Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good question. As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between being moral and being compassionate. They are synonymous. To repeat, I know that conversations about morality usually begin and end with conduct but that's not at the heart of the matter from my POV because moral action does not always imply moral sense.
Quote:
What is the value of compassion that makes it so foundational?
As mentioned, I'm having a hard time grasping this desire to assign value. I just don't see why it matters. Well, I can see why it matters for appropriate conduct, but for the concept itself? It's not striking a cord for me.
Quote:
Why isn't the lack of compassion equally valuable? OR as the kids would say . . . who gives a rats?
Indeed, who gives a rats behind is certainly the calling card for an amoral position. I suppose moral sense couldn't be determined with amorality.
Quote:
I respect the Jains . . . but ultimately there needs to be a raison d'etre against which any so-called principles are measured . . or there can be no distinction between thesis and anti-thesis.
This seems to be at the heart of your issue here. I suppose this is important if you are in need of assigning value. As I alluded to in my earlier post, I think doing this deviates from compassion and according to my worldview, deviates from moral sense.
Quote:
Value as measured against a purposeful creation is the ONLY basis upon which that can be done NON-ARBITRARILY, IMO. WE needn't necessarily KNOW what the purpose is or HOW value is determined (that seems to be our biggest problem)
That definately seems to be the case in this conversation. Although I can't shake the feeling that all these efforts for determining value is a matter of missing the forest for the trees...especially in light of the quotes from Rand I've been reading.
Quote:
. . . but its EXISTENCE is absolutely necessary . . . or it is all just NONSENSE.
Perhaps, but I don't find that to be relevant. I realize I'm probably in the minority here.
Perhaps, but I don't find that to be relevant. I realize I'm probably in the minority here.
It's not so much that you are in the minority as that you are actually a believer . . . you just think you aren't because none of the existing descriptions make sense. Having such a strong preference is more powerful evidence than anything that could be said. The Jains and Buddhists are believers too . . . without realizing it. There are many such. It is their "state of mind" and principles that define them.
" Compassion is the foundation of morality, as I understand it at least. "
It isn't. Life is. Morality is a code of values to guide your choices and actions. The purpose of morality is to teach men to live and enjoy life. Don't you want to live a happy life? Or do you want to be miserable and die? The choices you make and the actions you take will determine what lind of life you live. If you feel compassion for a pack of murderers and act on that compassion by having them move in with you, you'll get what you deserve. If you have compassion for a child abuser and have him babysit your children, well, you don't value your children.
As far as values go - you would be dead without them. Think about all the actions you take to gain and keep thing you value: a computer, a house, food, a car, books, friends...... If you didn't value these things you wouldn't act to gain and keep them. Do you value honesty? Courage? Yourself?
" Compassion is the foundation of morality, as I understand it at least. "
It isn't. Life is. Morality is a code of values to guide your choices and actions. The purpose of morality is to teach men to live and enjoy life. Don't you want to live a happy life? Or do you want to be miserable and die? The choices you make and the actions you take will determine what lind of life you live. If you feel compassion for a pack of murderers and act on that compassion by having them move in with you, you'll get what you deserve. If you have compassion for a child abuser and have him babysit your children, well, you don't value your children.
As far as values go - you would be dead without them. Think about all the actions you take to gain and keep thing you value: a computer, a house, food, a car, books, friends...... If you didn't value these things you wouldn't act to gain and keep them. Do you value honesty? Courage? Yourself?
are you speaking to anyone in particular? otherwise it's just deceptive propaganda.
(and in my ears with dangerous "selective" overtones.)
My point is this: What is the atheist foundation for absolute morals if there's no God, the absolute moral giver, to be able to provide such a "moral defense" against religion? I know atheists can be moral. That I don't question at all. What I question is what is their basis for this morality, esp. if I'm now being informed atheists can have absolute morals. It had always been my understanding that atheists believed morality, like truth, is subjective so one person's morals are different than another, but it's all okay.
As an aside, I believe man-made religion can be a stumbling block for many -- believers and non-believers alike.
How about taking it one step further and saying a man-made god is a stumbling block? You can be good for goodness sake, instead of being good so you can spend eternity with your heavenly father.
How about taking it one step further and saying a man-made god is a stumbling block? You can be good for goodness sake, instead of being good so you can spend eternity with your heavenly father.
By the way: was that Martin Heidegger's morality when in "Was is metphysic?" he said: We should ask for what is the purpose of philosophy Is? Life is ours to solve the metaphysics; not metaphyiscs to solve what the purpose of life is? An anti-Bush phenomenon.
A moral defense against religion is that atheism allows someone to form their morals based on critical thinking whereas religion tends to have its followers blindly obey whatever they think their imaginary friend tells them is right or wrong, it doesn't matter if it actually is right or wrong.
Then you should probably avoid reading any more of my dangerous posts.[/quote]/quote]
which would then probably become a non sequitur ... on my part, certainly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Life or philosophy?
