and fellow citizens of the empire will put you in the position of a traitor.

Also, a necromancy cult that eats body\drinks blood of their dead god is spooky.

[MaxTheFox]

I will now introduce my beliefs as just that when meeting people.

[Magmacube_tr]

This is Medjet. An Ancient Egyptian God. His powers include being formless, emitting lasers from his eyes and breathing fire.

Here is a more moderm depiction of him.



Must be the shittiest god you can be the cleric of, I swear.

[Frumple]

I'unno, pacman ghost kaiju with laser eyes is honestly pretty fuckin' rad.

Laser eyes alone elevates it above most gods, really, the rest is just icing on the laser cake.

[Rolan7]

ackshually, based on that photograph, I think Medjet fires bolts of plasma like in Star Wars rather than lasers.
Where's the deity with railgun-eyes? 

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is Medjet. An Ancient Egyptian God. His powers include being formless, emitting lasers from his eyes and breathing fire.

Here is a more moderm depiction of him.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Must be the shittiest god you can be the cleric of, I swear.

Oh hey it's Gondola's ancestor

[Schmaven]

Is there such thing as objective morality? 

It seems like the enjoyment of murdering children is always evil, no matter how one looks at it.  On the other end of the good and evil spectrum, caring about others seems like it is always good.

There are many things however that totally depend on the context.  Such as stealing.  Stealing someone's medicine just for the thrill of it is evil.  But stealing someone's weapons before they go on a blind rampage is good.

[feelotraveller]

Pretty sure nearly all 'morality' is objective - as in, I object to your thing.

And to play devil's advocate (i.e. I don't really believe this but for arguments sake) given that children are being murdered anyway isn't it better that someone gets some enjoyment out of it.  Seriously heard some utilitarians argue this sort of line albeit on different issues.

[Schmaven]

Pretty sure nearly all 'morality' is objective - as in, I object to your thing.

And to play devil's advocate (i.e. I don't really believe this but for arguments sake) given that children are being murdered anyway isn't it better that someone gets some enjoyment out of it.  Seriously heard some utilitarians argue this sort of line albeit on different issues.

I suppose you could imagine some civilization ending sort of contagion in children as a way to try and justify their murder.  But if they were my children, it would not be better that someone took sadistic pleasure in their death, so it still seems 100% objectively evil for someone to enjoy killing children just for the thrill of it.

Soldiers in war seems more like that utilitarian argument.

[McTraveller]

Pretty sure nearly all 'morality' is objective - as in, I object to your thing.

I like the cut of your jib!¹

- - - -

Overall though I think this is a silly process and it's been pretty much settled by humanity:  If there is no such thing as an external source of morality, then morality is indeed just a cultural label for utilitarian behaviors.  Things can't be ontologically "good or evil" without some external cause.  Sure nobody likes killing children or stealing, so those are "universal", but that is just the evolutionary effect of needing to propagate the species, eh? I mean if you kill children or deprive a population of necessities, that stops propagation.  But it's not "good or evil", it's just better or worse for the fitness function.  People enjoying their lives is not strongly coupled to propagation; many miserable beings propagate just fine.  So "personal happiness" as a high moral value is actually quite non-utilitarian and often anti-utility.

You can only be "morally" good or evil in the religious sense if there is more to it than merely propagating the species or propagating culture or whatever; it's the only thing that can instill value outside utility.

Spoiler: 1 (click to show/hide)

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that was sarcastic...

[feelotraveller]

Things can't be ontologically "good or evil" without some external cause.

Hmm, Immanuel Kant, for one, thought otherwise (see Categorical Imperative).  Although how much this is some sort of weird substitution for religious thought is a good question.  But there is a non-utilitarian answer there about why killing is evil bad not good and that is because it denies freedom.  People like Singer question heavily why this has to be human freedom.  (Or to charge it up, is meat murder?)  It is also why imprisonment, particularly of innocent people, is wrong.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You're right I was having a little bit of fun.  I have no regrets.

[Strongpoint]

Is there such thing as objective morality? 

It seems like the enjoyment of murdering children is always evil, no matter how one looks at it.  On the other end of the good and evil spectrum, caring about others seems like it is always good.

Caring about others is not always good. Like if you are in abusive relations with someone there is nothing good in caring for your abusive partner enabling and empowering their evil.

[Schmaven]

Is there such thing as objective morality? 

It seems like the enjoyment of murdering children is always evil, no matter how one looks at it.  On the other end of the good and evil spectrum, caring about others seems like it is always good.

Caring about others is not always good. Like if you are in abusive relations with someone there is nothing good in caring for your abusive partner enabling and empowering their evil.

If I really cared about an abusive partner, I wouldn't want them to engage in abusive actions.  It's legally bad for them, as well as morally bad for them to be abusive.  So for their sake, I would end the relationship (for both our sakes really).  It's the insecurity and fear that would make me want to stay in a mess like that, not the caring. 

Empowering someone's evil is not a nice thing to do, and isn't a caring act, but a submissive act based out of selfishness, either because we get something out of their evil ways, or because we fear for our wellbeing if we were to be unsupportive.

Caring still seems 100% good.

[McTraveller]

"Denying freedom" isn't any kind of inherent thing though - that also stems from limiting procreation and/or inflicting discomfort. These are just results of evolutionary pressure. There is nothing in the laws of physics which ranks "freedom" above anything else; nor is there even a concept of freedom to begin with. Everything must adhere to the physical laws.

Without the supernatural anyone talking about "good and evil" is just blathering on ultimately about personal or group preferences.

(I am using a rhetoric debate style here, by the way.)

EDIT: addendum: without the supernatural, I propose replacing "good vs evil" spectrum simply with "destructive vs constructive (a subset of which is 'promotes vs hinders procreation')" and "pleasurable vs painful."  Perhaps also add in "sustainable vs unsustainable."

[Egan_BW]

Without the supernatural anyone talking about "good and evil" is just blathering on ultimately about personal or group preferences.

also: with the supernatural

god is a very strong dude but nothing makes the philosophy that he promotes any more inherently valid than any other