Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:34 pm
He is responsible to self and others. Sociopaths are parasitic upon the society which nurtures them. A man cannot live outside of a society .
And a sociopath lives INSIDE society, by definition. But what makes him wrong for doing that? That's what you haven't answered.
Look, just because you say, "Well, people like society" does not mean they have any obligation to treat anyone any particular way. They can do as they like, unless you can tell them why not.
But religiosity is not the cause of morality either. Humans are moral animals whether or not they are atheists or believers.
No, religion is an
expression of an attempt to approximate morality: it is not the source of morality. I agree. I would say the source is God; and it looks like you would say it's....what? whatever societies happen to make up? I'm not sure what you think there.
But maybe we can agree on this point: morality pre-exists all human attempts to approximate it, just as gravity and aerodynamics precede falls and flight. It's there before we discover it, and different moral systems are good or bad, depending on how successfully they replicate it. So, for example, wife-beating is really wrong, even though the Koran says it's approved. Maybe we can agree about that.
However, you see to have the idea that "people like societies" adds some useful information to the moral problem. It doesn't. That only shows that they have odd behaviours that may or may not be good ones. Like the "vestigial tail," doomed to be removed by evolution, as the tale (tail?) goes, perhaps all morality is something people should just "get past." Nietzsche most certainly thought that's the way it should be.
Why was he wrong?
(Belinda)Moreover,...there never were "objective moral values and facts" in the sense of God-given...
(Immanuel, sarcastic)How did you arrive at this firm conclusion? What inquiry, data or line of reasoning led you to such certainty? Please share.
(Belinda)Inductive reasoning. There may be a line of reasoning or a source of information about revealed God as yet undiscovered. However that is improbable.
Show your induction there. What are the premises? It's certainly not self-evident, so spell it out.
Do you mean,
P1: "I don't know any reasoning or source of information about God,"
C: "Therefore there is probably none."
Really? That's it? Come on...it's got to be more than that...by that line of logic, you'd have to conclude Fiji or Saturn probably don't exist.
(Belinda)All our sources for God-information are human sources.
(Immanuel)Then let me repeat: how did you get the proof that told you that "all sources for God-information are human sources," as opposed to say, God speaking?
(Belinda)Inductive reasoning from evidence , so there is always a tiny possibility of a genuine revelation of God, as yet undiscovered.
Where's that "evidence" of which you speak? You have evidence there's no revelation from God, or if there is it has to be "yet undiscovered"? Is that a claim to have familiarity with all the data?
I'm sorry...I'm just not seeing any way your line of thinking is obligatory for rational persons. It looks all speculative and individualistic, so far as I can see. Where are the reasons a rational person ought to agree with you?