As long as there is more than 1 person on this planet, there will not be one singular truth, as to how to live your life!
This is my firm belief. I have never met an individual who felt exactly like me, as to how one should live ones life. We are all different, if we want to be or not. All I have been able to do, is to find persons, who share the most similarities with my view of the "way of the world" and whom I find I can most relate to, and call them friends. Most of whom frequent this page.
The search for the "one and only" truth, is nigh impossible in my opinion.
Torellion wrote:
To jogvanth and whoever else might be following this thread regarding the tolerate others issue:
I care for the truth. I really do. I am sure the world has only one state. Either you are right or you are wrong. To me, being tolerant of other people's opinion is to say 'this is your truth and that is ok, I have mine'.
But I can't live that way. If I am deluded, stupid or in other ways wrong I want to know about it, instead of stumbling around in the darkness of my own delusions, while people who know the truth watch me and say 'let us respect his right to believe what we know is a lie'.
If I am the only one who is passionate about the truth then let me know. I don't want to waste my time making arguments to someone who doesn't care about truth.
I care for truth also and I've found the scientific method to be most effective in providing me with probabilities towards what might be true or not. I do not presume to, nor do I have any reason to believe that I as a mere human being am able to fully grasp any singular truth about the universe. Still, I have found that being rational and applying logic to the information my senses afford me, produces knownledge that is reproducable, usable and consistent.
I have yet however, to see how science can help me with questions like "what do I want from life?" "what should I be doing?" "what is evil and what is good?" "what is my purpose?" "what is the purpose of the human race?"
The answers that science gives to these questions are unacceptable to me. According to science my only purpose is to reproduce and the only thing I should be doing is surviving and working towards that goal. As for the purpose of the human race, there is no purpose that science can discern.
I belive that there are many truths that we do not or cannot accept, even if we on a logical, deductive level can scientifically argue them to be probable. Hence, we are bound to seek answers that science cannot provide os with, either because of a lacking understanding of the brain or because we do not want to hear them. So what do we do? we turn to something else that answers these questions in a way that is acceptable - any doctrine that can tell us what is right or wrong, what our purpose is and what we should be doing.
In the past the most effective delivery system for such information has undoubtably been religion. Today however, it is just as feasable to use other delivery systems. Humanism, for instance, uses science as a delivery system. Do not for a minute think that just because humanists often subscribe to an atheist world view based on scientific reasoning, that the morality associated with humanism is in any way scientific fact.
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
jogvanth: Just so you know, I haven't ignored you. It just takes too long to write a proper response to your post so I would rather do it in person.
Grizlas: It seems like you don't consider philosophy and ethics to be sciences. As far as I know there are highly educated and very smart people working on ethical questions. They just don't get that much attention.
And spirituality is not really a science yet but it probably will be in a few years.
According to science my only purpose is to reproduce and the only thing I should be doing is surviving and working towards that goal.
That is just wrong. According to science the purpose of you, me and every living thing, WAS to reproduce. But since some of us are sentient now we have discarded that purpose. Science doesn't tell you to survive or reproduce.
And what is with this talk of purpose? Why can't the purpose of life be life itself? If scientists have got it right you aren't a person experiencing life, you are the experience. There is no 'you' driving your body, nor a 'you' being affected by brain chemistry. 'You' are the body and the brain chemistry. At this very moment the totality of your experience, every bit of it, is you. </philosophical existential rant>
Do not for a minute think that just because humanists often subscribe to an atheist world view based on scientific reasoning, that the morality associated with humanism is in any way scientific fact.
I am not sure what to make of this sentence, could you elaborate?
Torellion wrote:
Grizlas: It seems like you don't consider philosophy and ethics to be sciences. As far as I know there are highly educated and very smart people working on ethical questions. They just don't get that much attention.
And spirituality is not really a science yet but it probably will be in a few years.
Is your argument then, that if highly educated individuals and/or very smart people are working on something, it is therefore a science?
Torellion wrote:
That is just wrong. According to science the purpose of you, me and every living thing, WAS to reproduce. But since some of us are sentient now we have discarded that purpose. Science doesn't tell you to survive or reproduce.
What does "Origin of species" say to that extent? As far as I was aware, that work is the foundation of the scientific view of "the meaning of life".
Grizlas: It seems like you don't consider philosophy and ethics to be sciences. As far as I know there are highly educated and very smart people working on ethical questions. They just don't get that much attention.
And spirituality is not really a science yet but it probably will be in a few years.
You're right. I dont consider these two sciences in the sense that they are not hard sciences. Any argument or information that is based on reproducable evidence that I can experience directly with my senses, is, in my view, more likely to be true than what is derived at through conjecture and critical thinking alone. This does not mean that, for instance, inductive and heremetic methods have no value. It means that some things cannot currently be reproduced or measured in any direct sense, and so we have to use methods that are less likely to produce true outcomes, - the only methods we have left.
I am unable to imagine how ethics can be based on hard fact anymore than the rest of philosophy. Make a case for it if you disagree.
I am not sure what to make of this sentence, could you elaborate?
Just pointing out that ideologies based upon the irrational belief in god as well as the rational disbelief in god share irrational assumptions about how we should live our lives or which actions should be taken as a consequence therof.
edit: almost forgot:
That is just wrong. According to science the purpose of you, me and every living thing, WAS to reproduce. But since some of us are sentient now we have discarded that purpose. Science doesn't tell you to survive or reproduce.
I agree with this statement. It is something that I belive is true and a conclusion I have arrived at through critical thinking. It is however, not something that can be measured, reproduced or proven in any sense. The reason for this is, that we haven't been able to measure "sentience" scientifically. In any case, if we are correct then the only thing we have established is that science doesn't tell us what our purpose is and thats not very helpful.
And what is with this talk of purpose? Why can't the purpose of life be life itself? If scientists have got it right you aren't a person experiencing life, you are the experience. There is no 'you' driving your body, nor a 'you' being affected by brain chemistry. 'You' are the body and the brain chemistry. At this very moment the totality of your experience, every bit of it, is you. </philosophical existential rant>
Sounds nice. Maybe our purpose is "life itself" and so on. Yet I would like to point out that this passage of your is, in my view, about as scientific as what I suspect christianity, humanism, buddhism, existentialism, naturalism and so on have written as reason for our purpose.
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
In any case, if we are correct then the only thing we have established is that science doesn't tell us what our purpose is and thats not very helpful.
No, the only thing I have said is that science doesn't tell us that our purpose is to survive and reproduce. I still think its methods will lead us on the right path regarding ethics and philosophy, which the thread all of a sudden became all about.
Sounds nice. Maybe our purpose is "life itself" and so on. Yet I would like to point out that this passage of your is, in my view, about as scientific as what I suspect christianity, humanism, buddhism, existentialism, naturalism and so on have written as reason for our purpose.
What is the purpose of a cave, or the star Wolf359 or the way light is refracted in a prism? Some things just are.
Science tells us that if there is no proof of a phenomenon, we should do our hypothesis without them. Purpose of life is one of those unproven phenomenons. Man made objects always have a purpose. Things not designed by men usually don't.
My hypothesis is to live life without including such ideas as purpose, as it would be illogical to presume purpose. That means that like there is no purpose to a cave beyond the cave itself, no purpose to Wolf359 beyond Wolf359 and no purpose to the refraction of light; there is no purpose to life beyond life itself. Thus my statement
Why can't the purpose of life be life itself?
Explain to me why this isn't more scientific than believing in gods or reincarnation?
Just pointing out that ideologies based upon the irrational belief in god as well as the rational disbelief in god share irrational assumptions about how we should live our lives or which actions should be taken as a consequence therof.
I am not so sure that the different assumptions of how to live our lives are all equally irrational. You really think they are?
Regarding philosophy as a science, I propose we leave the subject for a later date. It would just kill the current thread to include that subject as well.
grizlas wrote:
Just pointing out that ideologies based upon the irrational belief in god as well as the rational disbelief in god share irrational assumptions about how we should live our lives or which actions should be taken as a consequence therof.
Excuse me?! What irrational assumptions have I made about how I live my life now and the actions I take? You should know well my philosophy of life, and how it came to be. What is irrational about that?
Torellion wrote:
No, the only thing I have said is that science doesn't tell us that our purpose is to survive and reproduce. I still think its methods will lead us on the right path regarding ethics and philosophy, which the thread all of a sudden became all about.
Science will guide us in choosing the right ethics and philosophies? how?
What is the purpose of a cave, or the star Wolf359 or the way light is refracted in a prism? Some things just are.
Science tells us that if there is no proof of a phenomenon, we should do our hypothesis without them. Purpose of life is one of those unproven phenomenons. Man made objects always have a purpose. Things not designed by men usually don't.
My hypothesis is to live life without including such ideas as purpose, as it would be illogical to presume purpose. That means that like there is no purpose to a cave beyond the cave itself, no purpose to Wolf359 beyond Wolf359 and no purpose to the refraction of light; there is no purpose to life beyond life itself. Thus my statement Why can't the purpose of life be life itself? Explain to me why this isn't more scientific than believing in gods or reincarnation?
No purpose huh? I certainly agree that science tells us that life has no purpuse, if we disregard the whole evolution thing as you suggest. Now, you state your hypothesis that is to live without regard for purpose. How would you propose we test this hypothesis?
I am not so sure that the different assumptions of how to live our lives are all equally irrational. You really think they are?
I do not know what "equally irrational" means. I dont consider irrationality in degrees. Either something is rational or it isn't. Believing in god might be more deluded than believing in luck or horoscopes but are nonetheless just irrational beliefs. As to the question whether they have to be irrational at all then yes. Assumtions about how we are to live our lives must by definition be irrational.
Since we now understand that facts and the understanding of facts cannot be used rationally to infer a purpose of any kind, other than the tiresome evolutionary one, it becomes impossible to create ethics directly from fact. Some sort of value element has to enter into the equation and that value element is provided by our own set of values that have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific fact. For instance, we might value the absence of pain, like I believe vuzman does, and then use that as an ethical basis. This makes for some pretty remarkable guidelines as to how one should live one's life, most of which I subscribe to wholeheartedly. Still, it is easy to see that while valueing the absence of pain might make sense because we hate pain and others seem to hate it too, it is still not FACT that the absence of pain should guide our lives, or be our purpose if you will. There is just as much evidence in favor of living our lives based on lunar eclipses as of pain absence - none. Ethics are a CHOICE, not scientific fact and you cannot derive ethics from fact without adding irrational elements. Hope this makes sense. If it doesn't then please give it some thought before you dismiss it.
Just to be clear. I have nothing against irrational beliefs. I hold many myself. Maybe all this talk of what's rational and irrational is confusing because we're using the wrong words. By rational I mean things that logically follow, like a mathematical formula. and by irrationality I mean things that do not.
My problem is when people begin to confuse science with ideology. As an example, it is scientific fact that humans cause global warming. That we should do something about it is not scientific fact even if all the scientists in the world wanted to end global warming tomorrow. I think it is very important to distinguish between the two.
hopefully this answers vuzman as well. time to get some sleep so I can be ready for hanibal rising!
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
It seems that you're saying that if there is no purpose to life, NOTHING matters. And if it weren't for some irrational belief in god or horoscopes or pain absence we'd all be nihilists, who we all know don't believe in anything and go around pissing on other people's carpets like they have no care in the world.
Well, that's just wrong. Can't you argue logically that raping little children is wrong, without having a purpose to life? I sure hope you can! (Christians would argue that raping children would piss God off, and you'd go to hell, but they'd be wrong).
What is irrational about being nice to others? (convince me and I'll stop being nice to you) What is irrational about wanting to stop global warming? (do you like living in Arctic conditions?)
Just because a person doesn't have an overarching purpose to life, the universe, and everything, doesn't mean that it is impossible to be rational. It's not irrational to state that "Pain baaad!". It's not irrational to act on that statement.
grizlas wrote:
Some sort of value element has to enter into the equation and that value element is provided by our own set of values that have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific fact.
See, this is where you went terribly wrong. Your sensation of pain is scientific fact, and I assure you that the value you place on your own absence of pain has very much to do with that scientific fact.
I don't really know where you get the idea that values have to come from somewhere. That's a very religious idea, and I would argue that religion only instills false values. When a Christian does good things, he doesn't do it because he's nice, he just wants to cover his ass. The only true value that Christianity can give you is the value of your own ass. The entire field of ethics (and the word itself) comes from those godless greeks who hundreds of years before Christ didn't need a God to determine how best to behave. It's really a setback for humanity that we are no closer to ridding ourselves of God as a moral guide than we we're 2500 years ago.
vuzman wrote:
It seems that you're saying that if there is no purpose to life, NOTHING matters.
Never said that and spare me your nihilist rant. I said that if there is no purpose to life then nothing can be PROVEN to matter more than anything else. If i'm wrong about this then I challenge you to set up a thesis that allows us to examine scientifically which purpose of life is better than any other.
Well, that's just wrong. Can't you argue logically that raping little children is wrong, without having a purpose to life? I sure hope you can! (Christians would argue that raping children would piss God off, and you'd go to hell, but they'd be wrong).
I cannot argue this logically and neither can you. I do however believe in this wrongness of raping children fierily. Can you see the difference? If you think you can make a scientific case for your morality then by all means lets have it.
What is irrational about being nice to others? (convince me and I'll stop being nice to you) What is irrational about wanting to stop global warming? (do you like living in Arctic conditions?)
Again, what I like and dont like is not the issue. I believe in being nice to others and want to stop global warming but I cannot scientifically/rationally/logically make a case fo defend them, can you?
Just because a person doesn't have an overarching purpose to life, the universe, and everything, doesn't mean that it is impossible to be rational. It's not irrational to state that "Pain baaad!". It's not irrational to act on that statement.
umm..."Pain Baaad!"? if this is what you mean by rationality then I propose that its not irrational to state "Pain goooood!" and not irrational to act on that statement. In fact, we can state just about any opinion that we feel is correct and act upon it and it would be rational. Its bad reasoning because you cannot answer why pain is bad. You just feel it is. It is something that you just know, but nonetheless cannot argue. Again I challenge you to make a proper case for your beliefs so I dont have to conjure strawmen of my own.
See, this is where you went terribly wrong. Your sensation of pain is scientific fact, and I assure you that the value you place on your own absence of pain has very much to do with that scientific fact.
I am well aware that the sensation of pain is a scientific fact. Your fallacy is the leap from pain exists towards founding ethics on the absence of pain. What does "has very much to do with " mean? do you mean that from the fact that the sensation of pain exists we can logically deduce that the absence of pain should be the basis for all good human behavior? While I certainly believe pain is bad as is painfully obvious to anyone I cannot scientifically defend it as fact. And again, I ask that you indulge my ignorance by doing so yourself.
I don't really know where you get the idea that values have to come from somewhere. That's a very religious idea, and I would argue that religion only instills false values. (rant...)
The idea that value isn't an objective truth is by no means something I was the first to think up. You mistakenly seem to think that I belive that religion is required for having ethical systems even if I have said no such thing. What I have said though, is that an ethical system based on a god is based upon an irrational premise and so is an ethical system based on the absence of pain.
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
I'm not talking about the be-all, end-all truth to the universe; One Truth to rule them all and in truthiness bind them.
Let me try to take this slowly so even 5-year olds can grasp this. It shouldn't be that complicated:
I said that if there is no purpose to life then nothing can be PROVEN to matter more than anything else.
Proven to whom? To me e.g. the absence of pain matters more than having a full stomach. If someone were inflicting pain on me and I hadn't eaten in a day, I'd try to get away from the pain first, then I'd see about getting something to eat. I'm not really sure about whom I should prove this to, but it is verily so. See how one thing matters more to me than an other thing? Most people feel this way. What exactly do I need to prove about this?
I cannot argue this logically and neither can you. I do however believe in this wrongness of raping children fierily. Can you see the difference? If you think you can make a scientific case for your morality then by all means lets have it.
Really? You can't argue why it's wrong to rape little children, you just believe that it is? Really? Are you fucking kidding me?
If I raped a child I would presumably inflict grave psychological and physical trauma on the child. That is bad. I feel that it is bad because I have empathy with the child. Empathy is a trait we have developed through evolution. For us to survive as a species, it has been necessary for us to function together, in smaller or bigger groups. For this to work it has been necessary for us to understand each others feelings, thus empathy has evolved, and I feel the kid's pain. I could also argue this without feeling; as I know being raped myself would suck, I can imagine that it would also suck for others to experience the same thing. I could also argue that it is bad to end up in prison, that I would lose social points from my friends and family, and so on. Is this hard to understand? Is it illogical? Is it irrational?
Let me just touch on the concept of "belief" and the word "believe" for a moment. I believe kids feel pain if I rape them. That is a logical, rational, scientifically well-founded belief. Christians believe that they will get a chocolate motorcycle in heaven if they don't rape kids. That is an illogical, irrational, intellectually retarded belief. Please tell me you can tell the difference.
I propose that its not irrational to state "Pain goooood!" and not irrational to act on that statement.
Ok. The next time I see you I will punch you in the face. Hard. Then we can talk about whose statement is more irrational.
Its bad reasoning because you cannot answer why pain is bad. You just feel it is.
Uhmm.... it is bad, because it feels bad. That's all there is to it. And after I have punched you in the face, I'm convinced that you'll agree with me that pain is bad.
do you mean that from the fact that the sensation of pain exists we can logically deduce that the absence of pain should be the basis for all good human behavior?
Yes. Not just from the existence, but from the knowledge that pain is bad. If you asked every human in the world, they would agree that pain is bad. It is hard to ask animals the same question, but try to inflict some pain on them and they either whimper and try to get away from you, or get pissed and attack you. Hey, do the same experiment with humans, and you'll find they act in the same way.
Let's take an objective look at what is generally the accepted "right" behavior for humans. Every law of every nation says that it is illegal to hurt other people. Every religion (which we both agree are all man-made philosophies for human behavior) says that it is bad to hurt other people. I think it is safe to say that there is a consensus on this issue.
I could argue from an evolutionary standpoint as well. The sensation of pain has evolved from a need to identify when stuff that threatens our health and/or life happens. Losing your life is bad, ergo pain is bad.
an ethical system based on a god is based upon an irrational premise and so is an ethical system based on the absence of pain.
Behaving in a certain way because you believe a god you have zero proof exists wants you to, is irrational.
Behaving in a certain way because you have logical, scientifically well-founded belief that other people feel the same way about pain as you do, is not irrational.
I'm not talking about the be-all, end-all truth to the universe; One Truth to rule them all and in truthiness bind them.
Let me try to take this slowly so even 5-year olds can grasp this. It shouldn't be that complicated:
oh ok. Well at least you're not being condecending so I'll listen more intently.
Proven to whom? To me e.g. the absence of pain matters more than having a full stomach. If someone were inflicting pain on me and I hadn't eaten in a day, I'd try to get away from the pain first, then I'd see about getting something to eat. I'm not really sure about whom I should prove this to, but it is verily so. See how one thing matters more to me than an other thing? Most people feel this way. What exactly do I need to prove about this?
I think I get it. You seem to think that humans are nothing more than machines that act upon instincts such as hungry = get food, danger = run/kill. We can scientifically establsih that this indeed is a kind of behavior associated with not only humans, but a wide variety of organisms and computer programs. The only way I can interpret this is that you think that whatever our instincts tell us is the right good moral thing to do. This is pretty much the only scientific explanation of purpose if one can call it that. The purpose of lions is to be lions etc. What you need to prove is that something can be morally good or bad. But that always begs the question good or bad to what end? and that's why you need a purpose. Let me elaborate so you dont misunderstand like the 5 year old twit you are btw.
Why is it wrong to kill? Scientifically I suppose you could argue that the reason why human beings seem to feel negative feelings when killing other humans is because it is an action that diminishes our chances for survival and hence people or groups that didn't kill eachother but instead worked together had a better chance of survival and therefore we today feel this way. I have no idea if this is factual but it sounds like something one might be able to prove scientifically so lets pretend that is the case. Why is it wrong to kill? becase it stands in the way of evolution, which is our goal, our purpose. We have now proven that if natural selection is our purpose, then it is wrong to kill. Conversely, if killing happened to be asscosiated with a positive feeling and was beneficial to natural selection, would it then be right to kill?
In any case, if we submit to natural selection, then we are completely safe. All we have to do is whatever we want, because since we are the product of billions of years of natural selection at work, then the reason we are the way we are and act and feel the way we do, is all because it is the best way to survive in our environment. Should the environment happen to change then some of us will die, but the ones with the right abilities will survive, or - if they dont then the human race is done, but that's fine too because species die out all the time. All we have to do for this to happen is to follow the signals that our brain sends out, - do what makes us happy and painfree while avoiding what makes you sad or feel pain - pure hedonism baby!
However, Natural selection will march on no matter what anyone does. We do not really have to survive to be subject to natural selection. We can just as easily decide to only do things that makes us sad and causes us pain and we would still not have done anything to violate natural selection we would just die in complete accordance with the rules of natural selection and the evolution of life. Therefore natural selection is the absolute lack of morality. It is not even hedonism because that implies that we should not do things that make us unhappy like suicide, something that will only make us die faster according to natural selection and that's ok too since if we were able to commit suicide then we were naturally selected to die anyways and hence did nothing wrong.
Really? You can't argue why it's wrong to rape little children, you just believe that it is? Really? Are you fucking kidding me?
Can't we dispense with this constant appeal to emotion. I am not a babyraper but if I was a babyraper and strongly believed that babyraping was the morally right thing to do, then it would in no way diminish the weight of the arguments i have put forward concerning the irrationality of ethics. you would still have to provide a method for proving scientifically that babyraping is wrong.
If I raped a child I would presumably inflict grave psychological and physical trauma on the child. That is bad. I feel that it is bad because I have empathy with the child. Empathy is a trait we have developed through evolution. For us to survive as a species, it has been necessary for us to function together, in smaller or bigger groups. For this to work it has been necessary for us to understand each others feelings, thus empathy has evolved, and I feel the kid's pain.
This is what i'm talking about. What you feel negatively about is wrong. Why? because we evolved to feel negatively about things that decrease our chance to survive by the workings of natural selection. Hence our goal is evolution which, once you give it some more thought, clearly leads to the complete absence of morality.
I could also argue this without feeling; as I know being raped myself would suck, I can imagine that it would also suck for others to experience the same thing.
It is a scientific fact that others feel bad about the same things as you. You do not really have to imagine it. It still doesn't say anything about why it should be wrong. It's just an extention of the empathy argument. You still have to explain why what you feel is bad. and the explanation for that is evolutionary.
I could also argue that it is bad to end up in prison, that I would lose social points from my friends and family, and so on. Is this hard to understand? Is it illogical? Is it irrational?
You would end up in prison? do you mean to say that you think it is morally wrong to rape someone because society punishes it with a prison sentence? society punshes alot of things with prison sentences in different countries. Is it morally wrong to oppose a dictatorship? or morally right to kill gays in iran? And would you say that an action was morally wrong if your friends or family didn't approve of it? absurd, but yes...perfectly logical and rational.
Given the premise that monsters under the bed come out and eat little girls aged 5-7 at midnight if the lights are off, it would be absolutely logical and rational to leave the lights on. If you get 70 virgins and unlimited supply of chocolate motorcycles if you die a martyr, it is perfectly rational to pilot a plane into a skyscraper. You can be as rational about how to interpret your premise as you want but it still doesn't make your premise any more rational. In this case, that whatever we feel bad about is wrong.
Let me just touch on the concept of "belief" and the word "believe" for a moment. I believe kids feel pain if I rape them. That is a logical, rational, scientifically well-founded belief. Christians believe that they will get a chocolate motorcycle in heaven if they don't rape kids. That is an illogical, irrational, intellectually retarded belief. Please tell me you can tell the difference.
Wrong. It is not a belief that kids feel pain. It is an established scientific fact that kids feel pain as it is fact that rape is a truly horrible experience that has lasting negative impact on the human psyche. It is you who cannot see the difference between belief and fact. Your belief is not that kids feel pain when raped, it is that it is wrong to inflict pain and that is what you belive and have to prove to me. As for the christians, then yes it is their belief that they get chocolate motorcycles if they dont rape kids, but the act of not raping kids given that belief is just as rational as your extrapolation that if pain is bad for you it must be bad for others. In the same way, the premise in both cases is flawed. You cannot prove that the absence of pain should be the foundation of all ethics and the christians can't prove that they get chocolate motorcycles for not raping kids (lucky bastards I want one!).
Ok. The next time I see you I will punch you in the face. Hard. Then we can talk about whose statement is more irrational.
Uhmm.... it is bad, because it feels bad. That's all there is to it. And after I have punched you in the face, I'm convinced that you'll agree with me that pain is bad.
OK now we're getting somewhere. We should simply ask everybody on the planet what should be right or wrong, starting with me. Then whatever the majority decides, that's what's right and wrong. A really comforting thought because majorities are always right. I mean george bush is the right president after all and believing in a higher deity is what the overwhelming majority thinks is right. Incidentally, i'm tempted to ask, at what margin do we declare the absence of pain to be proven wrong? 100% or what if some say no. Then how much should we let it slide? Who sets the margins on these things anyways.
do you mean that from the fact that the sensation of pain exists we can logically deduce that the absence of pain should be the basis for all good human behavior?
Yes. Not just from the existence, but from the knowledge that pain is bad. If you asked every human in the world, they would agree that pain is bad.
You keep stuttering around in your "bad"'s and its muddling the waters. every human being might by definition agree that pain is pain and that negative is negative, and that wrong is wrong. They might even mostly agree that pain is negative even if there would be a few who liked pain. However, I doubt that they would all agree that inflicting pain onto others or having pain inflicted on themselves would be universally wrong. It is this latest meaning of "bad" we are talking about. Even if they all agreed, you would still only have won an election and would be no closer to a scientifically established set of ethics.
Let's take an objective look at what is generally the accepted "right" behavior for humans. Every law of every nation says that it is illegal to hurt other people. Every religion (which we both agree are all man-made philosophies for human behavior) says that it is bad to hurt other people. I think it is safe to say that there is a consensus on this issue.
I could argue from an evolutionary standpoint as well. The sensation of pain has evolved from a need to identify when stuff that threatens our health and/or life happens. Losing your life is bad, ergo pain is bad.
Again, argument from evolution. You argue that causing pain is wrong because evolution says so. Then you spice it up a bit with some cherry picking majority talk. Lots of people seem to believe that pain is wrong ergo it is wrong!. Almost all religions state that the woman is inferior to the man and most laws in all countries say that it is illegal to smoke pot, I think it is safe to say that there is a concensus on the issue.
Behaving in a certain way because you believe a god you have zero proof exists wants you to, is irrational.
Behaving in a certain way because you have logical, scientifically well-founded belief that other people feel the same way about pain as you do, is not irrational.
But that is not why you behave the way you do. To repeat; that other people feel pretty much the same amount of pain that you do is logical to assume and can be scientifically proven. It can also be proven that the sky is blue and rationally be deduced that if you see the sky as blue with your eyes then others must see it as blue too. What you cannot scientifically prove nor rationally claim is that looking at the sky is wrong.
Your belief is that it is fundamentally wrong to inflict pain upon others. It is this belief that I claim is irrational and you have not produced anything noteworthy as of yet that would make me retract that claim.
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
