Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
And many people in Sparta thought that weak babies should be killed at birth.
And the Vikings had no problem burning town to the ground and killing everybody that got on their way.
A few decades ago, the older, less productive members of some inuit tribes were asked to leave and go die on their own.
Within the good book, many passages relish the death of innocent children, Egyptian first born or male Canaanite babies.
Your example defeat your own argument.
Obviously, people do not naturally believe killing is wrong, obviously, they will align themselves with what their society tell them. Obviously, morality is a social product and do not come from outside.
It just means that almost everyone believes their own moral should be absolute.
Almost everybody project their own values and judgement on other and believe they should follow it.
The two things are different, of course.
I believe that, if the axis had won the war, many more people would be ok with the Holocaust, many of them would see it as a 'necessary evil' a harsh but necessary undertaking to free mankind from 'the evil of the sub-human parasites', which is the way many Nazis seem to have felt about it.
Also, of course, winning the war is not enough to brain-washing people. Even after being conquered by the Nazis, the conquered world will still keep its own culture and values and it would take a long time for the Nazi propaganda effort to society
Now, the question 'would you think the Holocaust still to be evil' is an empty question.
Yes, I, the "current me", would still be horrified at the idea of the Holocaust. But the "current me" is a product of history and culture. It would not exist in a Nazi dominated world, another me, "Nazi me" would have been produced that would be radically different and, maybe, under the 'right' circumstances would not see the evil of Nazi Germany as evil. He would have like Sauerkraut more, at any rate.
"Nazi me" is a douche.
Let's pretend that you have demonstrated the existence of 'absolute' moral laws, and you didn't, as illustrated previously in this post.
Let's skip over your use of the term "Swamp scum" that sounds a bit like retarded creationist propaganda. Let's skip over the fact that, at any rate, we have underwent a few billion years of evolution since 'pond scum'.
Your, very poorly phrased argument, based on the shaky premise on an 'absolute morality' is that it would have to come from outside.
The problem, of course, is that, human, being a social species, would have been naturally selected to express traits that allow a society to work better with others.
Cohesive tribes would have thrived, chaotic ones would have disappeared.
There are people studying the evolution of empathy and justice and other moral roots of behaviour, you know?
Morality would have been selected as a positive trait, just as the ability to digest meat or resist infection.
Of course, you didn't but, even if you had, you would just has proved the existence of a universal law giver.
One could imagine, literally, an infinite number of them. The likelihood for this Lawgiver to be the Christian God would therefore, in itself, be one in an infinity.
Even if you had risen its likelihood, of the Christian God to exist, which you did not your reasoning was faulty in several places, You'd have risen it by a mathematically infinitely close to zero margin.
