Spyre2000 said:
Ah the old logical argument for morality. The problem as it were is that logic can be used to justify anything.
Only if you allow any premise to be used unchallenged.
You are correct you can prove that shooting me will incur lots of cost to the various established system. But what you fail to prove that not shooting me would be less costly. Since there is no way to TEST this because we are unable to see the future there is no way to know the impact I would have on society. You maybe able to deduce a probable amount it might cost to not shoot me.
However, there are ways in which the likely immediate future can be demonstrated. If you, for instance, were wearing an explosive vest in a crowded room, it is demonstrable that you are acting with the intent to kill many more than one person, and so killing you to prevent that would be morally justifiable.
And yes it is "because you say so". You argument hinges on the fact one you assume that society as a whole is more important then me as an individual regardless of what that society is which is clearly an OPINION not a provable or testable fact
It's also basic mathematics which stems from the simple principle that human lives have equal value. And that is the root of
all morality anyway.
something required by science. And two the potential cost of not shooting me is only a hypothesis and needs to be tested before it can be compared to the cost of shooting me. In your case you are assuming a hypothesis is true before any testing has been done.
It has already been demonstrated how this might happen. And, funnily enough, this is how the justice system
already works in these cases, especially visible in investigations when armed police officers have used their weapons.
Also I'm really glad you used shooting and potential killing as an example of "objectively demonstrated" cause for the "good to society". Because it proves my point perfectly. Dictators around the world have used NON-RELIGIOUS argument to "prove" that curtain segments of people were harmful to society and thus justify their genocides.
With faulty premises. Since premises can be challenged, this is happily not an issue, we are back to the straw man again.
The idea that that state or "society" as a whole is more important then individual rights has been the rational for just as many atrocities as religion.
The idea that society is more important is simple mathematics. The right to life of two people outweighs that of one person, unless the two people are acting to significantly infringe the rights of the one (because in that case they are actively causing harm).
And I'm not taking the "mindless" middle ground. I'm simply stating that both sides are making up these arbitrary rules
By denying that one side is derived from verifiable premises and the other isn't, you are making the golden mean argument.
they only use different excuses to justify their position. Once people realize this they can get past that and talk about the real issue. Which is we created morality as a way to dictate how societies should function and promote the behaviors we have determined as correct. So the real question is does having this moral better define a society we want to live in? But even then it is still an OPINION on which society is best.
Which is why we use a system designed specifically to remove opinion from the matter, this is the foundation of utilitarianism.
This is why cultures all over the world both religious and non religious have different morals.
However, the basics tend to remain the same, and, in fact, religion only tends to produce rights infringing morals, like the treatment of women as second class citizens or property, which is not something an objective system can justify except by faulty premises (and since premises can be challenged and shown faulty, this would not stand up to scrutiny).
I say it again the universe is a cold and indifferent place. Nature has no concept of right and wrong, of moral and immoral.
Explain altruism and reciprocicity in vampire bats. Vampire bats will, if they are not able to find enough blood to survive, ask another bat who has to regurgitate some of the blood they consumed. They also "remember" these debts, and remember who has and has not paid them back, and refuse to advance them the service in future. Moral systems are pre-intelligence, and are demonstrably based on objective principles.
These are concepts were created by people to outline how societies function. In the past these guidelines were taught in the form of religion however in modern times people claim that they can prove which morals are "correct" through science. Yet all they can do is show through logic two potentially different outcomes and then give their opinion on which outcome is most desirable.
Once again, the basis is not a judgement of opinion but a dispassionate judgement based on the original premises, which are open to challenge. If, for instance, one wished to use an objective moral system to justify slavery, one would have to show evidence for the premise that some persons were of less value than others. Since this cannot be objectively shown, it is a false premise and must be rejected, as must any conclusions derived from it.
If one wished to use a religious moral system to justify slavery, one only needs to point to God saying so. (which, in Christianity and others, he did repeatedly, once again showing that religions have no moral standing).
And of course I reverse it when talking to the other side. Best way to prove the my point is act like a little kid and keep asking "WHY?" eventually they will come down to, "It just is", "I say so", "God says so", or something along those lines.
