04 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAt a push I could probably tell the difference between you and a tree. Can you tell the similarity?
No-one's holding a gun to your head. (You seem to imply that people have no reason to behave decently unless threatened with punishment.)
At a push I could probably tell the difference between you and a tree. Can you tell the similarity?
We're not talking about similarity here - we're talking about identity. You're not just saying that the tree and I are similar, you're saying that the tree and I are the same/are one.
No-one's holding a gun to your head. (You seem to imply that people have no reason to behave decently unless threatened with punishment.)
Do they? That's what I'm trying to find out.
04 Jan 06
I think people overstate the role of reason in ethics. There are reasons to perform specific acts, but the framework is simply there. It is impossible to ask and answer questions about the foundations of ethics.
Why is it right to be compassionate? It just is. No other answer (utilitarian, Kantian, Christian) is sufficient.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou mean I need a secret decoder-ring?
Well, you'll have to rack your brains a bit harder. It's like trying to explain colour to a blind man...
Yes, I can see how, with a little imagination, the tree and I are one. But that simply does not correspond to experiental reality.
Let's take a concrete case study: I come across a hungry, homeless man while returning from the supermarket. From the philosophical viewpoint you've been arguing for, what is my justification for giving this man some food?
04 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo you assert, but you have no evidence to support such an assertion. I would postulate that when primitive man became aware of his mortality he created a belief in an afterlife to sooth his fear. That's a more logical explanation than some supernatural, all-powerful being created the whole universe just for human beings, ain't it? Most religions are Man-centric, exactly what you would expect from a concept created by Man. If dogs were aware of their mortality, they would probably have a religion with Lassie coming down to Earth to atone for their sins and pave their way to Doggie Heaven.
You see, therein lies the problem with your explanation. People do not believe in religion simply because it addresses the fear of death.
Here's an analogy. Suppose my company were laying off employees, and I had a fear of losing my job. Suppose a colleague (who does not possess any "inside" information) were to tell me "Don't be afraid, you won't believing in religion, but religion was not created to mitigate the fear of death.
BTW, it doesn't work anyway; the vast majority of people who are theists still fear death and lament when their loved ones die. So it's an attempt to get over that fear but not a very successful one.
04 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's called empathy, a common trait in more intelligent, social animals. It serves an evolutionary purpose.
You mean I need a secret decoder-ring?
Yes, I can see how, with a little imagination, the tree and I are one. But that simply does not correspond to experiental reality.
Let's take a concrete case study: I come across a hungry, homeless man while returning from the supermarket. From the philosophical viewpoint you've been arguing for, what is my justification for giving this man some food?
04 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat if I don't feel it is the decent thing to do?
You give the beggar money if you feel it would be the decent thing to do.
What if I feel it is the decent thing to do, but don't?
What is, objectively, the decent thing to do here? Are you arguing that there is no such thing as objective decency/rightness/morality?
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you assert, but you have no evidence to support such an assertion.
So you assert, but you have no evidence to support such an assertion. I would postulate that when primitive man became aware of his mortality he created a belief in an afterlife to sooth his fear. That's a more logical explanation than some supernatural, all-powerful being created the whole universe just for human beings, ain't it? Most religions are Man ...[text shortened]... heir loved ones die. So it's an attempt to get over that fear but not a very successful one.
But your assertion is 100% backed by archaeological, anthropological and historical evidence, right? Please.
I would postulate that when primitive man became aware of his mortality he created a belief in an afterlife to sooth his fear.
The problem with this theory is - if he created it to soothe his fear, then he would be aware that it is simply something he created and, consequently, would not soothe his fear.
That's a more logical explanation than some supernatural, all-powerful being created the whole universe just for human beings, ain't it?
Logically - no. The second explanation is internally self-consistent, the first one is not.
BTW, it doesn't work anyway; the vast majority of people who are theists still fear death and lament when their loved ones die. So it's an attempt to get over that fear but not a very successful one.
If it is not successful, then why do people hold to it? Especially if, as you claim, it was created specifically to counter the fear of death?
04 Jan 06
1 edit
http://www.geegaw.com/stories/the_man_with_the_blue_guitar.shtml
The Man With the Blue Guitar
The man bent over his guitar,
A shearsman of sorts. The day was green.
They said, "You have a blue guitar,
You do not play things as they are."
The man replied, "Things as they are
Are changed upon the blue guitar."
And they said then, "But play, you must,
A tune beyond us, yet ourselves,
A tune upon the blue guitar
Of things exactly as they are."
etc etc. ...