An offshoot of r/ToiletPaperUSA
Rules:
There was only 1 video from PragerU (PU, apropos) that I felt was actually worth listening to: Mike Rowe said not to follow your dreams, but bring them with you. Mike has headed in a direction I don't care to follow, so I've ignored him and that video.
Hank Green uploaded basically the same concept yesterday, so now I can feel good about completely washing my hands of the PU.
Also, everyone sentenced for murder has just been acquitted, then.
people who think this way, are the people who would murder people if they believed god did not exist.
"thats the only thing stopping me, so it must he the same way for everyone else"
What about all those religions that say... It IS moral to kill
Depending on who, when and why they are killed.
These include Christianity
God: killing is bad and you'll go to hell if you do!
Also God: I WANT you to kill mebi, rape women and children and enslave them!
Also God: those kids made fun of me, I will bloody murder them all
Also God: I have the best morals!
Also God: I'm imaginary and only exist in your head
If you need god to even have a sense of right or wrong, you're just a fucking psychopath on a leash.
We are social apes, that's our ethical system. If we were wolves or bees or parasitc wasps we would have a different one. Those animals are also God's creatures BTW.
I mean, empathy is on the way out, so might as well take advantage of this lawless land.
I'm all for a law stating that those insane "devout" US Christians cannot use any technology that isn't in the Bible. After all, isn't using something like AI an affront against God because the companies behind it are playing good?
Also, murder not inherently a religious idea and should never be treated as such. I hope that guy gets a good walloping.
Murder is wrong by definition; if it's not wrong, it's not murder
These are the same people who frequently say "if it wasn't for the threat of going to Hell I would be raping and murdering all over the place." And then they talk about how Christianity offers an ethical framework.
Ethical framework or not, if the only thing preventing you from doing horrible things to others is the fear of eternal damnation then you're a fucking psychopath and a hypocrite.
It's also the people who say killing in the name of God is ok. As well as harming others who are different.
God isn’t real, he didn’t create morality, and no mystical being will judge you when you die. Grow up.
Be a good person for yourself and other humans.
Morals don't come from god, morals come from mutual self respect. We saw that death was final and decided we didn't want to die so we came to an understanding that we weren't going to kill each other and it just grows from there. Anybody who doesn't understand that is bad for the tribe.
Morales comes from Bolivia
So if I stab Penis Drager, can I use his own words as defence in court? Because he seems like he is permitting me to kill him.
I think PenisDragger might have to be my next uname.
You'd have to put God on trial, really
Default judgment for the plaintiff, since the defendant wouldn't appear.
Perfect! Subpoena God to appear in court. Should settle things pretty fucking easily.
Why didn’t you say so earlier? MANSON’S BACK, BABY!
blasts Helter Skelter in your white-ass HOA neighborhood
It's stupidly said, but from a purely theoretical point of view it's an interesting question: what's the foundation of morals?
What Prager is arguing for here is Divine Command Theory - that whatever God says is good, is good; and whatever God says is bad, is bad.
It's a pretty shitty way to categorize morality, but it is sadly common.
The main problem with this theory is that God doesn't speak directly (whether he exists or not), so it's a way for a clergy, while they pretend to speak in the name of God, to define what's good and what's not.
It's also sidestepping Euthyphro's dilemma by just not caring about how arbitrary divine command theory makes morality.
Shared understanding of the difference between good and harm.
But why shouldn't we do harm? I don't think one needs a god to behave morally, as there are a lot of very moral atheists and immoral religious persons, but from a purely theoretical point of view, why should someone care about the others?
Empathy and the common good of humanity/society.
But again, why should I strive for the common good of humanity? Why should I care?
I wouldn't say shared morals nessecarily mean you're compelled to strive for the common good, just not actively harm society. If you harm the society you're a part of, you'll most likely be ostracized/punished. I would assume it's in your best interest to not be ostracized.
It's the case for me, because I'm a commoner. But why shouldn't people powerful enough to avoid consequences shouldn't do as they wish?
They do. Take a look outside and see how that's going.
Are you trying to find some objective standard for morality? There isn't one. It's all completely subjective. That's why empathy is important. If you look at a sociopathic billionaire and genuinely have trouble comprehending why they shouldn't destroy the planet and gut the middle and lower class, I can't help you.
You are always free to be an asshole.
Well, from a purely self interested standpoint, if you spend all your time raping and killing and stealing then the local community is going to deal with you appropriately. Historically speaking, this means half the town walking you out back, putting holes in you until you achieve death, and then using your tombstone as an appropriate example for the next guy who thinks he can do whatever he wants.
The Golden Rule exists not only as a moral framework but as a method of self protection. You will be treated with the energy you give out to others whether you want that or not. If you're a helpful and pleasant person then people will want to be helpful and pleasant in return. Ditto the opposite.
This is longer than I intended, sorry.
Tl;dr: Morality is a relative thing and cannot be externally deduced from pure logic. Your personal values will necessarily inform your moral beliefs.
Others have addressed that there are very real social/self-preservation reasons to not harm others but I will address the morality side which is what I think you were asking about.
I’ve heard this sort of question framed more generally as part of the “is/ought” logical dilemma. Morality can sort of be summarized as “ought” statements regarding our behavior. For example: We should (ought to) protect children from harm. That’s a moral statement but where is the justification for it?
The basic idea of the is/ought dilemma is that you cannot logically derive “ought” statements from “is” statements. Said differently: you cannot derive a moral statement of “one ought to do X” from premises that simply define “this thing is A.”
But then where did “We ought to protect the innocent” come from? If you try to justify it you will find that you will have to predicate it on another “we ought” sort of statement, you never get back to just stating something “is” as the sole basis of the moral conclusion.
That’s a bit long winded but the general idea is that the basis of morality is not something I think you can logically deduce from statements of fact. Religions often try to bypass this by saying “well god is the source of morality so if he says something is wrong that makes it objectively wrong.” This is a gigantic stipulation to agree to however and without it, I don’t think logic alone can be used to derive morality.
For example I believe that life evolved over millions of years and is incredibly fragile (is statement). I also think that life is special and beautiful. Someone once said: “We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out.” That statement resonates with my world view. Because I personally value life and think it is special, it makes sense to me that we ought to do things to protect life - don’t harm others, try to assist those in need, etc. But even that is more of a guiding priciniple and not a moral absolute. If someone was committing violence against my child I would would harm them if necessary to stop them.
Furthermore, I recognize that not everyone even accepts my “is” statements about life being special and beautiful, and even that statement is insufficient to come up with an absolute moral position, as I just gave an example of. That’s part of the reason societies will make laws to enforce punishment for behavior that harms others - not everyone agrees on morality or its basis.
So why shouldn’t we hurt others? Look closely at your core beliefs and you’ll find the answer (or maybe you won’t).
Thanks for this interesting answer.
But the problem with relativism is that it's not universalisable. If my personal values inform my moral beliefs, I can't impose them on others. For example, I think excision is wrong, but if that idea is only rooted in my personal values, I'm not legitimate to oppose it in an other continent, with an other culture, and then other personal values.
I completely agree it is problematic if not impossible if your goal is to use some sort of universal logic to persuade others that you are right and they are wrong. I don’t have a solution for that and as far as I can tell only religions claim to have an answer which is basically “our god is right and says X is right and Y is wrong.”
I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that means you are not “legitimate” for opposing harm to others. The question that springs to mind is, who gets to decide what is objectively legitimate? The question sort of presupposes there is some higher authority which can be appealed to (a god, etc). If you aren’t basing your reasoning in religion/gods then I don’t see how you can logically derive morality without relying on your personal beliefs. I’d love to see someone show me how they think morality can be objective without a religious premise.
These are extreme examples. But people with power and money can actively harm the society without bad consequences for them. Why shouldn't they?
without bad consequences for them
[Citation Needed]
Stock prices rise and fall with public whims and if you're a big enough asshole it is possible to turn away the paying customers that you require to keep your power and money. Tesla is seeing it happen.
Not to mention,
Meh, so many people posting the guillotine, saying that the French have a solution....
Well? We're waaaiiiiting! When is your big mouth going to join the actual action?
If there was social retribution, if shitty behaviour turned away customers, Amazon would not exist. Musk did everything to be hated by everyone and, surprise, he's still the richest man on Earth. Trump was reelected.
The retribution powerful people fear is only marginal.
This doesn't have to be true if everyone were on the same page about it.
It doesn't have to be true, maybe. It shouldn't be true, for sure. But it is, and always was, for as long as we have historical sources.
The golden rule.
I would certainly hope sadomasochists wouldn't apply the golden rule to me.
The categorical imperative