I think you got it wrong Menace. I wasn't saying that something such as mutual aid doesn't exist. That falls into what I was saying about "what makes sense." But something like mutual aid cannot be considered a "moral," because morals involve "right" and "wrong." But "what makes sense" is immune to "right" and "wrong." So I recognize what your point is emphasizing but I do not agree that they are morals.

in the animal kingdom protecting and helping the race and one another is the ultimate moral act or as you call it " what makes sense "act that's why i presented that video that's my whole point ain't that deep in philosophy i just tried to present that

yeah "what makes sense" can be considered moral but i don't know all this philosophy reminds me of Max Stirner and Max Stirner always puzzles me LOL

As for the value system, I still disagree with it being objective. You see, no matter what it's objectivity comes from our perspective. For example, if we are 0% useful to the universe and therefore have a value of 0, that is objectively true, but only on the basis of our perception of how useful we were and what it means to be useful, therefore, on a more universal level, it is completely subjective.

Now Menace, that video did not seem to contradict my point at all. If anything I felt like it affirmed it. He was trying to make a different point though; many theists try to say that atheists/agnostics cannot live morally. He was making the point that animals could not possibly have any perception of the morals that God has allegedly presented us with and philosophers like Kant (he used Kant as an example) have spoken of. He seems to also be of the belief that morals/ethics are subjective. Just because ants have a sense of ethics doesn't mean that these ethics are objective. Why? Because ants aren't computers. They aren't acting ethically out of routine, they are acting ethically because they are sentient beings and sentient beings have one power that sets them apart from plants and innanimate objects: they can THINK. This means that they react the way they do by their own free will choice. This means they can figure out what makes sense ethically as well, no matter how crude their sense of ethics is. We just have a more elevated sense of ethics.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

By the way, I see it as probable that other life exists in the universe and we are of no real value to the universe. I believe we are mathematically/statistically insignificant, as well as functionally insignificant. But of course, I can't really know for sure. This viewpoint is easier and more sound, as well as probable. I'm just arguing the other position because it is also possible, but much more complicated and more difficult to be actual.

If you're referring to my question in the first post what i meant is:

Why is it harder to do a good or NICE DEED to someone then it is to say slap them across the face (something i'd consider to be bad you but you say you don't believe in the term "bad" so i don't know what you would call that). I just find it interesting how destruction is such much easier than building up something if you know what i mean.

lmao yes it is, i thought it would be a good title coz it would get a lot of discussion going here and some actual good discussion coz there wasn't that much interesting going on here over the past two days, but feel free to talk about good vs evil and all that stuff.

you do