Subject:
|
Re: The god debate again... sigh (Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:40:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
886 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> That's an interesting point, and quite similar to the "is libertarianism
> on the rise?" discussion. If someone adheres to good ideals which are in
> step with Christianity, but that person doesn't believe in God, are his
> ideals still good?
Well, depends on what Christian you ask, probably... some might say that
because they weren't derived from God, they *couldn't* be absoloutely pure,
and therefore are wrong. Another might argue that yes, the ideals are good,
but because that person doesn't believe in God, they lack the strongest
ideal of all- faith [in God]. Some might just say they were good and that
the person will be fine (go to heaven) but their life on Earth would not
experience the maximum potential of Love/Joy/etc because of their lack of
faith in God.
Not being a Christian though, I can't really comment.
> I think Plato took a stab at this a few years ago (in
> the Euthyphro?).
>
> The Christian ethic, disregarding for a moment the actual presence or
> absence of God, is simply a good way (disregarding also the atrocities
> commited by those purporting to act "in the name of God") to get along with
> people, if one holds basic ideals of human interaction. If one accepts
> those ideals to be logical and self-evident, there is no need to insert a
> further divine validation for those ideals.
I seem to recall Plato putting forth Socrates' argument in one of his
dialogues...
Socrates: 'what is good?'.
Priest: 'good is that which the gods love'
Socrates: 'so, is it good BECAUSE the gods love it? Or do the gods just only
love things that are good?'
Basically, does God define good or is good defined at some higher level than
God? To put it to the extreme case, if God said: "I changed my mind. Good is
no longer helping people, etc. Instead, go kill, rape, steal, maim, and
cause pain, because now THAT's good." Would the definition of good change
with it? Or would those things still be wrong?
For those who truly consider themselves as being faithful to God, I think
I'd hold that they NEED to say that yes, the definition of good would
change. If they say no, then they would seem to hold their own belief in
what's good as more valuable than God's, and then they lack faith, going
against their own argument.
However, were I a good Christian, I would argue that it couldn't happen. I'd
argue that God defines good and visa versa. Or something like that. Saying
that the definition of good could change is like saying that the
mathematical definition of equality could change. Hence, arguing that the
definition could change is impossible to begin with. And according to that
argument, I suppose that since it invalidates the question, one could answer
either that good would or would not change.
Hence, it'd be to say that if from now on 1=2 and 1=1 but 2!=1, would the
definition of 1 change? Would the definiton of 2 change? Or is it the
definition of = that changes? So I suppose I could allow them either
argument if presented similarly...
Personally, I subscribe to some parts of Utilitarianism and also to
individualism. People act ONLY to make themselves happy. But that
self-happiness can in turn come from making someone else happy. Also, it can
come from a feeling of satisfaction with one's actions being in accordance
with what one believes is right. Hence, if I torture myself, I may feel
happy about it (despite what I may say outright) because I believe it is
RIGHT to torture myself, and I feel happy (on some subconscious level) for
being in the right.
However, Utilitarianism suggests a universal definition of good, so I can't
really agree with it (its universalism, that is). It holds that actions are
good the more the promote general happiness, and visa versa. Personally, I
think we each define our own definitions of good, each equally worthy when
compared to one another, and the idea of a sense of morality comes only from
societal development and intellectual interaction.
To put it oddly, I think someone suggested that 'society has a tendancy
towards selfishness'. I'd say PEOPLE have a tendancy towards selfishness,
SOCIETY has a tendancy towards selflessness. Well, ok, that implies that the
society means well to other societies, so no. But society tries to encourage
selflessness in its members.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
231 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
