Quote:
Originally Posted by David E
Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.
|
No we're not. Or rather, of course we are but that has little to do with morality at the societal level. And societal morality has little to do with morality at the individual level.
Quote:
|
You don't think there's anything wrong with murder as long as the murderer feels he is doing good? I don't know if you read my original post, but I gave 3 examples of this (Mao, Jim Jones, suicide bombers).
|
Of course I think there is something wrong with it, but my thinking that does not make it objectively wrong (and it obviously has no influence on the personal morality of the murderer; we'll ignore the fact that most murderers consider what they do immoral even if they derive some pleasure or other benefit from it).
The definition of murder is surprisingly fluid over time and place. The social contract can exist in the absence of an absolute universal morality. In my opinion, it does.
As I said earlier, religion did not create morality, it just claimed credit for it and generally just claims credit for whichever morality is in current vogue (or maybe current vogue minue 30 years).
Also, of your three examples, I don't really have a problem with Jim Jones. Well, I have a problem with the congressional assassination but not really with the mass suicide part. Death is a perfectly acceptable choice, and if others are willing to join you in it then I'm ok with that.