Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And yet, nature doesn't seem to give a damn about things like that, now does it?
HUMAN nature does{so does animal nature to an extent. any sentience at an individual level definately does.} and that is what we shud really be concerned about. and why is it that you ask for answers, and when one is given, you refuse to reply to it? i explained this already. the above argument holds no meaning unless you can claim your OWN form is so trancendant {i.e. godlike} that in your eyes/perspective, existance/non existance, suffering/joy...... hold no special places and are concepts just like any other, none preferrable over the other.
see a HUMAN, whose form is DEFINED by existance as opposed to non existance, self preservation as opposed to destruction and basic preference for happiness as opposed to suffering can not CLAIM such an absurd position, because if he/she does, then they may as well be negating their own existance/form/defining characteristics. ofcopurse one can THINK about such things which are outside the grasps of their own form and existance, but no1 can EMBODY them or PURSUE them while remaning true to their form. that wud just be idiotic and self negating.
Some people deserve to be enslaved.
The problem is not the act of justice but rather on who.
Slavery has been targeted at people based on race, creed, and financial level.
Instead of what it should be: actions.
What we do
How we think
These should what determine a person's level of freedom. Not things they can't help.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
HUMAN nature does{so does animal nature to an extent. any sentience at an individual level definately does.} and that is what we shud really be concerned about. and why is it that you ask for answers, and when one is given, you refuse to reply to it? i explained this already. the above argument holds no meaning unless you can claim your OWN form is so trancendant {i.e. godlike} that in your eyes/perspective, existance/non existance, suffering/joy...... hold no special places and are concepts just like any other, none preferrable over the other.see a HUMAN, whose form is DEFINED by existance as opposed to non existance, self preservation as opposed to destruction and basic preference for happiness as opposed to suffering can not CLAIM such an absurd position, because if he/she does, then they may as well be negating their own existance/form/defining characteristics. ofcopurse one can THINK about such things which are outside the grasps of their own form and existance, but no1 can EMBODY them or PURSUE them while remaning true to their form. that wud just be idiotic and self negating.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
PROTIP: Humans are merely sentient animals.
untrue. you think too highly of the human race. animals are sentient too. they just do not posess the psychological complexity required to think much about the concept and have discussions such as this. it is like a baby who is pretty much newborn, animals are like that. that does not mean that they arent sentient.
and will you ever appropriately reply to answers that you yourself challenged others to produce , or is this your new thing? dismissing the content of entire posts based on one liners which dont even make sense?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
untrue. you think too highly of the human race. animals are sentient too. they just do not posess the psychological complexity required to think much about the concept and have discussions such as this. it is like a baby who is pretty much newborn, animals are like that. that does not mean that they arent sentient.and will you ever appropriately reply to answers that you yourself challenged others to produce , or is this your new thing? dismissing the content of entire posts based on one liners which dont even make sense?
Therefore, humans are subject to the exact same pressures of natural selection as everyone else. If I murder someone, then that someone clearly wasn't fit to survive. Thus, his lack of genetic material is a benefit to us.
In atheism, there is no morality. It is a construct, nothing more. It isn't immoral when a bear kills a fawn...or when it kills a human. Why should it be any different for us?
^ why do you insist on being an idiot and totally disreguarding arguments made? i told you to reply to the argument "i" posted and you still have not. natural selection has no role in this. it isnt any criteria by which to create a morality. as i said before, that morality is based on our conciousness and the things which DEFINE us as contructs and the collective acheivement of those basis. it is true that there is no such thing as morality on the grand scale of the universe. but there doesnt HAVE to be, morality IS supposed to be a product and construct of SENTIENCES who are DEFINED by concepts of existance/self awarness/desire for hapiness and self preservation etc. unless you can claim to be BEYOND such concepts, i really dont see the point of you denying their usage as a valid criteria for morality, seeing as you yourself are sentient and the morality only holds for SENTIENT beings. it wud be like denying/negating your own existance.
protip : humans are the most psychologially sophisticated, and hence most able to THINK about their own sentience. whether it actually increases their quality of sentience or not is a contreversial issue and there are no definitive arguments either way.
and really, this is why i hate faith based morality. the way you are talking gives me a very strong sense that if it werent for the fear/enforcement of DIVINE criteria of good and bad, youd probably be a eugenics supporter or spokesperson. is there nothing inside you that makes you feal these things are good or bad other than the teachings of christianity?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^ why do you insist on being an idiot and totally disreguarding arguments made? i told you to reply to the argument "i" posted and you still have not. natural selection has no role in this. it isnt any criteria by which to create a morality. as i said before, that morality is based on our conciousness and the things which DEFINE us as contructs and the collective acheivement of those basis. it is true that there is no such thing as morality on the grand scale of the universe. but there doesnt HAVE to be, morality IS supposed to be a product and construct of SENTIENCES who are DEFINED by concepts of existance/self awarness/desire for hapiness and self preservation etc. unless you can claim to be BEYOND such concepts, i really dont see the point of you denying their usage as a valid criteria for morality, seeing as you yourself are sentient and the morality only holds for SENTIENT beings. it wud be like denying/negating your own existance.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You're only reinforcing my point: morality is a construct. Constructs are unnecessary and ought to be done away with. Also, the idea that morality is "supposed to be"...since when is there a "supposed to be" in nature?
no i am not. emty claims like that will getyou nowhere. your personal oppinion on what OUGHT to be done with constructs has no implication on the facts i presented which you can not deny about your own nature. and see, that last part just screams out that you did not even read my post. humans shud not be concerned with NATURE! neither shud any entities which are defined by the concepts i described their. all they can and shud be concerned about is HUMAN nature or the nature of the ENTITY in question. nature OUTSIDE those perspectives is merely a vague description of things which are made up by our own perspectives. otherwise, if you go AGAINST your basic nature or concepts that define and give rise to YOU, then that wud be pretty much like denying your own existance. and my argument is further made sound by the fact that SELF PRESERVATION is also a basic PART of our nature so we have the most basic of reasons to follow what our nature is.
your argument simply proves that when a satisfactory argument for morality outside divine will IS given, you wont be around to listen to it because it seems, that isnt really what you wanted to begin with. all you seems to want is to try and destroy any arguments for morality or truth other than that defined by god which is very narrow minded.