stuartcr wrote:1over137 wrote:Well, in strong mathematical sense, it is not circle.
Maybe another example would be better. Take for example a slightly damaged jar, or not rotationaly symmetric. It is still a jar even if not perfect.
So, do you know how the determination is made as to whether someone's morals are the way they are supposed to be?
The same way you make a determination of where a point ought to be if it is to be in a figure called a circle: by nature.
We don't say a cat is evil when it
kills for fun. We do say that about humans. We call that "murder" when acted against humans and "animal cruelty" when acted against animals--especially higher animals. So why is that? Either you can say we are being inconsistent, such that either cats
are evil, immoral creatures in the same sense as your typical death row inmate, or you can say that it turns out that it isn't really evil and immoral to murder people.
I reject both of those. I think it's rather obvious that we are correct in not calling the cat an evil murderer but we are correct in saying that about Tsarnaev. And that goes to your point: human nature is a rational nature. You don't have to believe in God to recognize that some things are immoral, contrary to human nature. Take the modern parenting cliche against spanking as an example of this culture bearing witness against itself: "hands are for helping, not hurting." The truth being appealed to in this cliche is that there are certain things that we are and are not to do
by nature. To go back to my previous examples, rocks don't see
by nature. Humans do. So when a human can't see, we call them blind. We don't call a rock blind. That would be stupid. A rock that cannot see is not deprived of anything it is supposed to have by its nature. A human that cannot see is deprived of something it ought to have by nature, and we call that privation "blindness." When our
behavior is contrary to our nature, when it is lacking something it ought to have, it is deprived of something and that privation makes the act evil.
Let's return to the classic example of killing. Human nature is such that are social creatures. We cooperate with one another, and both our individual lives and our social lives and our societies as a whole work best when we so cooperate. The problems happen when people stop cooperating, when rather than considering the needs of others, they put themselves first. In short, the problem come when people get selfish, when they start thinking about themselves more than others. It is due to human nature that we are to put the needs of others before ourselves.
That's true on a global level all the way down to an individual level. So what happens when I see something I want and you see that same thing and you decide you want it. A person who is acting in accordance with the human nature would recognize that your needs come before my own, and we would rationally look at the situation and decide if it were best for you or me to have it, or, perhaps, for us to care. But suppose I simply decided to eliminate the competition. If you aren't there, then I can have the thing all to myself. So I kill you. There is a logic to my thought. I have killed you, and now I can actually have what I wanted! But was it right or wrong? Obviously wrong, but why? Because I ought not hurt you? But why is that? In hurting you, I got what I wanted. I profited. Because the world isn't just about me? Sure, but who says it isn't? Again, I got what I wanted. Because I might get punished? Perhaps, but what if I got away with it? Would that make it right? Of course not. The reason is as plain as the nose on your face. I ought not hurt others because the world is NOT all about me, and the one who says that isn't just me or even you or even society: it is reality itself. Just like rocks don't see by nature, just like humming birds drink nectar by nature, I am a social, cooperative being by nature. And in killing you, far from being social and cooperative, I am being antisocial and competitive. Far from loving you (which is what we are really getting at: to truly be human is to love), I am hating you. My act lacks those fundamental aspects--cooperation and beneficence and love--and they lack it because they
ought to have it. And why ought they have it? Because that is what it means to be human! Murder, therefore, is evil for this and for a variety of other reasons.
But take all of that away. Suppose all of that is wrong. Then you tell ME what makes our actions good or evil? Why is killing you to take your stuff wrong? Because it just is? That's not much of an answer. If that's enough, then I'll just assert that God is and be done with you. Because you say so? Why should I care what you think. You'll be dead in a moment anyway (and that whether I kill you or I let nature take its course . . . the outcome will be the same in a few years). Because society says so? Who cares what society thinks, though? Since when does the majority determine right and wrong? Because I might go to prison? Oh, so now something is just wrong simply because I might get punished for doing it? Odd, I thought I got punished for doing things
that are wrong. That's a whole cart-before-the-horse thing. And besides, what if I know I can get away with it? Is it still wrong? Of course it is. It's wrong because it harms you? So what? Why should I care if I hurt you? Because I don't want you to hurt me? Sure, but what does that matter. If I kill you first, you won't be able to hurt me. Ah, the golden rule! It's wrong to kill you because I ought not treat you the way I don't want to be treated! But why should that be the rule? If I can kill you and get away with it and get what I want, then why not? Because it violates some dictum you happen to like? What if I like the other golden rule better: he who has the gold makes the rules? Why not follow that one instead? No, you say instead it's wrong because if everyone acted that way then the world would be a bad place. True! But why do I care. Everyone doesn't act that way, and even if they did, so what? That's the way lions and other predators behave, and we don't say they are "wrong." Besides, what if in the style of
The Purge I have the money and power to shield myself from all the violence. Maybe I'm the world dictator and can survive such a violent world. I mean, hey, I'm willing to play that game. So you aren't, I get that. Does that mean it's wrong for me to do so? Why? Back to your preference again?
Do you see the point? What I'm offering you, stewy, is not some abstract idea that reasonable people can disagree on. I'm saying that the ONLY way to have right and wrong is to acknowledge that we have natures, and that those natures determine what we ought to be and therefore when we are not being what we ought. To have that which we ought to have is good. To lack that which we ought to have is bad, or to use the classical word, evil. When privations are applied in non-rational settings, we call that natural evil. When privations are applied to rational settings, we call those moral evils. That is the only way to have morality at all. Shy of that, you're left with mere preference, and if THAT is what you want to say--that there is no such thing as good and evil at all, that murder isn't really evil--then I'll just write that off as one more proof of the idiocy of such a world-view.
