He may be but it doesn't necessary make him wrong. There's a story about a man who had a flat tire outside an insane asylum. He pulled the old one off and stuck his spare on but in the process knocked his lug nuts down a storm drain. At a loss for what to do he hears a voice coming through the asylum's fence. "Just take one off each tire and put it on the spare. That'll hold the tire until you can get somewhere to buy more." The man realizing what a good idea it is proceeds to exclaim, " That's a great idea. What are you doing in there if your so smart? To which the voice yelled back, "I'm insane not stupid."
The value of any life, especially sentient life doesn’t need religion to justify it. We can link murder being wrong to values of freedom- that ending another’s life against their will takes their choices. We can link it to compassion- most people don’t want to die. We can link it to practicality- ending a human life affects society and only an entity in a position to act on half of society might be empowered to make such a choice... etc. etc. we don’t need religion to justify a concept such as that.
But why does your freedom to stay alive trump someone else's freedom of choice to end your life? Who decides that compassion is the value that a society should use to judge people? Who ever made the rule that a healthy society is one that rejects murder?
.
For the record, I believe murder is very wrong. But without a basis to compare against (for example religion), I'm afraid I also believe that right and wrong are largely arbitrary.
.
That being said I think people are much more capable of continuing humanity if they build trust and work together. A natural deterrent of trust would be certainly be murdering someone for minimal reasons. It seems to me that a natural societal evolution of humanity would likely have fewer murders (as a %) as we evolved (either with or without religion).
In fact it seems plausible that a religion might even materialize as a way to help massive groups of people do, and not do, the things that help us advance as a species.
.
We can't all spend our lives studying existentialism. We need farmers and builders etc. So lets just set a bunch of rules that shape people to a moral standard that will help us advance as a society. Then we can set some consequences for not adhering to the rules. Make the ruling character all knowing, all powerful and unquantifiable. Then just write all the teachings in story form so that it's interesting and more likely to spread?
Oh no. I’m not arguing against religion. Chicken, egg. One could say religion evolved as a form of parable narrative to impart practical lessons- or one could say that of course what is practical follows the lessons laid out by religion since (whoever one believes in) created/oversees etc etc the universe it makes sense their rules or lessons work in that context. So whichever way one views the situation that isn’t to say one can’t draw good practical advice or moral guidance from religion. If nothing else religion serves as a form of philosophy and history of human thought.
That said- one is capable of recognizing morality or evolving a system of practical morals without religion. The freedom to kill versus the freedom to live... there is a debate there if we strip morality and practicality from the equation. Personally I feel that freedom at the individual level is curtailed where ones freedoms as an individual would impose upon another’s. That is to say- if freedom is a value of a society then that society would in my mind prohibit those freedoms that TAKE freedom from another. Paradoxically that takes freedom from the one who would take freedom- we take the freedom to take away freedom.
In absolute “freedom” aka anarchy though- practicality rears it’s ugly head. A person only has those freedoms they can secure right? In bunker of 10 people left on earth- all can do as they like so long as they have the power to force their will right?
Dave wants to listen to the radio and no one else does. Dave beats everyone up. Now Dave gets his way. But what if Steve is the only one who knows how to keep the electronics like the Radio working? Now Dave has to rely on Steve or his ability to subjugate Steve in order to get his way. But let us say Dave is so strong, smart, and capable that Dave can survive on his own and have all he wants without help AND do all that and defend it?
First off Dave will need at least one person to breed with unless Dave wants to be the only person alive. It would help to have more than one should anything happen to his breeding partner. He’s also gotta be able to provide for said partner and offspring and protect his new family AND protect himself from them too.
Let’s say he can also do that. But... as a tyrant the moment he is injured or sick... he may lose it all. Likewise- if he wants to have more comfort and security in survival he’ll likely need people. Likewise if the others in the bunker decide to gang up on him he may be the strongest alone- but surviving on his own AND fighting off 9 people at once... his odds are poor.
So beyond any morality- the prohibition against murder tends to be a social contract between those trying to form a society. If Gregg farms and Steve does Electronics and Jane makes Babies and Jill hunts and Joe keeps up the plumbing and so on- if one person kills another- everyone else looses that functionality. Their lives get tougher or they may even die.
The smaller a population or group of people who are relying upon each other- the more a single person is missed. Scale or up and say there is another bunker with 12 people near by the 10 person bunker. Now it’s even MORE important that all 10 live because they need to worry about the 12 person bunker. The 12 person bunker can have 2 more kids at a time and still have the same number of workers for other tasks. So within the lifetimes of those first generation bunker dwellers the 12 person bunker could gain a numerical edge that within only 2-3 generations could put the 10 man bunker at a great disadvantage I. Security, territory rights, scavenging etc.
So we can see absent from any philosophy or morality or religion- there is simply a practical advantage in making it taboo to kill others. That’s without even getting into how the emotional and interpersonal issues of a killing effect a society. Where there are revenge killings, betrayals, people refusing to do vital tasks or work with others because of their emotions over the loss of a person and the person responsible. It becomes a mess- and realistically- as we see in modern society and most pas societies- it’s in the self interest of a person who enjoys prosperity and luxury to safeguard that position in society. Murder endangers entrenchment of power and wealth which is not something powerful people usually want. They want to control who lives and dies to best suit them and their needs, while managing it in a way they can keep control or compliance of others in that society.
Religion evolved as a way to codify "common sense" morality, not the other way around. There are many things in religious books that are considered immoral that we consider okay now, such as wearing mixed fabrics. What is considered moral changes over time, and religion adapts to it. This is very much an egg vs chicken type of situation, Prager claims that without religion morality would be just an opinion, when in reality if it wasn't for opinions about morality, there might be no religions.
Reply
deleted
· 5 years ago
Oh no, I’m an atheist, guess I’ll go murder some orphans
.
For the record, I believe murder is very wrong. But without a basis to compare against (for example religion), I'm afraid I also believe that right and wrong are largely arbitrary.
.
That being said I think people are much more capable of continuing humanity if they build trust and work together. A natural deterrent of trust would be certainly be murdering someone for minimal reasons. It seems to me that a natural societal evolution of humanity would likely have fewer murders (as a %) as we evolved (either with or without religion).
.
We can't all spend our lives studying existentialism. We need farmers and builders etc. So lets just set a bunch of rules that shape people to a moral standard that will help us advance as a society. Then we can set some consequences for not adhering to the rules. Make the ruling character all knowing, all powerful and unquantifiable. Then just write all the teachings in story form so that it's interesting and more likely to spread?