767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 427:
Line 427: − + + + + + + +
Debate:Is religion morally wrong? (view source)
Revision as of 19:21, April 25, 2007
, 19:21, April 25, 2007→Questions and Answers
A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.
A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.
Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?
As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?
By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
.