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.
You're trying to make this difficult when it really isn't.
Harm is harm. I don't want to harm people. I'm pretty sure that's not the answer you want, but I'm not going to waste my time because it's a simple concept. Whether or not you want to accept that is not up to me. You're trying to squeeze complexity out of something so basic and it's not even necessary.
How am I trying to make this more complex? You just agreed with me. Causing harm to people is immoral because you don't want to cause harm to people--this is not logic, this is will, this is power.
How am I trying to make this more complex? You just agreed with me. Causing harm to people is immoral because you don't want to cause harm to people--this is not logic, this is will, this is power.
You don't just come to the conclusion that you're not going to harm people. You have to know what it is first. When you are aware of it, logic tells you it's wrong, so you choose not to harm people.
If you can tell me that is not logic, I'll seriously ask you to look around the world and see some of the crazy people who live in it. If some people used logic, they wouldn't do stupid things.
You don't just come to the conclusion that you're not going to harm people. You have to know what it is first. When you are aware of it, logic tells you it's wrong, so you choose not to harm people.
If you can tell me that is not logic, I'll seriously ask you to look around the world and see some of the crazy people who live in it. If some people used logic, they wouldn't do stupid things.
To say that it is logical to not harm someone is only true after you have defined and presupposed a reason to not be harmful, there is no logical way to define the idea of being harmful in itself is immoral.
If you define this as logical: I desire to not harm people (presupposition) therefore, it is not logical for me to stick a knife into someone,
then, what is illogical about believing in the existence of God (presupposition) therefore, I will interpret scientific data on the supposition that God exists?
Oh well, I guess I've just gotten too ridiculous again that there is no need to even respond to me. The point is this:
You can't have a logical reason for calling harm immoral. Therefore, the belief that harm is immoral is simply a presupposition based on your personal desires--an emotional argument. Logic can then be applied to situations after you have already defined what is immoral by your presupposition, but not before. Simply-you get out what you put in.
Similarly, Christians presuppose the existence of God in much of their reasoning. We base this presupposition on the evidence of our experiences. We argue rationally within the framework of our presupposition. We as Christians are accused of being irrational, unscientific, etc. because of our presupposition, but the truth is that everyone carries with them their own presuppositions, then argues rationally within those suppositions.
To say that it is logical to not harm someone is only true after you have defined and presupposed a reason to not be harmful, there is no logical way to define the idea of being harmful in itself is immoral.
If you define this as logical: I desire to not harm people (presupposition) therefore, it is not logical for me to stick a knife into someone,
then, what is illogical about believing in the existence of God (presupposition) therefore, I will interpret scientific data on the supposition that God exists?
I've repeated my point numerous times, and you still haven't grasped it at all.
You're still trying to tell me what my position is and it isn't even correct.
Oh well, I guess I've just gotten too ridiculous again that there is no need to even respond to me. The point is this:
You can't have a logical reason for calling harm immoral. Therefore, the belief that harm is immoral is simply a presupposition based on your personal desires--an emotional argument. Logic can then be applied to situations after you have already defined what is immoral by your presupposition, but not before. Simply-you get out what you put in.
Similarly, Christians presuppose the existence of God in much of their reasoning. We base this presupposition on the evidence of our experiences. We argue rationally within the framework of our presupposition. We as Christians are accused of being irrational, unscientific, etc. because of our presupposition, but the truth is that everyone carries with them their own presuppositions, then argues rationally within those suppositions.
All you're doing is recycling your previous argument and using different words. Since you are doing it, I will too. If you think there is no logical reason to call harm immoral, then I am morally superior to you.
And if there is one thing that doesn't coincide with logic, it's the belief in god(s). By the way, have you studied logical reasoning at all? I always hear creationists claim their arguments are based on logic, but they are not.
How am I trying to make this more complex? You just agreed with me. Causing harm to people is immoral because you don't want to cause harm to people--this is not logic, this is will, this is power.
Imo logic tells me that if i harm someone then that person is likely to harm me back. Logic tells me that if i kill someone then the family or friends of the person are probably going to kill me.
observation: doing bad things to others can cause bad things to happen to me
observation: i do not like bad things
conclusion: i should try not doing bad things to others
There is also the empathy factor and the fact that much of our morality is directly dependent on our society
I am pretty sure I have never heard of or been asked this question..its a good one! And after much deliberation I have nothing, no clue. What I am hoping is that it is indestructable because every so often little pieces get taken when love is lost.
Do you mean consciousness? 'Cause consciousness and conscience are not one and the same.
Nope, I do mean conscience.
Serial killers for example don't give a damn about the feeling of others. This could be because of nurture; they have never been loved, thereby have no idea what love is. It is nearly impossible to love others if you don't love yourself and never have been loved by anyone else.
Or because of nature, that because of brain damage or something a person is incapable to be empathic to others.
Nobody has the exact same definition for spiritual. I don't consider myself spiritual at all.
And I'm not closed-minded. I just don't accept anything that has no evidence to back it up. Faith doesn't do it for me.
The Bible has a lot of supporting evidence, but I believe you may be to closed-minded to accept it. The prophecies of the bible that are coming to pass even in our own time should be enought for one to consider. It does take supporting evidence before one has faith.
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.
Nope, I do mean conscience. 