I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
That theory has a problem: It only explains the part of the population that thinks stealing and killing are wrong. What about the other people who steal and kill?
If tiny, sparsely-populated North Dakota is any example, maybe we have more allies out there than we realize:
"North Dakota – Measure 3 was a 'religious freedom law' pushed by conservative and Christian groups that would have protected religious practice from government mandates. It failed 65 to 35 percent"
but guys,this morality,is it inside us or just outside?forget about the origin,think for a moment where it is regarding human being?if the answer is morality is an inner concept (as if it's built-system)so how we can easily deceive it? and if the answer;morality is there outside us, so this morality how it can be related to our conscience?
Ask yourself the same thing about economics. It doesn't exist in a single mind - it is the product of the interaction of human minds. It is a societal construct with behaviors that govern human behavior. No one has ever suggested that a god created objective economics. Why?
What is different about ethics/morality?
I would bet more people have committed suicide over financial ruin than a perceived injustice. What do you think?
If in any doubt about this - read this news item.
Yes, it's clearly an emotional reaction.
Ethics is tied to a culture in a certain time in a certain place and based on a human's personal and social experience. Thus, conscious is different things for different people. One person may feel bad about accidentally stepping on a worm. Another person may feel bad about not finishing off a wounded enemy soldier.
@Unseen (One can only wish --) - I assume you're referring to situational ethics - personally, I would never step on a worm, and I would administer first aid to a wounded enemy soldier, and have.
You want a pat on the head? Good boy!
No, I was referring to the fact that whenever people say ethics is based on empathy they forget that empathy isn't a cosmic constant. One person will have pangs of conscience over something (whether they should or not) and someone else won't give it a thought.
Situational ethics is a joke, isn't it? You either conform your behavior to a standard of some sort or you're just doing what you want to do, which isn't ethical behavior in any sense of the word.