Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MmatsDude" data-source="post: 5829406" data-attributes="member: 586264">Does he? I assume you are talking about a child who is young enough that one could not argue that he has been taught the concept of fairness (otherwise your example completely fails). It seems to me that such a child would not be thinking about fairness, but rather his own sadness, fear, and feeling of rejection.In fact, I think that the idea of an innate sense of fairness is probably one of the worst examples you could try to give. Small children are notoriously unfair and selfish. Teaching fairness to children is extremely difficult, and it is a sad but easily observed fact of life that "privilaged" children who never learn this concept, end up having little or not concept of it as adults either. Even if I accepted your example as valid, this seems to me to be quite a jump. If there is some sort of innate moral compass in people, then all that really means is that our brains are such that we have these morals at an instinctive level. How would that be any different than things like instinctively fearing certain things? Or instinctively being attracted to the opposite ***?Indeed, many aspects of our morals do come from such instinctive responses, such as compassion and empathy for other people, and attachement to family. It seems to me that it is far more reasonable to look for the explanation for these instincts in our evolutionary development, rather than appealing to some inexplicable "law giver".I think you mean "raise the question".Is that the best answer? Please explain why you think it is. I can think of all sorts of answers which not only don't require us to introduce supernatural entities, but which are also testable, and actually have supporting evidence for them. Incidentally, what about the people involved in those atrocities? Do you think they all considered themselves to be evil? Or did God forget to gift them with morality?I have yet to see any compelling evidence for there being a universal moral law. On the contrary, the available evidence seems to quite clearly indicate otherwise.Just look to our own history for confirmation of this. What was widely considered to be "moral" and "immoral" 1000 years ago greatly differs from today. Would you consider slavery to be moral? How about beating your wife for disobedience? Or raping and murdering your enemies in a war?If there is a universal moral law, which one is it? Apperantly a lot of people never got the memo.If this is the case, then wouldn't the most reasonable conclusion be that those people who do behave in the way you consider to me moral are also behaving so due to decisions which lead to habits which lead to lifestyles?I could use the exact argument you have presented for a universal morality to argue that these evil people were given their twisted moral laws by Satan, instead of God. Apperantly you don't seem to think this is the case. Why?Or even better, maybe God gave them their evil morals too, because for reasons we can't comprehend, he wanted these conflicts to exist. Maybe god is, himself, evil?All of this amounts to blind speculation. All you are doing is attempting to fit the evidence to the conclusion you want.That's one example of a mentally ill person. What about all the monsters who actually believed that what they were doing was morally right?Have they? How do you know that they aren't being punished in Hell right now by a god that considers their acts to be evil? You don't. You are simply assuming what you want to be true.</blockquote>

Verification

Top

What's new

Forum list