2nd question for atheists and moral relativists?

Question

I appreciate the answers but I want to follow up. It seems there was a near concensus that morals are determined by the society we live in, or by how we would like to be treated, what is best for the group, common sense, or morals are situational. Some said death is bad, life is good. But what I am trying to get at is if there is no objective universal standard, then things such as rape and murder cannot be evil but only unfortunate for the one recieving it. If we are all products of amoral evolution, then there simply cannot be a such thing as wrongness or rightness. It is only strongest or weakest. But what I find interesting is that even an atheist will object loudly if someone slaps him in the face becasue he insinctively knows it is wrong, not just unfortunate. Likewise if an atheist witnesses a loved one murdered, he will object loudly and emotionally because he knows it was evil, not just unfortunate. But why does he conclude it is evil and not merely unbeneficial?

Answer 1

If you didn't pay attention, and apparently you didn't, I told you that morality and altruism are a PRODUCT of evolution, because natural selection favors those who are "nice" and help their fellow beings. Read what I suggested, and you will get it. You seem more than smart enough to understand.

Answer 2

What the answers are showing you is that there's a basic progression or set of stages of spirituality which correspond to the level of ego-centeredness (where one's own self interests are seen as different from others and paramount; there's little, if any, realization and consideration of the suffering of others). At the lower rungs, people need societal laws or moral codes with promises of reward and punishment. The religious at this level can't fathom doing good without a deity that will reward them. Or, for the atheist at this level, one deems the laws and moral code necessary to provide an environment where one's self-interests (safety, happiness, etc.) are secured. As one progresses up the ladder, the self is lessened and there's more and more realization that the other is the same as you. With this, there's a realization of what it means to suffer and a strong desire to make sure that others don't experience this by one's actions. As this level gets deeper, there's no real need for a moral code or set of laws because the best thing is done given one's deep consideration of the circumstances and what would cause the least suffering. In this way, we have the deepest and most loving morality because it doesn't base itself on rigidity. People at this level know that all life wants to live and this realization makes them act accordingly.

Answer 3

You don't have to be of a faith to know the difference between right and wrong. To say there is only strongest or weakest makes me think of a horse race, or an animal behavior, survival of the fittest. Morals and the knowledge of right and wrong or a consciousness is what makes us human and no matter where you are in the world the life of human beings regardless of culture, color or creed is precious and should never be taken by another human being. You talk of atheists as though they are seperate from the rest of the human race they are people with feelings like every other human and just because they don't believe in God as we know Him most believe in a greater sense of being. A greater conscious if you will, and he concludes it is evil because he knows the difference between right and wrong, of good and evil. Get real you are trying to come off like a thinker but your thoughts are mere ramblings with no real argument or motive except to deplete what you don't want to accept. No offense but your question is not moral in its context and one can see through it that you are jabbing atheists where there is no need. They are human beings too, and inasmuch deserve respect and a right to believe what they choose to.

Answer 4

There are some sparkling circumstances the place any society will draw the line: #Any act wherein somebody or team seeks to break somebody who has achieved no longer something against that warrants revenge (whether criminal or no longer if socially suitable). #Any act it is obviously "incorrect" and does not have some comparable advantage (e.g. protection of self or others), yet is further on by using self interest. for the duration of history, those have been broken even though those have an absolute nature. If the Bible have been taken as a literal ethical handbook, the thirteenth replace to the U. S. shape could be immoral as a results of fact the government "stole" adult adult males's slaves. Capital punishment could be contained in this sort of stoning. everlasting press fabric could be unlawful. the essential Biblical concepts for interplay in society make it sparkling the lifestyles and limb, sources, and marriage are significant. the comparable could nicely be stated of the Code of Hammurabi. the two are harsh by using right now's standards whether or no longer you're non secular. for sure, suitable and incorrect are subjective. You double published in spite of it being against community policies.

Answer 5

Well, where should we start?

Families and clans:Survival and success equals rules to teach your offspring. Those rules are called morals.

Personal Survival: Wow! That was a close one. I had better be more careful the next time I do this this or this. That learning is also a moral. Moral of the story.

Now for instinct: Right and wrong are soon learned by three aspects; pain, pleasure, numbness.

In my recent book "Encyclopedia of Love" these aspects are mentioned. And, of these aspects all morals are based.

1. There are only three aspects of life; pain, pleasure, and numbness;
2. There are only three more aspects of life; the anticipation of pleasure, pain, and numbness
3. There are only two more aspects of life; the avoidance of pain and numbness.
4. There are only two more aspects of life; the appreciation of pleasure and sometimes the appreciation of numbness.
5. There is only one more aspect of life; Feeling lucky for your lot in life.
6. There is only one more aspect of life; Sharing your life with another person.
7. There are only two more aspects of life; forgiving* someone and being forgiven by someone. *This is difficult, but essential.
8. There is only one more aspect of life ... "Life after Death".

Answer 6

Good and evil, right and wrong, are the result of the human experience, no God or religion is required. We would be a sorry lot indeed if we only treated someone well because of the hope of a reward after death or because it was written in some old religious text.

Cats for Change

Answer 7

"If we are all products of amoral evolution, then there simply cannot be a such thing as wrongness or rightness".

Here is where you're wrong. Atheism does not imply moral relativism, nor does it mean that there cannot be wrongness or rightness.

Answer 8

He believes in evil.

Answer 9

get simple