cardboard adolescent

Well obviously the need for a foundation is the reason to believe such a being exists. Is empathy really a foundation in itself? It hardly even seems innate to the human condition and is probably as tenuous as our economy.

Janszoon

That's a reason to want to believe such a being exists. It's not an argument demonstrating the existence of such a being.

Innate in all people? No. Innate in most people? Yes. It's not perfect, but it's demonstrably real and present in people from every society on the planet. Right out of the gate that makes it a better thing to base our morality on than some abstract concept of God that varies from culture to culture.

streetwaves

There's no difference between your claim and mine. There are no perfectly straight lines. By claiming that morality is an absolute, you put yourself on the same plane with the idea of straightness. There is no proof of God, as there aren't any totally straight lines. The problem is that you're wrong to assume morality is absolute. It absolutely isn't. Morality is a human invention that cannot be measured in absolutes - it's always evolving and changing, and there is no "top" and no "bottom". To measure a philosophical idea such as morality, you'd have to make stuff up, which is exactly what we do in describing deities that we ourselves imagined.

__________________
rateyourmusic

anticipation

how are we to know if empahty is innate in most human beings, rather than being indoctrinated by societal conventions and morality?


many people feel obligated to feel empathy for others because of the social conditions they are subjected to. it's called a self-fufilling prophecy.

kaleidoscope..

Youre right..empathy is not a foundation in itself..i cant understand why someone would think it could ever be..and there must be a 'straight line' for us to go by.we cant just make our own 'straight lines' and then change them when that 'straight line' doesnt fit the situation. There has to be an absolute straight line somewhere..

christians may claim to have the 'straight line' and lots of you are saying that it cant be 'straight' because christians always use it as justification for their 'un -straight' actions..

but the fact that christians use the bible to justify doing awful things doesnt actually make the bible or god a flawed basis for our morality..
because if any of you here have actually read the bible and understand anything of it you would know that the bible can not be used to justify doing awful things....it cant...

people use the bible incorrectly...christians arent perfect but that doesnt make their god im-perfect...

The basis that God and the Bible cannot be used as a basis for morality because of how humans use it as a justification for wrong is flawed...

cardboard adolescent

Here's the thing: if there's no such thing as straightness, there's no such thing as lines. The very conception of a line invokes the abstract principle of straightness. Likewise, morality without absolutes collapses on itself and becomes an empty retroactive justification.

Janszoon

What does it matter if it's learned or if we're born with it? The fact is it's there.

cardboard adolescent

I think to hold to this opinion, you would have to say that empathy is somehow hard-wired into the brain and that people who don't feel empathy are physically different. But then empathy is still just an evolutionary trait and can only be seen as useful in the context of the species, not necessarily for the individual. Therefore this view also kills any conception of personal morality.

Janszoon

Not to beat the metaphor to death, but there's nothing in the meaning of the word "line" that says it has to be straight. That's why the term "a straight line" exists, to clarify that one is talking about a line which is straight.

cardboard adolescent

It matters because if it's learned, it can just as easily be unlearned.