poppies wrote:
You can’t allow how someone’s actions will or will not spread goodness as your measure of goodness, that’s begging the question.

If by ‘measure’ you are insinuating that I am defining goodness by what it spreads, then that is incorrect. There are plenty of actions that ‘spread’ that I would never label as ‘good.’ The effects of a person’s actions will exist regardless of whether or not I label them as such. Until we label anything, it is simply data. Observe how I said, “At a basic level, what is good is that which leads to happiness and does not cause suffering.”

I defined goodness there, and based on that definition, proceeded to document which effects would tie in with my definition of goodness. It is no different than labeling a certain colour red, and then noting which objects are red in my surroundings. The objects would still be the same colour even if I called them by another word. The first step to understanding anything in this world, is to first document the characteristic of a singular object, label it, and then expand one’s view in search of anything that matches the characteristics of my point of reference.

This is what I did with goodness. The characteristics of my reference are still ‘good’ even if there are no other objects/subjects that mirror it. I spoke of charity spreading more goodness, and that was an observable phenomenon. Charity to oneself is good. Charity to more than one person is better. Why? One can objectively observe that evil or actions that cause suffering, destroy, whereas the reverse tend to build. Unless we value the destruction of humanity, one cannot reasonably say that spreading evil is just as acceptable as spreading goodness.

You erroneously concluded that I measure goodness by what it spreads. To repeat this once again, I determine what is good based on “that which leads to happiness and does not cause suffering.” Once this is done, what I measure, is how much goodness ‘good’ actions generate—in other words, quantity.

To illustrate this using my previous analogy, it is the same as taking a large container and filling it with ‘red’ objects. Twenty red objects will cumulatively contain more ‘redness’ than four. Goodness can be measured by the effects it has on the environment, and in the case of humans and morality, it is most often a social environment.

It is important to note too, that certain ‘sources’ (actions) will tend to possess more ‘goodness’ than others but due to limited scope (such as less humans involved), will cumulatively be equal in goodness to a source that is more diluted (in terms of goodness) yet is of greater scope (affects more humans).

poppies wrote:
Similarly, judging actions as good if they would benefit a “healthy” mind is circular reasoning, since a “healthy” mind is ostensibly one possessed by a person who does “good”. If racists (or any other group which you find immoral) ever manage to rule the world, I think you’d find your conceptions of minds that function well considered outmoded.

Being racist is not immoral—it is just misguided. There is no evidence to suggest that certain human races are mentally superior to others. And even if there is, that is no valid reason to treat other humans not of that race poorly. Racism is only a problem when it ceases to be internal, and since our beliefs govern our actions, most racists are going to seek to spread less happiness and more suffering to those not of their race.

In fact, in the event that they ever manage to rule the world, whatever reins on their actions are being currently imposed by our society, will be dramatically loosened if not obliterated altogether. The increased parallel between thought and action will illustrate my point even more. Their penchant for exacting punishment and suffering on those who disagree will not be ‘good’ even if their delusions tell them so.

Science determines what a healthy mind in through numerous methods, two of those are by what is natural for the species in question, and what is most likely to ensure its survival. For obvious reasons, any species that has survived for a decent time period, will experience both criteria as one.

Scientific studies indicate that humans in a ‘natural’ environment will share a strong predisposition for ‘goodness.’ We can be very thankful for this, because a greater predisposition for evil and violence would have ensured our destruction long ago.

A ‘healthy mind’ is therefore, not inclined to racism. Children are not born racist. They are taught to be so. That the racists in your hypothetical, are by chance rulers of the world, is in no way evidence of equal or superior goodness.

What it objectively indicates, is that they are going against human nature. This is neither new, nor shocking. I am sure that there are bound to be individuals who spread evil in their lifetime and were never punished, caught, and were even greatly rewarded by those they forced their will on. Citing exceptions, in no way strengthens your argument. Their success, whilst unlikely, is still within the realm of probability.

poppies wrote:
These are classic problems when you try to claim that rights come from man; you always end up with might-makes-right.

Might only makes right in the minds of the deluded, whether they believe those rights come from their deluded peers/ancestors, or from an invisible being(s). Thankfully, no matter the circumstances, at any given point in history, there have always been individuals who value evidence and reason.

Thanks for responding thoughtfully. You’re deeply mistaken about an important biblical point, here is a site which clearly discusses the context of the theocracy laws of the Old Testament which were binding only in that time and for specific purposes: http://www.letusreason.org/7thAd26.htm

Forgive any presumptuousness on my part, but it sounds like you’ve been poisoned by some pretty arrogant, compassionless and insincere people claiming to represent Christianity. Your statement about our “age of comfort” really struck me, because I’ve been thinking about that quite a bit lately; I hope that theists like myself and atheists like you can disagree honorably and work together to serve those in need.

Thanks for allowing a dissenting voice on your blog; you’re always welcome at my place, too.

satoruvash,

You’re wise to distinguish between explanation and justification, but your response still reeks of moral relativism. You can’t allow how someone’s actions will or will not spread goodness as your measure of goodness, that’s begging the question. Similarly, judging actions as good if they would benefit a “healthy” mind is circular reasoning, since a “healthy” mind is ostensibly one possessed by a person who does “good”. If racists (or any other group which you find immoral) ever manage to rule the world, I think you’d find your conceptions of minds that function well considered outmoded. Finally, your references to risking “undesirable repercussions” wouldn’t apply very well to powerful individuals; I don’t think Mao risked much at all in his sadistic actions.

These are classic problems when you try to claim that rights come from man; you always end up with might-makes-right.

Example.

Jesus Christ abolished the law and we no longer live according to the law but by grace and truth.

WRONG!!! Jesus did not abolish the law!!!

Matthew 5: 17-20

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Christianity is about living the revolution of Jesus Christ in the 21st century.

WRONG. Christianity is about living like the first century church. Jesus told the rich man he would have to give away all of his possessions to truly know him.

We live in an age of comfort, and no one is giving up a damn thing. The reason they don’t is because they don’t give a damn what the Bible says. “To understand god and the christian life,” you have to be poor. You have to be poor so that you can understand true humility and be a servant.

I am sorry, but your christianity is a cop out.

I do want to say something though. In your post, you said “religious” people. I am not religious, but I do have a relationship with Jesus Christ. I suppose that would make me “religious” to you…. but I am not. There is a major difference between someone being “religious” and someone have an authentic, real relationship with Jesus Christ.

Anyways… I think it is great that you are so straightfoward. I, of course, disagree with you but that is just my personal take of the post. I want to say one particular thing. From my point of view, it seemed as if you were saying the Christianity limits life to a bunch of rules.

I highly disagree with this. Actually, Jesus Christ abolished the law and we no longer live according to the law but by grace and truth. Anyways… I think you view Christianity as a guideline of “right” and “wrong.” I disagree highly with this. That is NOT what Christianity is about!!!!

Christianity is about living the revolution of Jesus Christ in the 21st century. Thus, we do some things and don’t do others. It isn’t cause we are following “rules” but we are doing and not doing these things because we know what will help or not help us grow, learn, and be closer to the God of the Universe.

I know you probably don’t care what I think but I wanted to share that with you, because if you are a “true” atheist… you will examine every possible aspect of truth. Though, you may come to the error of being there is no truth. Anyways… I just thought I would share that with you.

poppies wrote:
The deeper issue, though, is: can self-created purposes be compared objectively, are some “better” than others?

Yes and yes.

poppies wrote:
You say it’s ridiculous to live for cheese. On what basis do you make this statement? . . . However, in a non-theistic world, there’s no reason to believe so; it’s equally as objectively justified to live for cheese, charity, children, or chinese checkers . . . Without a source of measuring the “goodness” or “badness” of actions which is higher than/outside of humanity, the murderer and the philanthropist are equally objectively justified in their subjective life choices.

You are talking about different things here and attributing them as one. If by justification you mean, that the murderer and the philanthropist both have reasons/explanations for their actions, I agree that they do.

Let us suppose that their actions are equally logical given their priorities. At a basic level, what is good is that which leads to happiness and does not cause suffering. The philanthropist’s actions are going to spread more goodness and therefore be better than the murderer’s. That one has explanations for one’s actions does not mean that one’s actions are as equally good as another’s.

Now, if justification is also meant to be what benefits one the most, the philanthropist’s goals and methods are still superior to that of the murderer. A healthy mind is going to want to derive happiness from the betterment of humanity. By continuing to kill, the murderer is in essence foregoing recovery. No doubt they derive satisfaction from the suffering of others, but the satisfaction that they can potentially achieve by not killing is higher than by doing so. Killing is a momentary reward with high risk of undesirable repercussions—such as an early painful death and/or incarceration.

When asl001 uses the word ‘ridiculous’ as it pertains to living one’s life solely for cheese, I take it to mean the same as imprudently silly. Living for cheese is not going to be better than living for charity. The human mind needs more than satisfaction from food to remain healthy. The human mind functions better through the socialization of charity and the realization that one is making not just a difference in another’s life but a positive one. From a cost-benefit perspective, and given what is known about what constitutes a healthy mind, the desire to live for charity is far superior.

All of this is rather simplistic of course. To single-mindedly live for one purpose, automatically creates an imbalance. It is to deny oneself the opportunity to derive satisfaction from a host of other options. Note that this a major issue for individuals who decide to live solely for God.