3 ms·

> I wonder how you decided that. It's impossible for there to be an objective good or evil. As soon as there are no humans, then there is no good or evil, beca

> I wonder how you decided that. It's impossible for there to be an objective good or evil. As soon as there are no humans, then there is no good or evil, because it was subjective judgement, our emotions, all along, evolved to help us cooperate. Now, if it's not objective, then we know that people claiming it to be are either deluded or doing so in order to make their own will the norm (which philosophers love to do.) > loving kindness, metta, the Golden Rule, and a host of others. This confounds good and evil with ethics itself. Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. > If the concept exists for dominance alone, why do these religions and philosophers discuss it so much? Obviously to get people to do what they wanted and that's exactly how it was always used by religious institutions which subsisted as parasites more often than not.

JackFr 4y ago
> Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? > As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. Again, by that do you mean a description of what is observed or a normative proscription for behavior? Because I don’t see how the latter is possible without assuming meaning or purpose, which you would seemingly describe as “superstition”.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? No, I guess you could do that, but I meant: Do you want to live in a situation where anyone is allowed to kidnap and torture anyone? It's not really in your interest, is it?

JackFr 4y ago

> Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? > As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. Again, by that do you mean a description of what is observed or a normative proscription for behavior? Because I don’t see how the latter is possible without assuming meaning or purpose, which you would seemingly describe as “superstition”.

guerrilla 4y ago
> By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? No, I guess you could do that, but I meant: Do you want to live in a situation where anyone is allowed to kidnap and torture anyone? It's not really in your interest, is it?