Quote:
Originally Posted by €uroMeinke
There are plenty philosophers who deduce what is a priori good, without evoking God. I don't think Buddhism requires a God, but suggests as good the absence of suffering. I think one can understand suffering and it's aleviation as a basis for morality that transcends the concept of God.
|
Yes, I specifically mentioned Buddhism as an example of a value system that produces good results in modern times. But it is a religion. That’s one of the reasons I referred several times to “non-religious” (as opposed to "athiest") folk in my original post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by €uroMeinke
Of course, as a rational hedonist, I'd also say that ultimately what feels good is the basis for most morality anyway - it's just easier to justify when you say you were only following (divine) orders (like killing the godless infidels)
|
That may be hedonistic, but its certainly not rational: I was talking about what is good and you wrote "what feels good" as being the basis for most morality. Big difference; they are almost always the opposite! Examples: 1) Tagging feels good, but is not good. 2) Stealing something when no one is looking feels good and is easier than working for it but is not good. (In fact, many thieves steel not for gain, but because it does feel good to them.) 3) Heroin feels good, but is not good.
Morality is about doing the right thing which is usually the harder choice. As far as your comment about killing infidels, I don't think anyone can say the suicide bomber is motivated by it it feeling good, in fact it feels quite bad, but in his mind it is doing good.
I see a few comments from others too who maybe got confused by what I wrote: I didn’t say “what feels good”, I wrote that I fear “what each person feels is good”, which the suicide bomber is an example of.