RE: The Good Vs Evil Delusion
In Canada the Inuits might find themselves in harsh winters and sometimes resort in eating their babies in order to survive. Logic dictates that they can always have more babies but if they die then their clan will cease to exist.
This is also followed in Aboriginal cultures of Australia. If the clan grows to a number that it becomes unsustainable for their territory, they will kill their babies to maintain numbers and avoid getting into war with nearby clans (endangering their whole group).
In China people used to kill the female children in order to have male. It was culturally embraced and considered ethical since many were doing it. Ethics are a matter of democracy and hence the perception of good and evil.
There is nothing inherently evil in regards to what these people do. They just happen to rationalize it differently because their environment has set different constituents.
For example only a demented person would rape a child. There is nothing inherently evil to that person since they are sick.
yes it is evil. Killing an innocent person is evil, raping is evil. Not only demented people rape, sometimes rape is a part of the culture and it is an evil and barbaric practice. Child sacrifice is an age old practice too.
If you don't accept that there is objective evil, there is no standing for law and civilization collapse on itself. There is no up or down or any kind of point of reference and this is how evil people can justify their actions on utilitarian bases or "rational" basis.
Evil or Good is always subjective. Evil for you, not for them.
Western civilization was built on different ideas than other cultures, therefore we value and discredit different things than other cultures.
If it would collapse if our preferences towards our values would change, I don't think so. But it would be a different world, for sure.
It is evil to us, not to them. For example Aboriginals consider us evil for throwing our parents into care centers for them to die. For us is Tuesday. We just happen to rationalize it differently. They would carry the elderly on their shoulders until their last breath.
I would suggest you read the book "The World Until Yesterday" from Jared Diamond (Anthropologist). He explains a lot about these cultural differences and how people consider each other evil or good depending on their perception.
Not really. If I don't accept it, then it means that it has a subjective value and it would have to be decided by the group from which I would chose to live with. Whether I believe is evil or good would remain irrelevant since I will chose to live with the people that will judge me. Society does not need to collapse. Ultimatums don't really cut it. Also, the fact that so many cultures have so many different views about good and evil demonstrates how subjective the concepts are.
Indeed they do. Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with our subject matter.
so all you can say is: "I prefer that people don't rape and kill innocent babies...but if they do it and if they believe it's fine by them...then it is."
That kind of thinking gives you no intellectual grounding to defend anything that has value in this world. And when evil come knocking at your door, you will no other choice than passively accept what the culture or the zeitgeist gives you.
Sad!
I cannot dictate morality to another group nor I can help someone that doesn't ask for my help. It is tough. I witnessed some harsh things in my life but you learn to develop a thick skin.
I understand this. Never claimed I do.
Nop, I will fight for my survival. Totally irrelevant from one another
Your atheism force you in this position because it is true, you cannot dictate ehat is roght or wrong...no individual can. Theism gives a ground for objective moral value...but that's out of the real of possibilities for you it seems.
I don't believe in objective morality since it changes all the time for every culture (and individual) depending on context. This is why I guess religious people become slowly their own heresies, choosing to believe what they want from their holy texts (much like a buffet).
Atheists live much the same. Each one develops their own morals, on the go. Religious people are not more "moral" than atheists. They just happen to base their morals on a different context (fear of God) rather than doing good for the sake of good.
Being theist or atheist does not make one moral or immoral, thats beside the point. The point is that there is no point of reference but the individual to define what is good or evil in an atheist framework. If there is a God, then there is one outside of individual preferences.
What Hitler minions or Staline's did was objectively evil, regardless if they thought it was right.
There are things that are so evil, like starving 7millions to death in Ukraine, that we can objectively point the evilness of it. Because of that, we are forced to recognize the reality of evil.
On your proposition, there is no virtue, values or actions that are better than an other. Mercy is no more valuable than vangeance.
To an atheist a God is nothing more than the fiction of a group of people's imagination. Much like they have a point of reference a holy book as more or less a legal reference the atheists rely on their own book of law. What? You can trust the judgment and point of reference of laws written 2000 years ago but you cannot trust an individuals point of view? Also. facts don't favor you in this matter. at all. Atheists make just 0.07% of people in federal prisons while they are more or less 15% of the population.
To call something objective it has to be accepted by everyone. Obviously Nazis and Communists did not think it was evil. This is why the tolerated and supported these people. Hence, not objective. Nothing is objective. Ever.
Indeed. From our point of view they are. From their point of view was revenge to defend other people, getting them back if you like.
Agreed.