Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 59
Thanks Tree48Thanks

Thread: The "problem of evil" debunked

  1. #41
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    Quite the contrary; there's nothing lazy about it. Moral relativism requires ongoing thought.

    Moral absolutism doesn't require thought; just slavish adherence to an unchanging set of rules.
    Saying that slavish adherence to unchanging rules is "bad", and ongoing thought is "good" is moral absolutism.

    Plus, Secular Humanism is morally absolutist anyway:

    https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/12

    We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

    From a relativist POV, you can't say that discrimination and intolerance are "bad" - that would be purely relative to the individual. If Hitler would rather practice discrimination and intolerance, then what gives others the right to impose their relative values on the Nazis?

    We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

    Likewise, saying there is some quasi-"divine" obligation to understand the universe through reason and science is a morally absolutist value judgment. From a relativist POV, if someone would rather choose to believe in Santa Claus instead, you can't say there's anything objectively "wrong" with this.
    Last edited by Reality; 6th November 2017 at 09:53 AM.

  2. #42
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    42,222
    Thanks
    26899

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    Saying that slavish adherence to unchanging rules is "bad", and ongoing thought is "good" is moral absolutism.

    Plus, Secular Humanism is morally absolutist anyway:
    ...
    From a relativist POV, you can't say that discrimination and intolerance are "bad" - that would be purely relative to the individual. If Hitler would rather practice discrimination and intolerance, then what gives others the right to impose their relative values on the Nazis?
    You're quoting a specific organization. The definition of secular humanism (lowercase letters) is nothing more than belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in gods. That's it.

    The whole thing about discrimination and intolerance applies to a specific group of people, and cannot be applied to secular humanism as a philosophy.

  3. #43
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    You're quoting a specific organization. The definition of secular humanism (lowercase letters) is nothing more than belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in gods. That's it.

    The whole thing about discrimination and intolerance applies to a specific group of people, and cannot be applied to secular humanism as a philosophy.
    It's defining morality as something which humanity can objectively define, were it relative, then it could not make any meaningful value judgment or say any act (e.x. murder, rape) is more or less preferable to any other, or that Humanism is preferable to Nazism, or anything else.

  4. #44
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    42,222
    Thanks
    26899

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    It's defining morality as something which humanity can objectively define, were it relative, then it could not make any meaningful value judgment or say any act (e.x. murder, rape) is more or less preferable to any other, or that Humanism is preferable to Nazism, or anything else.
    Morality is based on societal norms. Things that tend to benefit society (generosity, courtesy, consideration of others) are considered "good" by virtually all human cultures on earth because they tend to benefit society. Conversely, other behaviors are considered "bad" by virtually all societies because they have a net damaging effect on society. Humanist moral norms are not random; they're just not defined by supernatural entities.

  5. #45
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    Morality is based on societal norms.

    Things that tend to benefit society (generosity, courtesy, consideration of others) are considered "good" by virtually all human cultures on earth because they tend to benefit society.

    Conversely, other behaviors are considered "bad" by virtually all societies because they have a net damaging effect on society. Humanist moral norms are not random; they're just not defined by supernatural entities.
    That's still an absolutist value judgment, if an individual's relative belief is that it was more in their evolutionary interest to rape or to murder, then there isn't any reason why they should deny their own self-interests. Much like the Nazis, one likewise could argue that eliminating the weak or defective rather than defending them benefits society more in the long run.

    While an individual could choose not to do those things themselves, to attempt to impose said restrictions on others is absolutist nonetheless, regardless of whether or not such a philosophy specifically brings a "God" into it.

  6. #46
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    42,222
    Thanks
    26899

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    That's still an absolutist value judgment, if an individual's relative belief is that it was more in their evolutionary interest to rape or to murder, then there isn't any reason why they should deny their own self-interests. Much like the Nazis, one likewise could argue that eliminating the weak or defective rather than defending them benefits society more in the long run.

    While an individual could choose not to do those things themselves, to attempt to impose said restrictions on others is absolutist nonetheless, regardless of whether or not such a philosophy specifically brings a "God" into it.
    No. An individual's relative belief is secondary to societal morals when one's behaviors impact others. In secular humanism, it's not the individual, but the society that constructs moral norms.

    Acting against societal norms is contrary to secular humanism. The difference is that a secular humanist recognizes that societal norms change over time, while a religious adherent believes in relatively static morals, regardless of how many centuries may have passed since they were constructed.
    Last edited by Djinn; 6th November 2017 at 12:45 PM.

  7. #47
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    No. An individual's relative belief is secondary to societal morals.
    According to what absolutist standard?

    And who decides which society's morals trump whose? Who says the relative morality of Nazi society is any objectively "worse" than that of Western Europe?

    What you're hocking is just an alternate form of absolutism, though you claim it is otherwise.

    In secular humanism, it's not the individual, but the society that constructs moral norms.
    Then if 51% of the population decides that homosexuals should be put to death, and women shouldn't be allowed to vote, then it's okay, since "society" has decided so?

    Somehow I have a feeling you wouldn't be okay with that.

    What you're really doing is saying that the values of secular Humanism are objectively better than those of 3rd world counties which don't acknowledge human rights - which is just an alternate absolutism, despite not mentioning "God".
    Last edited by Reality; 6th November 2017 at 12:45 PM.

  8. #48
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    42,222
    Thanks
    26899

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    According to what absolutist standard?

    And who decides which society's morals trump whose? Who says the relative morality of Nazi society is any objectively "worse" than that of Western Europe?
    If you want to get technical, secular humanism is about societal morals; not individual morals. Why? Because under secular humanism philosophy, morals don't exist outside of a society. An isolated individual is incapable of good, evil, or anything in between.

  9. #49
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    If you want to get technical, secular humanism is about societal morals; not individual morals. Why? Because under secular humanism philosophy, morals don't exist outside of a society. An isolated individual is incapable of good, evil, or anything in between.
    Problem is it's actually merely stating that Secular Humanism is the absolute moral standard that a society should be governed by.

    Otherwise, it couldn't say that slavery should be abolished, women should have the right to vote, etc. Because otherwise, if the status quo has "decided" that slavery is moral, then it would be immoral for the Humanist to oppose the status quo by trying to eliminate it.

  10. #50
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    42,222
    Thanks
    26899

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    Problem is it's actually merely stating that Secular Humanism is the absolute moral standard that a society should be governed by.

    Otherwise, it couldn't say that slavery should be abolished, women should have the right to vote, etc. Because otherwise, if the status quo has "decided" that slavery is moral, then it would be immoral for the Humanist to oppose the status quo by trying to eliminate it.
    Lowercase. Unless it's at the beginning of a sentence, or in a title, "secular humanism" is lowercase. And all secular humanism states is that society is capable of defining its own morals without guidance from supernatural entities.

    Your slavery example is problematic though, because slaves are a part of society.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18th July 2017, 07:59 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13th February 2014, 01:59 PM
  3. Bush's So Called "War Against Evil"
    By MeMyselfnI in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2nd May 2007, 10:24 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed