Existentialism

Madeline · Post by **Madeline** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:37 pm

I have my view on why we were put on this earth and the purpose of our existence. I know that there are agnostics and atheist here who argue about our existence from a philosophical viewpoint. I'm as curious what some of you might reason as to why we exist—in a nutshell, please explain.

Love,
Madeline

Madeline · Post by **Madeline** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:40 pm

McCulloch wrote:Killing other humans is not universally considered wrong. Killing other humans without the appropriate reason or authority is universally considered wrong, yet groups of human do not even yet, agree on what the appropriate reasons are.

So do you agree with the bolded portion of your quote?

Love,
Madeline

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:57 pm

McCulloch wrote:Killing other humans is not universally considered wrong. Killing other humans without the appropriate reason or authority is universally considered wrong, yet groups of human do not even yet, agree on what the appropriate reasons are.

Madeline wrote:So do you agree with the bolded portion of your quote?

I'm not used to being asked if I agree with what I wrote. Yes, Madeline, I agree with myself that "Killing other humans without the appropriate reason or authority is universally considered wrong."

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:10 pm

Madeline wrote: Surely you would know the difference between killing and murder. Murder is unjustified, killing isn't!

Unjustified? I don't think so.
Illegal - yes. muder is the illegal killing of a human being.

There is no universal agreement of what is 'illegal'. Ergo my answer to your claim is sttill in the negative.

QED · Post by **QED** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:17 am

Madeline wrote:
McCulloch wrote:Killing other humans is not universally considered wrong. Killing other humans without the appropriate reason or authority is universally considered wrong, yet groups of human do not even yet, agree on what the appropriate reasons are.
So do you agree with the bolded portion of your quote?

If you happen to think that this must point to some sort of "external, absolute, universal morality - given from upon high" then I would greatly appreciate it if you'd look back a few posts to my last reply to you. The one in which a group of people are engaged in game-play.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:07 am

McCulloch wrote:Killing other humans is not universally considered wrong. Killing other humans without the appropriate reason or authority is universally considered wrong, yet groups of human do not even yet, agree on what the appropriate reasons are.

QED wrote:If you happen to think that this must point to some sort of "external, absolute, universal morality - given from upon high" then I would greatly appreciate it if you'd look back a few posts to my last reply to you. The one in which a group of people are engaged in game-play.

No, I do not believe that there is any external, absolute, universal morality. That is not required in order to believe that Killing other humans without the appropriate reason or authority is universally considered wrong. I'll explain why.

Beavers build dams. In their niche in the environment, this behaviour has been a very strong evolutionary advantage. Even when taken out of their environment, they continue to attempt to build dams. Natural selection has removed from the beaver gene pool those beavers or proto-beavers that did not have a compulsion to build dams.

Humans cooperate in societies. We don't have a niche in the environment, we use our highly evolved big brains to cooperatively create our niche. Human societies that don't have a degree of mutual trust are inefficient. The humans would spend far too much effort and energy guarding themselves against each other to be productive and successful. Therefore, all human societies that do not have a prohibition against arbitrary killing of other humans are not successful. This is why the rule against murder is universal.

Madeline · Post by **Madeline** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:57 pm

Sorry, I find it hard to swallow how society is a determinant factor of how one perceives good and evil. Anyone knows that killing babies is just plain evil regardless of societal influences.

Love,
Madeline

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:09 pm

Madeline wrote:Sorry, I find it hard to swallow how society is a determinant factor of how one perceives good and evil. Anyone knows that killing babies is just plain evil regardless of societal influences.

Love,
Madeline

Unless God commands it right?
I mean if God says to smash their little heads against the rocks or put them to the sword then he must have a good reason.
He may have looked into their future and knew what the little turds would be like and figured it was best to kill them. Of course how can he look into their future if they don't have one because they were killed?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:29 pm

Madeline wrote:Sorry, I find it hard to swallow how society is a determinant factor of how one perceives good and evil. Anyone knows that killing babies is just plain evil regardless of societal influences.

I could say that the fact that you find it hard to swallow shows just how ingrained the prohibition is, but that would be begging the question.

Male cats, who by mammalian standards are quite intelligent and by vertebrate standards are almost genius, don't know this. We know this, not because of societal influences. We know this because of genetics. Those humans or early hominids that did not know this, were not successful at passing their genes on to the current generation.

Humans would be extinct except for the fact that we can cooperate. Natural selection and genetics make beavers make dams. Natural selection and genetics make humans prohibit murder.

Good and evil do not exist outside of human society. Nature is not moral. The universe is not moral. Religion is an attempt to try to impose the very useful and powerful human ideas of morality, fairness and justice on to the universe.

Madeline · Post by **Madeline** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:32 pm

Cathar1950 wrote: Unless God commands it right?
I mean if God says to smash their little heads against the rocks or put them to the sword then he must have a good reason.
He may have looked into their future and knew what the little turds would be like and figured it was best to kill them. Of course how can he look into their future if they don't have one because they were killed?

I'm not quite sure which passage your referring to in the bible. But if your referring to Psalms 137:9,

Psalms 137:9 - Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This is an imprecatory prayer to God for judgment against Babylon. The hope that their babies will dies is the prayer that no new Babylonian generation will arise seeking worldwide dominion through cruel oppression.

Love,
Madeline

Madeline · Post by **Madeline** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:49 pm

McCulloch, so genetics play a huge role in human behavior? What are we robots? Pray tell, where do such feelings and emotions as compassion, guilt, sympathy, embarrassment and shame come from? Would you say that these are developed rather than innate? mmmm....hmmm!

Love,
Madeline