Religion

[PrinceVertigo]

If your Judeo-Christian god (that's with a lowercase g, folks) can do anything and everything, knows everything that is, was, and will be, and is 100% benevolent in every way, why does he allow children to suffer? Is allowing suffering in any way not malevolent? And if your god must be believed in to be 'saved', then is he not condeming others, which in itself is a malicous act? If we must worship him to reach the superior realm, then why does he not give those in need a small gift of his so called 'love' to inspire belief?

 

Lastly, is his ego that big, that he needs people to plead and offer themselves up to him? Wouldn't that be pretentious, and therefore, evil?

[BlitzDrake]

Lastly, is his ego that big, that he needs people to plead and offer themselves up to him? Wouldn't that be pretentious, and therefore, evil?

Pretentiousness is a sin! *cough* lol

I'd rather not follow any one save for myself. But if technicality is what we are aiming for, I'm against any tyrannical leader that advocates infringing on the rights of the people on which it governs.

 

@Adwz How would I even "know" what bible you follow. Why does that revision hold more value to you than others now?

Edited March 3, 2014 by BlightWyvern

[Awdz]

Excuse you but when did I ever say believing in a diety was morally wrong? I'd prefer if you didn't jump to conclusions and use slippery slope arguments instead of answering my question.

 

I do not think that belief is morally wrong. I think that any kind of belief is fine. But I want to know your personal opinion on following the laws of a creature unseen and unheard, especially with the crusades being in the name of him. So if your god ordered you to kill, would you?

All of your assertions that God does not exist (regardless of whether you call it "unbelief" or "denial") imply that you feel it is a bad thing to believe in God.

 

I did not answer the "what if" question because the scenario you outlined directly opposes what God teaches. You never answered Philpot's question about the source of your morality; perhaps if you answered his question, I'd better understand your perspective and thus better be able to address what you are really asking.

 

To refresh your memory about the question:

I'm not talking about what I believe, I'm questioning YOUR basis for believing that hurting someone is wrong. Is hurting someone wrong because I think it's wrong? Is it wrong because I empathize with them? Or are you appealing to a transcendent standard? I want to know where this concept of "right and wrong" is coming from. Is it based on feeling? Reasoning? What? I don't see how this is "ridiculous" at all. It would be ridiculous to say that something was wrong without knowing why it was wrong.

You replied

You want to know why something is right or wrong?

Simple: there is no such thing as right or wrong. Morals come from a herd mentality of keeping people organized. Chaos in a herd is bad because it exposes the herd to weakness and predators. Morals exist to help avoid chaos. That is why morals vary from person to person; it is all their unique way of avoiding chaos in a group. I don't need a book telling me how to avoid chaos. It's called using common sense.

You completely side-stepped the question by refusing the premise that there is right or wrong, after saying that hurting someone is wrong. So, I refuse the premise to your question.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[pudding]

All of your assertions that God does not exist (regardless of whether you call it "unbelief" or "denial") imply that you feel it is a bad thing to believe in God.

 

I did not answer the "what if" question because the scenario you outlined directly opposes what God teaches.  You never answered Philpot's question about the source of your morality; perhaps if you answered his question, I'd better understand your perspective and thus better be able to address what you are really asking.

 

 

I never once claimed that it was bad, I merely said that it is not a provable fact. Again, you are using slippery slope arguments to state thing that I did not say. Ever.

 

And I did outline the source of my own morality Here. The source of my morality comes directly from avoiding chaos within a group. To reiterate: If you kill people, they won't like you and bad things will happen to you as a result. Therefor, you should not kill people. Morality is just another word for self and group preservation in my eyes.

[Awdz]

 

I never once claimed that it was bad, I merely said that it is not a provable fact. Again, you are using slippery slope arguments to state thing that I did not say. Ever.

 

And I did outline the source of my own morality Here. The source of my morality comes directly from avoiding chaos within a group. To reiterate: If you kill people, they won't like you and bad things will happen to you as a result. Therefor, you should not kill people. Morality is just another word for self and group preservation in my eyes.

So you're saying stealing and lying is OK, as long as you are not caught and the group does not fall apart?

[BlitzDrake]

I did not answer the "what if" question because the scenario you outlined directly opposes what God teaches.

Unless you go back to the Old testament Kill, pillage, burn. Rinse and repeat. Kill all the people the lord has handed over to his chosen people. Of course though, since this was in the old testament this doesn't have value. Oh wait, it should beings Paul/Timothy stated all.

The people in the crusades were "ok" the first time in the sense they didn't get corrupted initially. Now this can be nulled in itself because it wasn't "godly" but why was it started for? To reclaim the "holy" land from the nonbelievers for god.

 

You're misunderstanding/twisting what Pudding is saying

Edited March 3, 2014 by BlightWyvern

[PrinceVertigo]

All of your assertions that God does not exist (regardless of whether you call it "unbelief" or "denial") imply that you feel it is a bad thing to believe in God.

By that logic, I think it's a bad thing for men and women to have sex. I don't, I'm just not interested in the idea. I agree with pudding on morality. In the end, nothing is good or bad, unless society defines it as such. A long time ago, stoning was seen as a moral way of killing offenders; now, even suggesting that is barbaric.

[Stripey]

Somewhat of a tangent to the current set of talking points, I wonder about people who cherry-pick what parts of their holy-book they believe in.

 

I mean, if that book IS the infallible word of their deity, then shouldn't ALL of it be equally valid?

 

By the same logic, if one part is no longer valid, shouldn't the whole thing no longer be valid, as it shows the author of the book to be fallible?

 

Not picking on any one religion, though christianity is often the one I see that won't answer these questions (simply by population density of christians whom I interact with) I have found several religious groups who sidestep things when this is brought up.

[pudding]

So you're saying stealing and lying is OK, as long as you are not caught and the group does not fall apart?

Depends on the lie but if you are 99% sure you won't get caught and IF YOU DO, the group won't suffer too greatly for it, by all means. Lying isn't that bad of a thing to do. I mean, covering up a murder is bad because you shouldn't have murdered in the first place. But lying about it isn't the real problem, it's the killing itself. You lied to keep peace.

[Awdz]

If your Judeo-Christian god (that's with a lowercase g, folks) can do anything and everything, knows everything that is, was, and will be, and is 100% benevolent in every way, why does he allow children to suffer? Is allowing suffering in any way not malevolent? And if your god must be believed in to be 'saved', then is he not condeming others, which in itself is a malicous act? If we must worship him to reach the superior realm, then why does he not give those in need a small gift of his so called 'love' to inspire belief?

 

Lastly, is his ego that big, that he needs people to plead and offer themselves up to him? Wouldn't that be pretentious, and therefore, evil?

From the perspective of "this world is like a classroom," God allows all people to make choices and see the fallout from those choices. Because we are interdependent/interactive, our choices affect others, and the choices others make affect us. We see the ramifications of choices both as chooser and as (often unintended) recipient of the effects. Our souls are learning lessons through the examples experienced by our physical bodies. Thus, God allows even the choices that hurt children to happen in this world, so that all may learn from them.

 

From the same perspective as above, God does not need people to plead and offer themselves up; God can create more to replace those that do not, if God wants that. As people, we need to make the choice to follow God in order that we can grow into something much more.

 

@Adwz How would I even "know" what bible you follow. Why does that revision hold more value to you than others now?

I did not really expect you to know, thus the request, in order for me to clarify what I consider valid. The NRSV is widely accepted as a good translation among mainstream Protestant churches, involving many scholars from many denominations/backgrounds, including Jews for the OT portions. The texts translated are considered more reliable than some of the ancillary texts included in the Apocrypha (e.g., the story of Lillith), and make use of manuscript discoveries such as the Dead Sea scrolls. The language uses "you" instead of "thee" and "thou", and is less sexist (using "person" instead of "man" to talk about humankind) than KJV or RSV. Generally speaking, as long as there was a solid group of (relatively) objective scholars involved with reliable referencing for the various versions, I'd probably be OK with it. A comparison of modern translations makes for an interesting bible study tool.

 

Excuse you but when did I ever say believing in a diety was morally wrong?

I guess you're right, I misunderstood. When you first came in saying that any god who creates imperfect creatures must be imperfect, that Zeus is more desirable than the Christian God, and that religion is not for you, it made me think you felt Christians are idiots. Combined with your post dissing the ten commandments,

So the "Big Ten" list of morals are half composed of things that aren't even morals and half morals that can be explained in terms of 'don't piss people off or hurt them or else they're come after you instead'. Doesn't seem like I need a god to tell me all of these things.

I took it to mean you felt believing in God is morally wrong.

 

Unless you go back to the Old testament biggrin.gif Kill, pillage, burn. Rinse and repeat. Kill all the people the lord has handed over to his chosen people. Of course though, since this was in the old testament this doesn't have value. Oh wait, it should beings Paul/Timothy stated all.

The people in the crusades were "ok" the first time in the sense they didn't get corrupted initially. Now this can be nulled in itself because it wasn't "godly" but why was it started for? To reclaim the "holy" land from the nonbelievers for god.

 

You're misunderstanding/twisting what Pudding is saying

I already posted that I do not know why there were slaughters permitted in the OT, given the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Jesus taught that we should not kill. I've also already gone through the request that people not confuse the teachings of God with the propaganda of self-serving power-grabbers pushing their own agenda.

 

As for my answer on the "what if" question? That is between me and God. You can answer to God on it for yourself.

 

I agree with pudding on morality. In the end, nothing is good or bad, unless society defines it as such. A long time ago, stoning was seen as a moral way of killing offenders; now, even suggesting that is barbaric.

So whatever societal norms are, goes? By that logic, you could drive to reinstituting slavery and preventing minorities from voting (oh wait, that second part is being pushed already with changes in voting registration laws). And it's all good, once it's in place, because the general populace accepts it.

 

I disagree. Just because most people accept it in the circumstances, does not make it essentially good. Enough people object to what society defines as good to keep society changing; are they amoral for not accepting what society generally does? Very often these objections cause chaos in society before everything calms down to a new standard; were they wrong to start the ruckus? How many lives were lost in the US civil war - and is slavery only immoral because the South lost?

 

I think there are some basic morals necessary for society, and since there are people who do not seem to have those clear innately, a known source of them is important. I prefer turning to the source of the eternal Creator rather than to the transient societal norms, to help all of humanity to grow/mature to something better than it has been in the past.

 

Depends on the lie but if you are 99% sure you won't get caught and IF YOU DO, the group won't suffer too greatly for it, by all means. Lying isn't that bad of a thing to do. I mean, covering up a murder is bad because you shouldn't have murdered in the first place. But lying about it isn't the real problem, it's the killing itself. You lied to keep peace.

And who makes the call on what suffering "too greatly for it" is? No one died from the bundling of bad stocks a few years back, some people camped out at Wall Street to protest the hiding of bad investments, but after government bail out, things are "fine" now. Was it wrong for the investment brokers to do what they did? How is that call made, and by whom?

Edited March 3, 2014 by Awdz Bodkins

[pudding]

I guess you're right, I misunderstood. When you first came in saying that any god who creates imperfect creatures must be imperfect, that Zeus is more desirable than the Christian God, and that religion is not for you, it made me think you felt Christians are idiots. Combined with your post dissing the ten commandments, I took it to mean you felt believing in God is morally wrong.

 

 

So whatever societal norms are, goes?  By that logic, you could drive to reinstituting slavery and preventing minorities from voting (oh wait, that second part is being pushed already with changes in voting registration laws).  And it's all good, once it's in place, because the general populace accepts it.

 

I disagree. Just because most people accept it in the circumstances, does not make it essentially good. Enough people object to what society defines as good to keep society changing; are they amoral for not accepting what society generally does? Very often these objections cause chaos in society before everything calms down to a new standard; were they wrong to start the ruckus? How many lives were lost in the US civil war - and is slavery only immoral because the South lost?

 

I think there are some basic morals necessary for society, and since there are people who do not seem to have those clear innately, a known source of them is important.  I prefer turning to the source of the eternal Creator rather than to the transient societal norms, to help all of humanity to grow/mature to something better than it has been in the past.

 

 

And who makes the call on what suffering "too greatly for it" is? No one died from the bundling of bad stocks a few years back, some people camped out at Wall Street to protest the hiding of bad investments, but after government bail out, things are "fine" now. Was it wrong for the investment brokers to do what they did? How is that call made, and by whom?

You are repeatedly twisting my words. I never said that Zeus was more desirable than your god, nor did I 'diss' the ten commandments. I simply compared them to my own beliefs and pointed out the ones that were redundant. I also said:

 

To be completely honest, I'd believe in Norse or Greek gods over the Christian god. Why? Because they have personality. The modern god tends to lack personality of any kind and, if it did exist, I'd have a hard time believing it could created beings with personalities. Humans are flawed so what we create us flawed. If a god is perfect, their creations should be perfect as well. The Norse and Greek gods had distinct personalities so it makes more sense if they created flawed creations.

 

But I'm still an Athiest at the end of the day. Religion just isn't for me.

 

I simply said that if I did pick a mythology to believe in, it would be one that had gods of personality. I never said anything about Christians. I never said anything about their god being immoral. I simply said that these are the gods I prefer, just like your god is the god you prefer. Only I still do not believe in them because I am Atheist.

 

 

Reinstating slavery would cause uprising among those subjected to it, causing chaos. Thus, it falls under the immoral category. The same goes for minority vote. I'll give you a tip sweetheart: The Civil war was not fought to free slaves. It was fought to preserve the Union. If it were fought to free slaves, the states overtaken by the Union would had had their slaves immediately free. Guess what? They weren't.

 

Can you tell me where in the Bible it says no slaves? Because guess what? There's slavery in the bible. Fancy that.

 

The pool of chaos starts with anyone. You know what? I don't care about Wall Street. But their actions caused chaos among the masses so it was wrong. Had they not done that, there would be no reason for the people to gather. It causes chaos? It's not good.

 

I'll ask you one last time to stop twisting my words about since practically none of what you said about what I said was true and it's starting to get annoying going back and finding all of my texts posts.

 

[Infinis]

Somewhat of a tangent to the current set of talking points, I wonder about people who cherry-pick what parts of their holy-book they believe in. 

 

I mean, if that book IS the infallible word of their deity, then shouldn't ALL of it be equally valid? 

 

By the same logic, if one part is no longer valid, shouldn't the whole thing no longer be valid, as it shows the author of the book to be fallible?

 

Not picking on any one religion, though christianity is often the one I see that won't answer these questions (simply by population density of christians whom I interact with) I have found several religious groups who sidestep things when this is brought up.

I don't know much about other religious texts, but speaking from a biblical perspective and contrary to what seems to be popular belief, the bible was not actually written by God or any infallible deity. The bible was written by people - and people are hardly infallible.

 

People are fallible. People like to twist words to make them mean what they want them to mean. This is why people can cherry pick which parts of the bible to believe, because the people who actually wrote it were fallible.

 

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

 

Except for the parts where it involves hurting others I quite like these. v: I follow most of these already anyhow without even being actively religious. These rules for the most part make /sense/ logically to me.

 

As for the morality thing, here's a fun philosophical question:

is there really "good" or "bad" or simply two sides fighting for what each thinks is right?

Edited March 3, 2014 by Infinis

[philpot123]

You want to know why something is right or wrong?

Simple: there is no such thing as right or wrong. Morals come from a herd mentality of keeping people organized. Chaos in a herd is bad because it exposes the herd to weakness and predators. Morals exist to help avoid chaos. That is why morals vary from person to person; it is all their unique way of avoiding chaos in a group. I don't need a book telling me how to avoid chaos. It's called using common sense.

 

Now riddle me this: why do you need a book to tell you not to cause chaos?

If there is no right and wrong, then why is it "bad" for me to cause chaos? You prefer order, I prefer chaos. Which of us is right?

 

I don't need "a book," I need a standard. Your standard seems to be feelings and preference, unless you want to provide another.

 

I don't know much about other religious texts, but speaking from a biblical perspective and contrary to what seems to be popular belief, the bible was not actually written by God or any infallible deity. The bible was written by people - and people are hardly infallible.

 

People are fallible. People like to twist words to make them mean what they want them to mean. This is why people can cherry pick which parts of the bible to believe, because the people who actually wrote it were fallible.

 

Conservative Christians throw around the words infallible and inerrant almost interchangeably, but since the modernist/fundamentalist controversy in the early 1900s and the evangelical revivals of the late 1900s, the two have had slightly different meanings. Most conservative Christians confess the Bible to be infallible. That is, the Bible is infallibly true where it speaks to matters of faith and salvation, but does not claim to be factually accurate in all other respects, and so may contain factual errors. Many of those who confess infallibility will also confess inerrancy, which is the belief that the Bible is entirely true and accurate in its original autographs in all information that it relays, because the writers themselves were inspired by God to pen the texts. So your statement applies to the first group, not to the second (of which I am a part).

 

Truthfully, you're giving most Christians too much credit. Most cherry picking isn't done because of beliefs about error and fallibility, it's just flat inconsistency.

Edited March 3, 2014 by philpot123

[pudding]

If there is no right and wrong, then why is it "bad" for me to cause chaos? You prefer order, I prefer chaos. Which of us is right?

 

I don't need "a book," I need a standard. Your standard seems to be feelings and preference, unless you want to provide another.

 

 

 

Conservative Christians throw around the words infallible and inerrant almost interchangeably, but since the modernist/fundamentalist controversy in the early 1900s and the evangelical revivals of the late 1900s, the two have had slightly different meanings. Most conservative Christians confess the Bible to be infallible. That is, the Bible is infallibly true where it speaks to matters of faith and salvation, but does not claim to be factually accurate in all other respects, and so may contain factual errors. Many of those who confess infallibility will also confess inerrancy, which is the belief that the Bible is entirely true and accurate in its original autographs in all information that it relays, because the writers themselves were inspired by God to pen the texts. So your statement applies to the first group, not to the second (of which I am a part).

 

Truthfully, you're giving most Christians too much credit. Most cherry picking isn't done because of beliefs about error and fallibility, it's just flat inconsistency.

Chaos in a herd is bad because it causes turmoil. Turmoil leads to unrest, which leads to weakness in the herd. This gives opening to predators and allows bad things to happen to the herd.

 

Take cows, for example. When cows spook, they begin to stampede. The spook here is chaos and the stampede is turmoil. The predator may not be an animal but can simply be death in this situation. The cows stampede towards a cliff and throw themselves off of it, killing themselves. The chaos or the spook here is bad and should be avoided to prevent death within the herd. The moral for cows here would be to avoid things that cause stampedes. It's the same idea with people. You need to avoid the trigger because humans are herd animals and we are subject to herd mentality. I mean, yell fire in a mall and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

 

 

So it's not feeling or preference, its looking out for the herd as a whole and avoiding things that cause or lead to death in the group. Keep the peace and we're all safe.

[philpot123]

Chaos in a herd is bad because it causes turmoil. Turmoil leads to unrest, which leads to weakness in the herd. This gives opening to predators and allows bad things to happen to the herd.

 

Take cows, for example. When cows spook, they begin to stampede. The spook here is chaos and the stampede is turmoil. The predator may not be an animal but can simply be death in this situation. The cows stampede towards a cliff and throw themselves off of it, killing themselves. The chaos or the spook here is bad and should be avoided to prevent death within the herd. The moral for cows here would be to avoid things that cause stampedes. It's the same idea with people. You need to avoid the trigger because humans are herd animals and we are subject to herd mentality. I mean, yell fire in a mall and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

 

 

So it's not feeling or preference, its looking out for the herd as a whole and avoiding things that cause or lead to death in the group. Keep the peace and we're all safe.

I'm still not understanding why death or chaos should be avoided.

[PrinceVertigo]

Then go ahead and -

 

I'm not going to finish that, but you can assume what I'm telling you. The goal of every living thing is survival, no? Well, every rational living thing.

[edwardelricfreak]

Well, if dying didn't matter, species wouldn't try to strive to live and continue evolving and adapting.

 

Chaos generally is avoided because it makes goals harder to achieve. Just look at Twitch Plays Pokemon. Because of the many people inputting commands at once, they went nowhere VERY quickly...certain areas were impossible to traverse because they only went in circles.

 

Generally, making goals harder to reach can mean things die out before getting close to achieving them, etc.

 

Now chaos CAN be a good thing. One can argue that life and the universe in general are just controlled chaos. I can agree with that, myself.

[LadyFoxfire]

Somewhat of a tangent to the current set of talking points, I wonder about people who cherry-pick what parts of their holy-book they believe in. 

 

I mean, if that book IS the infallible word of their deity, then shouldn't ALL of it be equally valid? 

 

By the same logic, if one part is no longer valid, shouldn't the whole thing no longer be valid, as it shows the author of the book to be fallible?

 

Not picking on any one religion, though christianity is often the one I see that won't answer these questions (simply by population density of christians whom I interact with) I have found several religious groups who sidestep things when this is brought up.

I am a proud cherry picker. I refuse to "obey my husband". I won't harm him or cheat on him, but I'm not going to obey him. If my God truly has an issue with this, I'll be taking it up with him after I die, considering I'm given a trial and a chance to defend myself.

Edited March 3, 2014 by LadyFoxfire

[7Deadly$ins]

I totally don't get the cherry picking mindset at all.

[philpot123]

Then go ahead and -

 

I'm not going to finish that, but you can assume what I'm telling you. The goal of every living thing is survival, no? Well, every rational living thing.

Some rational creatures decide it's best to kill themselves or others. What makes their preference any worse than yours? You're making value judgments, but I'm still not seeing a fixed, knowable standard that you can claim to explain those judgments.

 

I totally don't get the cherry picking mindset at all.

 

You and me both.

[pudding]

Some rational creatures decide it's best to kill themselves or others. What makes their preference any worse than yours? You're making value judgments, but I'm still not seeing a fixed, knowable standard that you can claim to explain those judgments.

 

 

 

You and me both.

The rational creatures you are thinking of are most usually not herd animals. In humans, killing other is used for the preservation of your own herd (War is not killing creatures in your own herd, it is killing those in other herds). In other, solitary animals, killing is used to defend territory and keep the self alive. The only rational reason to kill yourself would be to defend the rest of the herd, otherwise it is completely useless and not a rational idea at all.

 

Morality is based on the herd. In solitary animals, the herd consists of yourself. This seems like a fine standard as I can define any one of my morals with it.

 

Can you name some rational creatures that kill themselves or others and why so I can illustrate this point further? Hell, I could do it with the cells in your body.

[philpot123]

The rational creatures you are thinking of are most usually not herd animals. In humans, killing other is used for the preservation of your own herd (War is not killing creatures in your own herd, it is killing those in other herds). In other, solitary animals, killing is used to defend territory and keep the self alive. The only rational reason to kill yourself would be to defend the rest of the herd, otherwise it is completely useless and not a rational idea at all.

 

Morality is based on the herd. In solitary animals, the herd consists of yourself. This seems like a fine standard as I can define any one of my morals with it.

 

Can you name some rational creatures that kill themselves or others and why so I can illustrate this point further? Hell, I could do it with the cells in your body.

Humans are rational creatures. Some humans decide they prefer to kill themselves or kill others. Why is their preference worse than your preference?

[pudding]

Humans are rational creatures. Some humans decide they prefer to kill themselves or kill others. Why is their preference worse than your preference?

...Humans are not rational creatures. Nothing in our history points to us being rational.

 

But, killing people is done for the following reasons:

Defense and Offense

Any killing outside of these two does not classify as rational. In the case of defense, the killing is easily justified: You are protecting yourself or your herd. Killing yourself can classify in the defensive killing.

In the case of offense, the killing is not so easily justified. This is because they usually aren't rational killings at all. Even offensive killings can usually be justified in terms of defensive killings. If they cannot, they almost certainly are not rational.

[philpot123]

...Humans are not rational creatures. Nothing in our history points to us being rational.

So you arrived at the conclusion that humans are not rational creatures by looking at historical facts and reasoning from there? You used your rational faculties to determine that humans aren't rational?

 

But, killing people is done for the following reasons:

Defense and Offense

Any killing outside of these two does not classify as rational. In the case of defense, the killing is easily justified: You are protecting yourself or your herd. Killing yourself can classify in the defensive killing.

In the case of offense, the killing is not so easily justified. This is because they usually aren't rational killings at all. Even offensive killings can usually be justified in terms of defensive killings. If they cannot, they almost certainly are not rational.

Are you saying that actions are wrong when they are irrational? You're still not clearly stating a standard here.

[pudding]

So you arrived at the conclusion that humans are not rational creatures by looking at historical facts and reasoning from there? You used your rational faculties to determine that humans aren't rational?

 

 

Are you saying that actions are wrong when they are irrational? You're still not clearly stating a standard here.

We have the ability to have rational thought but it is overwhelmed by illogical feelings and actions. I used a rational thought to deduce that humans are irrational. Emotions are not rational. Humans have emotions. Humans are not rational creatures. We can use rational argument but it the argument must be devoid of emotions. Notice how in my argument I avoided emotions?

 

I never said actions are wrong, I said that they cannot be justified. If you kill someone for no reason, there is no "moral" argument for it because it was not rational. Morality aligns with rationality. If something is irrational, it is amoral. That's the standard that I've been trying to describe and you don't seem to be getting.