If I recall correctly he went on to make the metaphor “if your house is on fire, and you hear a voice that is telling you to run out, should you stop and question where the voice is coming from or should you just, you know, leave?” My interpretation of that was that we as humans have a responsibility to “do good”- coming from some source, albeit God or a collective unconscious or a development in our evolution or a responsibility to the next generation or whatever-that needs to be answered. Debating the source more often than not distracts from actually DOING THE GOOD. The paralysis of analysis, my friends.
And as of right now I’m really conflicted on my theological views, like I’m conflicted on EVERYTHING. I still find myself praying occasionally, addressing some higher entity. I can’t tell if this is out of habit or belief or some defense mechanism or thought process that helps me deal with things. Do you (imaginary concerned reader) ever feel that way, like prayer is just somehow a dialogue between different parts of yourself? I dont know. But, I guess now is the time to stop using thought as an excuse to be STAGNATED. I want my thoughts to propel me forward, not keep me still. (via aroseebyanyothernamee)
why is everything about this entry literally perfect? :D
Yeah, but if there isn’t a God then doing the good becomes this grey squishy mess. Because you lose moral facts. Consider observations. When you see something and you have a response to it without having to think it over and come to a thought out conclusion, it’s an observation. When you look at the sun and it’s moved in the sky, you make an observation. Then when you say “Oh the earth has rotated”, that’s relating that observation to a fact. See, we know the fact (earth rotates sun), and that informs the observation. Likewise we make the observation (sun moved in sky), and that supports the fact. They go hand in hand.
But when we see a guy punching a kitten and we say “Oh that’s wrong”, we’re making a moral observation. But it isn’t related to a fact. You can choose whatever you want to be the source of these moral observations, maybe they’re based on evolution or maybe they’re purely social constructs. But that still makes them unfixed, changeable, and justifies different moralities in different societies. Because morality becomes subjective.
The sun moving in the sky relates to the fact of the earth rotating the sun, so it’s objective. But punching a cat doesn’t relate to a fact that makes it wrong, which makes that judgement subjective. To illustrate why this is important, it’s good to consider beauty. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. We’ve all heard that, right? There are different ways to explain what people consider beauty, their personal experience, evolutionary or biological needs, or societies’ standards. So we can understand how beauty may change from society to society. If morality is subjective, then it’s just like beauty.
So right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder. Or the beholder’s society, or whatever. These are pretty strong implications.
But if there is some kind of God, or religion, with judgement? Then moral facts exist outside of objective reality. And that works for people. I saw this guy do something and I thought it was wrong. Why? Because the bible says so. Done. There’s your moral fact, and it’s not objective. That’s all they need. That’s what makes God and so important to people.
Because the house being on fire or a guy punching a cat are easy examples. But as I’m sure you’re all aware there are big scary moral questions like abortion, gay marriage, female circumcision, and even equal fucking rights. That voice in your head that says “get out” when the house is on fire? If you’re going to interpret that as doing good, then you have to consider the fact that not everyone hears the same voice. Some here right, some hear wrong. Some hear do it, some hear don’t. And without moral facts it can be very difficult to clear that up. (via marxisforbros)