5 ms·

> If you believe that it is never acceptable to participate in suicide in any way, you absolutely should not want this. This is interesting, if you have a reas

> If you believe that it is never acceptable to participate in suicide in any way, you absolutely should not want this. This is interesting, if you have a reason to believe this that's not some flavor of "my religion told me to", I'd love to hear your justification for why it's never acceptable?

Flimm 2y ago
All moral reasoning can be boiled down to "my religion told me to", assuming a comprehensive enough definition of religion. For example, an atheist humanist may argue that certain actions are immoral because they are harmful to human beings. The implicit religion behind that reasoning is that harm (and certain types of harm) is immoral. That's a religious statement, one that cannot be proved with the scientific method. It's a statement of moral axioms, and not all people share the exact same moral axioms.
- grayhatter 2y ago
  lol, what?! 1) I exist and can suffer 2) I perceive others as real, other people may or may not exist but it's useful and safer to assume they do exist. 3) They appear to experience joy, and suffering the same way that I do 4) I want to avoid suffering, and they say they want to avoid suffering. 5) My actions can contribute to their suffering 6) Given we both exist, there's no external reason to preference one of us over the other, they also likely have the same internal value as I do 7) I can prevent them from suffering, the sum of the system is improved if I behave in a way to cause the least amount of suffering. Where's the religion in that?
  - nsxwolf 2y ago
    I would say the judgement that suffering is bad and that preventing suffering is worthwhile, which requires “worthwhile” to have any real meaning at all would be the religious part. These are completely unscientific and unprovable assertions.
    - grayhatter 2y ago
      > These are completely unscientific and unprovable assertions. yeah, that's the problem with philosophy. It's impossible to escape the brain in the vat. But if you permit a jump a logical jump (the one I made in 2) The rest logically follow. Science isn't required to prove or disprove something. 1) All men can fly 2) Socrates is a man 3) Thus; Socrates can fly > I would say the judgement that suffering is bad and that preventing suffering is worthwhile, which requires “worthwhile” to have any real meaning at all would be the religious part. I would go back and read my points again. The logical jump I'm making is about how, if you assume both people exist, and you believe other people have value, the ethical thing to do is improve the existence of all people. This is a logical conclusion that anyone can choose to make or not. I choose to believe people have value. And I believe that my suffering is bad for me. And I believe their suffering is bad for them. And I believe that my actions can influence their suffering. I want to decrease my suffering, so the correct, and thus ethical way for me to treat myself, is to improve my quality of life, and decrease my suffering. Thus, the ethical way for me to treat others is the same. Without religion, I'll define worthwhile for me, is just what I desire. Is that controversial? Are you not allowed to define for you what's worth your time and attention?
      - Flimm 2y ago
        Thanks for engaging with me. In your last paragraph, you got to the crux of the issue. You feel that you are "allowed" (by whom?) to define your own moral values and your own priorities. You feel that this moral axiom is self-evident and uncontroversial. I would deny that. This moral axiom, like all moral axioms, cannot be proved by science. And it is far from universally shared, beyond our relatively small cultural bubble. For many people, defining one's own moral values is the definition of immorality, or at least amorality. For many people, true morality has to be above one's own preferences and desires (that is, more authoritative). If you disagree, you are merely revealing how your religion differs from theirs. Your religion has moral axioms that cannot be proved, and so does theirs. Don't get me wrong, I think people broadly share many moral axioms (such as: truth is generally good, love is generally good, hate is generally bad). But the idea that we get to define our own values is not one that is universally shared, it is mainly found only in highly individualistic atheistic cultures, and like all moral axioms, cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.
  - blueflow 2y ago
    Suffering and joy are very subjective. While interpolating from you onto others might work out most of the times, sometimes it doesn't and you'll accidentally do something you might regret later.
moralestapia 2y ago
>that's not some flavor of "my religion told me to" You're not arguing in good faith, because that is a perfectly valid reason. If you live in the US or any other developed country, that is even protected by the constitution.
- grayhatter 2y ago
  > You're not arguing in good faith, because that is a perfectly valid reason. I'm not arguing in bad faith :(... in fact you are arguing in bad faith more than. You're assuming something I don't mean to imply! I prefaced my question because "my religion told me to" is boring, and I assume that I wouldn't be able to learn anything from that reasoning. If however, the reason isn't based in religion, I've never considered it, and would be very interested to learn something I've never heard before I don't agree it's a perfectly valid reason. I believe religion as a whole, is a net negative for humanity. But I do agree that anyone is allowed to take their morality from anywhere they'd like. I don't intend, and would reject the idea of anyone who tries to control what other people want to believe (some restrictions apply). So anyone is free to believe that ethics and morality can only come from religion, I personally think that's dumb, but they likely think my reason are dumb, so we're even. I'm just not interested in the religious reasoning... but almost exclusively because I find it boring, and not useful to me.
  - moralestapia 2y ago
    It's not in good faith to constraint the discussion only to the arguments that you agree with. You should know this by age 8, come on.
    - grayhatter 2y ago
      Wow, Rude! It's obvious I'm 9 years old, thankyouverymuch! ...but also, I'm not constraining the discussion, you're free to ask any question. I'm constraining *my* question to the parts that I might be interested in so I don't waste anyones time. There are answers that I might or might not agree with, but the ones based in religion are based on logic I don't find persuasive.

Flimm 2y ago

All moral reasoning can be boiled down to "my religion told me to", assuming a comprehensive enough definition of religion. For example, an atheist humanist may argue that certain actions are immoral because they are harmful to human beings. The implicit religion behind that reasoning is that harm (and certain types of harm) is immoral. That's a religious statement, one that cannot be proved with the scientific method. It's a statement of moral axioms, and not all people share the exact same moral axioms.

grayhatter 2y ago
lol, what?! 1) I exist and can suffer 2) I perceive others as real, other people may or may not exist but it's useful and safer to assume they do exist. 3) They appear to experience joy, and suffering the same way that I do 4) I want to avoid suffering, and they say they want to avoid suffering. 5) My actions can contribute to their suffering 6) Given we both exist, there's no external reason to preference one of us over the other, they also likely have the same internal value as I do 7) I can prevent them from suffering, the sum of the system is improved if I behave in a way to cause the least amount of suffering. Where's the religion in that?
- nsxwolf 2y ago
  I would say the judgement that suffering is bad and that preventing suffering is worthwhile, which requires “worthwhile” to have any real meaning at all would be the religious part. These are completely unscientific and unprovable assertions.
  - grayhatter 2y ago
    > These are completely unscientific and unprovable assertions. yeah, that's the problem with philosophy. It's impossible to escape the brain in the vat. But if you permit a jump a logical jump (the one I made in 2) The rest logically follow. Science isn't required to prove or disprove something. 1) All men can fly 2) Socrates is a man 3) Thus; Socrates can fly > I would say the judgement that suffering is bad and that preventing suffering is worthwhile, which requires “worthwhile” to have any real meaning at all would be the religious part. I would go back and read my points again. The logical jump I'm making is about how, if you assume both people exist, and you believe other people have value, the ethical thing to do is improve the existence of all people. This is a logical conclusion that anyone can choose to make or not. I choose to believe people have value. And I believe that my suffering is bad for me. And I believe their suffering is bad for them. And I believe that my actions can influence their suffering. I want to decrease my suffering, so the correct, and thus ethical way for me to treat myself, is to improve my quality of life, and decrease my suffering. Thus, the ethical way for me to treat others is the same. Without religion, I'll define worthwhile for me, is just what I desire. Is that controversial? Are you not allowed to define for you what's worth your time and attention?
    - Flimm 2y ago
      Thanks for engaging with me. In your last paragraph, you got to the crux of the issue. You feel that you are "allowed" (by whom?) to define your own moral values and your own priorities. You feel that this moral axiom is self-evident and uncontroversial. I would deny that. This moral axiom, like all moral axioms, cannot be proved by science. And it is far from universally shared, beyond our relatively small cultural bubble. For many people, defining one's own moral values is the definition of immorality, or at least amorality. For many people, true morality has to be above one's own preferences and desires (that is, more authoritative). If you disagree, you are merely revealing how your religion differs from theirs. Your religion has moral axioms that cannot be proved, and so does theirs. Don't get me wrong, I think people broadly share many moral axioms (such as: truth is generally good, love is generally good, hate is generally bad). But the idea that we get to define our own values is not one that is universally shared, it is mainly found only in highly individualistic atheistic cultures, and like all moral axioms, cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.
- blueflow 2y ago
  Suffering and joy are very subjective. While interpolating from you onto others might work out most of the times, sometimes it doesn't and you'll accidentally do something you might regret later.

moralestapia 2y ago

>that's not some flavor of "my religion told me to" You're not arguing in good faith, because that is a perfectly valid reason. If you live in the US or any other developed country, that is even protected by the constitution.

grayhatter 2y ago
> You're not arguing in good faith, because that is a perfectly valid reason. I'm not arguing in bad faith :(... in fact you are arguing in bad faith more than. You're assuming something I don't mean to imply! I prefaced my question because "my religion told me to" is boring, and I assume that I wouldn't be able to learn anything from that reasoning. If however, the reason isn't based in religion, I've never considered it, and would be very interested to learn something I've never heard before I don't agree it's a perfectly valid reason. I believe religion as a whole, is a net negative for humanity. But I do agree that anyone is allowed to take their morality from anywhere they'd like. I don't intend, and would reject the idea of anyone who tries to control what other people want to believe (some restrictions apply). So anyone is free to believe that ethics and morality can only come from religion, I personally think that's dumb, but they likely think my reason are dumb, so we're even. I'm just not interested in the religious reasoning... but almost exclusively because I find it boring, and not useful to me.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  It's not in good faith to constraint the discussion only to the arguments that you agree with. You should know this by age 8, come on.
  - grayhatter 2y ago
    Wow, Rude! It's obvious I'm 9 years old, thankyouverymuch! ...but also, I'm not constraining the discussion, you're free to ask any question. I'm constraining *my* question to the parts that I might be interested in so I don't waste anyones time. There are answers that I might or might not agree with, but the ones based in religion are based on logic I don't find persuasive.