Skashion said:
Markt85 said:
He has stated a few times that he will come to that. The debate at the moment is purely how an Athiest can judge Morality
I've told him and he ignores it. To me the harm principle is an absolute morality. If, by using your liberty, you rob someone of their right to liberty, it is a crime and needs to be punished. If not, there is no crime. It isn't perfect, it can't demand positive actions (though nor do the Ten Commandments), but it can demand no harm. As long as that is fulfilled, we are each free to follow our own path of morality, with that's tee-total celibacy or drug and alcohol fuelled homosexual orgies.
So the harm principle is an absolute moral right ?! ....well if that's the case it cannot come from evolution since evolution is naturalistic...
Not necessarily true. As the brain function of man has evolved is it not reasonable to say that he may have developed strategies (e.g. the harm principle as an absolute moral right) which help propagate his DNA at a more sophisticated level than mere survival of the fittest. As man becomes more self aware he may realise that if he is not the biggest, strongest or most athletic specimen he will need other ways of ensuring his bloodline can continue. The harm principle would ensure that his own offspring will more likely survive if it is adopted by the whole species as they would be less likely to be thoughtlessly wiped out by the biggest, as happens naturally in nature with less developed species. Could the exponential increase in man's dominance of the planet have occurred if all sub-optimal offspring of the tribe had been continually eradicated by the alpha male/female?
You seem unable to grasp the concept of your own worldview.
In a naturalistic/Athiestic worldview (yours), The world really is without any meaning, Value or purpose,the universe, man, you, me and everyone you know are doomed to death, mans life ends at the grave, nothing will ultimately exist.
The second half of the sentence can be true without the first being true.
If each person passes out of existence, what ultimate meaning can be given to life ? Sure you may influence a few people, perhaps millions but ultimately, we simply cease to exist with nothing to remember ANY of mans endeavours.....your world weather you like it or not has NO values and no morals.
What ultimate meaning can be given to life if they don't pass out of existence? Are you saying that the moral behaviour of every single human which has ever lived has had a direct and realisable effect on the fabric of our world, and not just the physical result of their presence on Earth? Wow.
The world to which you indorse is natural......quite frankly if that is the case why should I appeal to your harm principle ?
Liberty exists in the minds (chemicals) of an ape like creature that ultimately is no more special than pigs,dust, house cat, worm....ultimately we are a collection of particles of matter....
True
You have claimed that this Harm principle is an absolute right.....but your worldview has no absolute moral rights, you are confused on this issue, these frameworks that you adhere too are challenged around the world, for example you say if you deny liberty to others you deserve to be punished.....why? What if that man has just murdered your family member who is showing signs of aggressive behaviour, but NOT denying liberty we could now be wrong, it now gets complicated and we start to get into all kinds of debates......
But that is besides the point ... your worldview is natural, there is no meaning to life.
To drive home the point, if life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference weather you live as a Hitler or Mother Theresa, since your destiny is unrelated to your behaviour, all we are confronted with is the bare valueless face of existence.
Not true. Of course destiny is related to your behaviour, not mine as an individual because as you say my life ended at the grave. The key point is what effect did my life have on my family, my bloodline and the continuation of my DNA. If I act as an survival of the fittest, alpha male and wipe out millions it cannot be said I have not had an effect on the world. But ultimately Hitler's strategy was wrong, he lost, his evolutionary strategy did not work. If he had adopted the harm principle, perhaps his aim of propagating the aryan race may have been more successful. Thankfully we shall never know.
After all on the Athiestic worldview Humans are simply by-products of matter plus time plus chance, we are pure luck, a mixture of chemicals....we have evolved relatively recently on a small rock lost somewhere in the vastness of space and where doomed to perish individually and collectively.
True
There is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good.....and...........
No right and no wrong
Not true
... this has to be your viewpoint !
Not true
By claiming an absolute right you are contradicting all the statements on here,
Absolute morals DO NOT exist in a natural world, because it is just that...Natural, the process of evolution is not the basis of morals, since evolution main thrust is survival of the fittest......and I take it most organisms didn't use morals to get to the top of the food chain
See above - survival of the fittest works in most cases, but must become less important as brain power becomes more important to survival than physical capability. The development of morals could be argued to have become an evolutionary tool.
If life is meaningless then so are your values,
Not truethey exist purely and only in the electrical
Brain waves in your brain.
True...and mine are different to yours
Most emphatically true...and more power to the diversity of brains evolution has given us.
