 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Moral Hazard
Oppressing the 99%

Registered: Mar 2005
Location: with the 1%
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
So, would you argue that there is no such thing as absolute good, if all morality derives from some sort of concept of good? |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah moral hazard, surely if there was a divine creator there would be such concepts as absolute good/evil wrong/right etc? |
I cannot believe in an absolute good being something that is understandable by humans. This is not to say that absolute good does not exist, rather that we cannot understand it. How could we as humans ever hope to understand anything that is absolute being as we have no frame of referrence for such a thing? Everything in human existance is finite and subjective; the absolute, eternal, objective, it is all beyond us. The best we could ever actually hope for is to come to some sort of peace with these concepts. Morality and moral codes are derivatives of what we perceive to be absolute good... perception is not reality.
PKC, your assertion that absolute good/evil/right/wrong must exist if there is a divine creator is contingent on that divine creator being absolute good/evil/right/wrong. Even if one accepts that there is a god I don't think one can confidently state that god is any of those things. Good, Evil, Right, Wrong, those are ideas that humans have created based on our understanding of existance... if there is a god it would not be limited in it's understanding of existance thus these ideas would not apply.
The reason questions of morality, right, wrong, good, evil, have been examined, re-examined, debated, studied for the whole of human existance with no firm resolution is because such a resolution is simply beyond us. This is why I will hold to the position that morality simply cannot exist in man as an objective code... it has to be individual and subjective... which is not morality at all. All the moral codes that have developed and are held out as standards, as truth, are really just attempts to temper the individual, to control others. Believe me, it actually pains me to hold this believe as it is at odds with my religious convictions, however, using reason I can come to no other conclusions.
|
|
Sep-07-2007 12:57
|
|
|
 |
 |
prolikewhoa
veteran attention whore

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Berlin
|
|
|
Re: FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Check out the description of my first graduate level seminar class:
So - my question to Craig (and anyone else who wants to discuss it - I'm looking at you Alon, Halcyon, Jiveboguy, etc.), does the notion that a religious foundation for ethics and duty can be derived entirely from reason and without divine revelation seem at all plausible to you?
|
absolutely. just me personally, i don't have any religious beliefs to speak of. i think for the most part that when you die that's it, you're just dead. with that in mind, i believe it necessary to embrace life, as it is the only chance i believe you get to experience happiness, love, contentment, etc. where a foundation for ethics comes into play for me is the harm principle. it is of the upmost importance to enjoy all you can with your time on earth without infringing upon the happiness or security of others. therefore, just because my personal beliefs provide an example, i would argue against kant in this situation.
___________________
| quote: | philippe - In MEXICO says: ur the most clever pothead i know
philippe - In MEXICO says: u deserve a fucking medal |
|
|
Sep-07-2007 14:10
|
|
|
 |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:00.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|