Islamic State VS Western Governments - Who is more morally wrong?

[Redael]

They started it!

[Miles Dyson]

Both suck in their own unique ways.

[Eric]

Both sides have their problems and bad things.

 

Western Governments: stupid and don't know how to solve problem, lots of unnescessary deaths

ISIS: Unmoral and using bad tactics

 

However there is a solution. Being that the West is supposedly "more civilized", then extend peace to the Muslims in your country.

 

In Canada the Government of Canada (real life Canada) gives them help and shelters and whatnot. Reason why France is swamped with terrorists is cause France's shitty right wing government brings them in then leaves them alone.

 

That results in poverty and envy and even hatred - a breeding ground for terrorists. Without new recruits ISIS will die soon. Send in the snipers and interceptors, blow 'em up and don't let them recruit anymore. Try not to kill civilians...pretty immoral of the west to do that too.

 

^ Layman's terms

Edited January 20, 2016 by Eric

[Robert Ap Ioan]

I really don't think you understand how cultural wars work.

Why do you say that? I think Eric's approach is bang on the money. People don't revel against something they feel part of.

[Peter Quill]

I really don't think you understand how cultural wars work.

Oh please do tell us, Professor John!

[WISD0MTREE]

In Canada the Government of Canada (real life Canada) gives them help and shelters and whatnot. Reason why France is swamped with terrorists is cause France's shitty right wing government brings them in then leaves them alone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/18/france-says-it-will-take-30000-syrian-refugees-while-u-s-republicans-would-turn-them-away/

 

Come on now. At least go for someone who actually doesn't bring in refugees. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/japan-says-it-must-look-after-its-own-before-allowing-syrian-refugees-in

[Fox Fire]

Both sides have their problems and bad things.

 

Western Governments: stupid and don't know how to solve problem, lots of unnescessary deaths

ISIS: Unmoral and using bad tactics

 

However there is a solution. Being that the West is supposedly "more civilized", then extend peace to the Muslims in your country.

 

In Canada the Government of Canada (real life Canada) gives them help and shelters and whatnot. Reason why France is swamped with terrorists is cause France's shitty right wing government brings them in then leaves them alone.

 

That results in poverty and envy and even hatred - a breeding ground for terrorists. Without new recruits ISIS will die soon. Send in the snipers and interceptors, blow 'em up and don't let them recruit anymore. Try not to kill civilians...pretty immoral of the west to do that too.

 

^ Layman's terms

Of course. We all just smoke a blunt, then suddenly generations of cultural conflict melt away and we all have gay sex......

 

"Send in the stuff and blow em up, even though we're already doing that and being called baby killers because people die in war. We also must make sure you accept the millions of refugees migrants that our economy cannot mathematically cope with because such mass migrations have always been well known for producing societal stability and cooperation!! Yay liberal make believe land!!!"

 

No, I agree with Harms. You don't understand how this works. In fact you seem to not grasp the sheer complexity and sensitivity of the issue.

[Big Brother]

This seems like a stupid, futile discussion to me. How are any of you supposed to reach consensus on who is more morally wrong when you all approach the discussion with different moral standpoints? Morality is subjective, it's up to each and every person to decide for themselves what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. You'll never reach the same conclusions and you will never agree. And really, why does it matter who bombed and tortured the most people? The way I see it, the world is one big blurry gray blob and anyone is capable of committing deeds that some people, somewhere, will take an issue with on moral grounds. If one side of a conflict killed 15 people and the other killed 35, it doesn't matter who killed the most, the only thing that matters is that both sides killed. That is all one should need to judge them. Arbitrary numbers are of little importance to moral judgments.

[Doktor Avalanche]

This seems like a stupid, futile discussion to me. How are any of you supposed to reach consensus on who is more morally wrong when you all approach the discussion with different moral standpoints? Morality is subjective, it's up to each and every person to decide for themselves what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. You'll never reach the same conclusions and you will never agree. And really, why does it matter who bombed and tortured the most people? The way I see it, the world is one big blurry gray blob and anyone is capable of committing deeds that some people, somewhere, will take an issue with on moral grounds. If one side of a conflict killed 15 people and the other killed 35, it doesn't matter who killed the most, the only thing that matters is that both sides killed. That is all one should need to judge them. Arbitrary numbers are of little importance to moral judgments.

The only moral absolute that can be agreed upon is murder itself is not acceptable in any culture. The US does not see its actions as murder but "peacekeeping" while Daesh sees it as mass murder. The US sees Daesh as committing committing murder through acts of radical religious interpretation while Daesh believes it is acting on religious and political righteousness. Who is right? Neither.

 

Outside of economic trade, the US should become Isolationist and tend to internal affairs like fixing Detroit, i.e. Flint.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

The US does not see its actions as murder but "peacekeeping" while Daesh sees it as mass murder.

-image removed for rule violation-

 

Verily, Allah has spoken the truth!

[Franz Von Dietrich]

-image removed by Sheepy-

 

Verily, Allah has spoken the truth!

Don't try stating that the Islamic State is any better than the U.S. The Islamic State regardless of anyone stating otherwise, is a religious fanatic extremist genodical mass-murdering group, that disregards the very qualities of human life.

[Rozalia]

-image removed by Sheepy-

 

Verily, Allah has spoken the truth!

 

Oh here we go. I could post an image of a headless child (among other things) your Senpais decapitated but we all know how you'd react, if you even react of course as if everything else fails you just pretend it doesn't exist. I also don't because unlike yourself I don't need to shock people with images to get my point across, everyone knows the idols you worship are scum. You have no care for children or any human being for that matter that isn't as loony as you and your ISIS chums, do not insult us and pretend otherwise. 

[Alex]

A stiff warning here on the rules of posting images:

 

 

 

Inappropriate Imagery

Includes, but is not limited to, pornography, sexual imagery, blood and gore, defecation and vomiting, real life images of players, images depicting war crimes and other illegal activity, images promoting Nazism or Terrorism, and ASCII art.

 

Follow the forum rules, or you will be warned. This is a public warning to everyone in this thread.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

A stiff warning here on the rules of posting images:

 

 

Follow the forum rules, or you will be warned. This is a public warning to everyone in this thread.

Remove kebab too?

[Saru]

This seems like a stupid, futile discussion to me. How are any of you supposed to reach consensus on who is more morally wrong when you all approach the discussion with different moral standpoints? Morality is subjective, it's up to each and every person to decide for themselves what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. You'll never reach the same conclusions and you will never agree. And really, why does it matter who bombed and tortured the most people? The way I see it, the world is one big blurry gray blob and anyone is capable of committing deeds that some people, somewhere, will take an issue with on moral grounds. If one side of a conflict killed 15 people and the other killed 35, it doesn't matter who killed the most, the only thing that matters is that both sides killed. That is all one should need to judge them. Arbitrary numbers are of little importance to moral judgments.

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the rhetoric of cultural and moral relativism is dangerous. Truth exists, even if people disagree. And whilst a unanimous conclusion most likely will not be reached, there is a chance that someone reading through the topic at some stage may have their opinion swayed by the points made in this topic. So I don't think conversations like these are stupid and futile, in fact if it helps people to take a firmer stance on these issues instead of preaching the "noone is right, noone is wrong" idea, then it was worth it.

 

It is incredibly simplistic to just say that the only thing that matters is that both sides killed, implying that it is not a matter of degree. Would you for regard an accidental killing in a car crash and a serial killer in equal moral judgement? I would hope not. It should be fairly intuitive that factors like intent are important when talking about morality, and I don't see why you would outright ignore the scale of the actions either. US has killed some innocent people, but the key point here is that they targeted dangerous terrorists and did not *intend* to kill the innocent casualties, even if they accepted that it is possible. ISIS on the other hand have every intention to go after innocent civilians to further their agenda. And the morality of drones/US actions is questionable and another topic, but to say that the two are on equal moral terms is absurd.

 

Just think of a scenario where there was a shift in the balance of power from the Western leaders to the religious fundamentalists such as ISIS. And it was them who had the vastly superior military capability. I have a hunch that you would of seen astronomically more casualties, and the world would go to shit.

 

Anyway I don't like this trend of trying to be politically correct and respecting other cultures etc... It's all well and good when it's about trivial matters, and you don't want to offend over nothing. But when it comes to matters such as this, we need to get some backbone and call it like it is. Childbrides/rape, murder of innocents and then glorifying it on the internet through videos to spread fear, are not really the 'cultural practices' that require sensitivity and deference. They are absolutely and objectively morally abhorrent.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Cultural wars work where one culture survives while the other is destroyed or gets assimilated.

Daesh literally wants to destroy our entire culture. Our languages, our way of life, our religions and practices. Either we destroy them or they destroy us. And I assure you, they want to destroy us. You can't call for peace and friendship with these bastards. They don't want it, and they'll use it to get in our countries and destroy them.

Culture war refers to a conflict between traditionalist and or conservative values and or progressive or liberal values (MOST of the time).

[Peter Quill]

Cultural wars work where one culture survives while the other is destroyed or gets assimilated.

Daesh literally wants to destroy our entire culture. Our languages, our way of life, our religions and practices. Either we destroy them or they destroy us. And I assure you, they want to destroy us. You can't call for peace and friendship with these bastards. They don't want it, and they'll use it to get in our countries and destroy them.

Uh, Eric wasn't talking about Daesh. He was talking about some Muslim immigrants who, because of neglect, are forced to turn to extremism. 

(Sometimes, however, TLC isn't enough for some of these Muslims.)

[Big Brother]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the rhetoric of cultural and moral relativism is dangerous. Truth exists, even if people disagree. And whilst a unanimous conclusion most likely will not be reached, there is a chance that someone reading through the topic at some stage may have their opinion swayed by the points made in this topic. So I don't think conversations like these are stupid and futile, in fact if it helps people to take a firmer stance on these issues instead of preaching the "noone is right, noone is wrong" idea, then it was worth it.

 

It is incredibly simplistic to just say that the only thing that matters is that both sides killed, implying that it is not a matter of degree. Would you for regard an accidental killing in a car crash and a serial killer in equal moral judgement? I would hope not. It should be fairly intuitive that factors like intent are important when talking about morality, and I don't see why you would outright ignore the scale of the actions either. US has killed some innocent people, but the key point here is that they targeted dangerous terrorists and did not *intend* to kill the innocent casualties, even if they accepted that it is possible. ISIS on the other hand have every intention to go after innocent civilians to further their agenda. And the morality of drones/US actions is questionable and another topic, but to say that the two are on equal moral terms is absurd.

 

Just think of a scenario where there was a shift in the balance of power from the Western leaders to the religious fundamentalists such as ISIS. And it was them who had the vastly superior military capability. I have a hunch that you would of seen astronomically more casualties, and the world would go to shit.

 

Anyway I don't like this trend of trying to be politically correct and respecting other cultures etc... It's all well and good when it's about trivial matters, and you don't want to offend over nothing. But when it comes to matters such as this, we need to get some backbone and call it like it is. Childbrides/rape, murder of innocents and then glorifying it on the internet through videos to spread fear, are not really the 'cultural practices' that require sensitivity and deference. They are absolutely and objectively morally abhorrent.

 

Objective material truth certainly exists, but moral truth does not. And because moral truth does not exist, all moral claims are mistaken.

1. There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2. Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3. Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.

Moral beliefs and assertions are false in that they claim that certain moral facts exist that in fact do not exist. An accidental killing in a car crash and a serial killer are indeed equal in moral judgment, because moral judgments are false and meaningless. You can say that you feel the serial killer is a worse person than whoever caused the car crash, but you will always fail when you apply moral judgment, because there is no moral truth.

 

Intent is equally meaningless. If you cannot objectively decide who is wrong and who is right, why does intent matter? From Daesh's point of view, they are right. From the American point of view, they are right. Applying moral judgment to this is futile, because their moral judgments do not necessarily correspond to yours and you cannot prove that your moral judgments are any more true than any of theirs, because there is no moral truth and thus no moral knowledge that is necessary for objective morality.

 

You can state that murder of innocents, rape, etc., is something you feel is wrong, but you cannot state that these things are absolutely and objectively morally abhorrent. You don't speak on behalf of the 7.3 billion human beings living on this planet, who don't agree with each other on what is right and wrong.

 

When I hear about someone being raped, I can say that I think and feel that it's wrong, that it makes me sick. I don't pretend to make absolute moral judgments on behalf of every other human being, I only state that to me, personally, such a thing is wrong, which is all anyone can ever really do, because there is no moral objectivity, and no moral truth.

 

When every single member of the human race reaches universal consensus on what is right and wrong so we can actually have objective moral truth, give me a call. Until then, war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Big Brother

[Rozalia]

Uh, Eric wasn't talking about Daesh. He was talking about some Muslim immigrants who, because of neglect, are forced to turn to extremism. 

(Sometimes, however, TLC isn't enough for some of these Muslims.)

 

No it doesn't work like that. Even were it so black and white that the French government is on purpose (and I doubt that) keeping Muslims poor, that results in a turn to criminality like robbery and such, not terrorism. In fact terrorism unlike robbery does not in any possible way improve the lives of poor Muslims, it only degrades it. Being poor does as with everything help the process but the real reason is they are Conservative and the line between Conservatism and Jihadism is small. The biggest difference being that Jihadists more openly act on their beliefs while Conservatives are more gradual, cowardly, squeamish, or whatever word you want to use to describe it. 

 

Look at dear Ibrahim for example, he'd be classed as a Conservative Muslim and we all know what he believes. So whats the difference between him and a Jihadist? Simple, a Jihadist has the gumption to leave his life behind and dedicate it to the fight however vile we may think it. Ibrahim is cowardly and can't do the same. 

[Restius]

If the answer to the question posed in the tile of this topic is "Islamic State"...

 

How are we judging what's 'morally wrong'?

 

Are we going by statistics or are we simply basing it upon our own subjective emotions?

 

Is beheading one civilian worse than air striking one hundred civilians for example (or just two civilians for that matter)?

 

Answer honestly|&|plainly: Do you place a lower value on the lives of the millions of civilians massacred by western governments in 'Muslims countries' as opposed to the hundreds of 'fellow' western civilians killed by IS in what they (IS) describe as 'retaliatory attacks'? And does the media hype strongly influence your opinion on what is and is not morally bad?

 

Lets discuss.

 

Jumping in late on the discussion here and I'll read up on some more later on. 

 

You're examples are those of actions,and  in all reality both of the statements can be considered morally wrong. Now we can get into a big debate on Murder, and if we base it based on Old Testament law, self defense or protection of another is not considered murder. Of course that is clearly debatable as both sides will say their actions are in defense of their nation and to protect themselves and those around them.

 

The problem with our society, starting from very beginning is how people hold on to wrongs, pass those feelings onto their kinsmen, and never let go. Many of those who are in ISIS, think in some sense that what they are doing is to right wrongs, or to help their people get rid of the evil threat of Western society. And you can switch that viewpoint back and forth a million times. 

 

The basic question of "How are we judging what is Morally wrong?" is a question that cannot be answered, there are too many religious, ethnic, and ethical beliefs that would be impossible to define as what is considered moral? (Although morals are associated with Religion more than anything else)

 

What I'd like to see is how can we as a world come to a table of peace, let bygones be bygones, and try to help and restore one another? And that will be impossible to achieve as long as our views and demands differ so much.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Restius

[Saru]

-- snip --

 

That is a very dangerous position to take, and I would be scared shitless if the Western governments took your stance of moral relativism and not taking action. Because the radical fundamentalists out there are very sure of their evil conceived ideas -- and would pose a much greater threat than they do now. 

 

Objective material truth certainly exists, but moral truth does not. And because moral truth does not exist, all moral claims are mistaken.

1. There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2. Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3. Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.

Moral beliefs and assertions are false in that they claim that certain moral facts exist that in fact do not exist. An accidental killing in a car crash and a serial killer are indeed equal in moral judgment, because moral judgments are false and meaningless. You can say that you feel the serial killer is a worse person than whoever caused the car crash, but you will always fail when you apply moral judgment, because there is no moral truth.

 

 

Not very convincing given that it's a circular argument. Your premises are in need of explanation and reasoning, as opposed to just making a claim (one that you funnily enough also end in) and leaving it at that. Obviously assuming a claim is true, does not serve as evidence for that claim. Your reasoning is akin to someone arguing that "The Quran is the word of Allah, because Allah tells us so... in the Quran." 

 

Intent is equally meaningless. If you cannot objectively decide who is wrong and who is right, why does intent matter? From Daesh's point of view, they are right. From the American point of view, they are right. Applying moral judgment to this is futile, because their moral judgments do not necessarily correspond to yours and you cannot prove that your moral judgments are any more true than any of theirs, because there is no moral truth and thus no moral knowledge that is necessary for objective morality.

 

 

You can objectively decide on actions that promote the well-being of people, there are some that promote it and some that have the opposite effect. In fact it is measurable and quantifiable (insofar that we reach a scientific conclusion on the factors that contribute to well-being, and not rely on a religious text to tell us what is right.) Point of view is irrelevant, and thinking you are right, does not make you right. 

 

Out of curiosity, do you take the approach of intent being meaningless in real life situations too? Because you would be one of the first that I have ever spoken to, to take such a stance.

 

You can state that murder of innocents, rape, etc., is something you feel is wrong, but you cannot state that these things are absolutely and objectively morally abhorrent. You don't speak on behalf of the 7.3 billion human beings living on this planet, who don't agree with each other on what is right and wrong.

 

When I hear about someone being raped, I can say that I think and feel that it's wrong, that it makes me sick. I don't pretend to make absolute moral judgments on behalf of every other human being, I only state that to me, personally, such a thing is wrong, which is all anyone can ever really do, because there is no moral objectivity, and no moral truth.

 

 

Murder of innocents and rape is absolutely objectively abhorrent. And there are well reasoned arguments to explain why -- although I am hoping you are already aware of them, and arguing for the sake of arguing. Placing the same value on a well reasoned moral argument, and one that just claims it's right because it is, would be ridiculous. It's like saying all opinions should hold the same weight... which is clearly not true. 

 

 

When every single member of the human race reaches universal consensus on what is right and wrong so we can actually have objective moral truth, give me a call. Until then, war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.

 

 

Since when is universal human consensus a gauge for truth. The truth is the truth, independent on what people may believe or know. 

 

Steering away from the philosophical discussion, let's talk about practical morality -- concerned with the well-being of humans, which is a pretty safe pillar, right?  So when considering the well-being of human beings, we know that there is a spectrum of prosperity. It's possible to live in a place where innocent people are murdered routinely, children are dying from preventable diseases, and have no access to the basic needs of clean water, healthcare, food and shelter. This would indicate the lower end of the spectrum. And we know that we can move along the spectrum towards something more prosperous -- such as our society, which I am sure you will agree is more conducive to human well being. Now given that we established that there are varying degrees of societies and how conducive they are to human well being, we can therefore identify objectively right and wrong answers on how to move along this spectrum. For example education is good, access to healthcare is good, laws against corruption are good... there are truths that exist concerning how human communities can flourish, independent of whether or not people agree/understand them. And if we are to accept this view of morality. Then it should be self evident that the beliefs that the radical fundamentalists hold (on very weak justification), are immoral. Clearly there are right and wrong actions that are conducive to human well-being, their beliefs are not.

 

... and using a holy book as evidence isn't sufficient, and circular arguments should not be accepted as a valid reasoning. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

This is a very interesting discussion; here are my observations so far: 

 

• Big Brother, quite rightly, recognises that "Objective Morality" necessitates the existence of God.
  • Therefore as an atheist, he is trying to be logically consistent in claiming that "it too" doesn't exist, and instead voices his support for "Moral Nihilism".
• Saru is also an atheist but he, quite rightly, points out that "Objective Morality" does indeed exist.
  • However, completely fails to explain how that is possible without God (the only thing that transcends human subjectivity).

 

*Social pressure does not provide an objective reason for morality since it is dependant on changes. 

[Big Brother]

That is a very dangerous position to take, and I would be scared shitless if the Western governments took your stance of moral relativism and not taking action. Because the radical fundamentalists out there are very sure of their evil conceived ideas -- and would pose a much greater threat than they do now.

 

Already you have shown that you misunderstood my stance. Just because I don't believe objective morality exists, doesn't mean I don't have feelings and thoughts regarding what is wrong and right, and it doesn't mean that I won't act on those feelings and thoughts. What it means, is that while I experience these sensations, I don't attempt to elevate my personal thoughts and feelings to the level of a moral truth. Western governments already act on their feelings and thoughts, or the feelings and thoughts of the populations they represent. They might claim that they're upholding some kind of moral value by their actions, but since there are no moral truths, they're really just engaging in expressivism.

 

Not very convincing given that it's a circular argument. Your premises are in need of explanation and reasoning, as opposed to just making a claim (one that you funnily enough also end in) and leaving it at that. Obviously assuming a claim is true, does not serve as evidence for that claim. Your reasoning is akin to someone arguing that "The Quran is the word of Allah, because Allah tells us so... in the Quran."

 

Repeating myself to make a point is not the same as a circular argument as you mistakenly call it. I happen to know that repetition is often crucial for learning. The premise of the argument is the first point, that there are no moral features observable to us in the world, no objective entity nor anything we can objectively observe, that presents moral features. This is going to be a wall of text but I'm going to put this excerpt here, it might help you understand the rationales behind my stance:

 

The following is an experiment in nihilism. Already I have contradicted myself! How can one believe in disbelief? I might be a nihilist except that I don’t believe in anything. If there is no extant God and no extant gods, no good and no evil, no right and no wrong, no meaning and no purpose; if there are no values that are inherently valuable; no justice that is ultimately justifiable; no reasoning that is fundamentally rational, then there is no sane way to choose between science, religion, racism, philosophy, nationalism, art, conservatism, nihilism, liberalism, surrealism, fascism, asceticism, egalitarianism, subjectivism, elitism, ismism. If reason is incapable of deducing ultimate, nonarbitrary human ends, and nothing can be judged as ultimately more important than anything else, then freedom is equal to slavery; cruelty is equal to kindness; love is equal to hate; war is equal to peace; dignity is equal to contempt; destruction is equal to creation; life is equal to death and death is equal to life. “For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary?â€, asked Friedrich Nietzsche:

 

Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their

final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate

logical conclusion of our great values and ideals—because

we must experience nihilism before we can find out what

value these “values†really had.3

 

Was Nietzsche right? An absurd question that constitutes the crisis of an internally collapsed Western civilization. In the words of Leo Strauss:

 

The crisis of modernity reveals itself in the fact, or consists

in the fact, that modern western man no longer knows what

he wants—that he no longer believes that he can know what

is good and bad, what is right and wrong. Until a few

generations ago, it was generally taken for granted that man

can know what is right and wrong, what is the just or the

good or the best order of society—in a word that political

philosophy is possible and necessary. In our time this faith

has lost its power…. Above all, as is generally admitted,

modern culture is emphatically rationalistic, believing in the

power of reason; surely if such a culture loses its faith in

reason’s ability to validate its highest aims, it is in a crisis.4

 

Uncertain of uncertainty, skeptical of skepticism, it seems that the most important question is whether there is an important question. The only serious question is whether there is anything to take seriously. What has previously been considered of value or importance appears as only an expression of myth, bias…error.

 

You can objectively decide on actions that promote the well-being of people, there are some that promote it and some that have the opposite effect. In fact it is measurable and quantifiable (insofar that we reach a scientific conclusion on the factors that contribute to well-being, and not rely on a religious text to tell us what is right.) Point of view is irrelevant, and thinking you are right, does not make you right. 

 

Out of curiosity, do you take the approach of intent being meaningless in real life situations too? Because you would be one of the first that I have ever spoken to, to take such a stance.

 

You assume that the well-being of people is objectively good, which it is not. It doesn't matter how much you're able to measure it, neither those measurements nor any religious texts testify towards the existence of objective morality.

 

How can you say point of view is irrelevant? Every moral claim that has ever been made, religious or otherwise, has been the result of individual people's point of view. Our point of view is how we see the world around us, how we interpret it, including what we believe is right and wrong. Because human beings have so many different points of view, there are no clear answers to what is right and wrong or good and evil. There's no objective truth about these things, only subjective opinions. If your subjective opinion makes you believe that you are right, and there is no way to objectively measure what is right, then all anyone can do is disagree.

 

To answer your question: I know that everything every single human being that has existed, exists now, and will exist, is meaningless on the cosmic scale. Our entire world history is the blink of an eye and when we are all gone, the universe won't even have noticed that we were here.

 

On a real life basis, things, people and ideas have meaning to me, but I recognize that they only have meaning to me as far as I give meaning to these objects/subjects. The meaning I put into my relationships with other people, with the things I own, and so on, doesn't really exist outside my own mind. To the universe, and to anyone else, they are more or less meaningless.

 

Murder of innocents and rape is absolutely objectively abhorrent. And there are well reasoned arguments to explain why -- although I am hoping you are already aware of them, and arguing for the sake of arguing. Placing the same value on a well reasoned moral argument, and one that just claims it's right because it is, would be ridiculous. It's like saying all opinions should hold the same weight... which is clearly not true.

 

No, those acts aren't objectively abhorrent. They're subjectively abhorrent to you and a lot of other people (including myself). There are people in the world whom for various reasons, take pleasure in murder and rape. Or people who justify murder and rape. It's not right just because it is, but some people believe it is right and you cannot actually prove that your view of it being wrong is any more correct than their view, because there aren't any objective moral laws that exist to interpret what is right and wrong. You only have your own personal opinion on the matter. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't oppose rape and murder, by all means, if you feel and think that rape and murder is wrong, then oppose it. But when you start trying to pretend that the entire world, that the objective universe feels the same way as you do, you're engaging in make-belief.

 

Steering away from the philosophical discussion, let's talk about practical morality -- concerned with the well-being of humans, which is a pretty safe pillar, right?  So when considering the well-being of human beings, we know that there is a spectrum of prosperity. It's possible to live in a place where innocent people are murdered routinely, children are dying from preventable diseases, and have no access to the basic needs of clean water, healthcare, food and shelter. This would indicate the lower end of the spectrum. And we know that we can move along the spectrum towards something more prosperous -- such as our society, which I am sure you will agree is more conducive to human well being. Now given that we established that there are varying degrees of societies and how conducive they are to human well being, we can therefore identify objectively right and wrong answers on how to move along this spectrum. For example education is good, access to healthcare is good, laws against corruption are good... there are truths that exist concerning how human communities can flourish, independent of whether or not people agree/understand them. And if we are to accept this view of morality. Then it should be self evident that the beliefs that the radical fundamentalists hold (on very weak justification), are immoral. Clearly there are right and wrong actions that are conducive to human well-being, their beliefs are not.

 

Your premise is again that the well-being of humans is objectively good, which is a false premise. Sure, there are certain truths to how human communities can flourish, but human communities flourishing is also not necessarily objectively good. The human race simply isn't capable of objectivity when it comes to morality.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Big Brother