RE: Is it bad to kill people?
I can use the same argument to deny the sphericity of the earth
No you can't lol
Morality is created by humans. So each individual has their own morals. If you ask "is tipping a waiter good?", Americans would say yes and Japanese would say no, it's bad. And it would be true for each of them because morality lives inside of them.
The Earth is outside. No matter what you say, you aren't changing the outer reality by declaring it so (unless you're god or something like that). Morality is an inner concept that belongs to you and to each thinker, while, assuming we aren't within a dream and what we see is real, the earth is an outer truth that lives beyond your opinion (unlike morality which is just your opinion about what things are good or bad).
Posted using Partiko Android
I think you're right, if we start from the basis that morality is created by humans, then you're right.
But look, don't you think that when Americans or Japanese say that this or that thing is good it is for some reason, or do you think they say that for no reason?
When we say that something is good, we simply say it to put a adjective at random, or do we say it because we perceive that, in some way, that is what will give the best result?
It is not by chance that we say that something is good or not, if it were so, not even the concept would exist.
The fact is that, as humans are looking for a multiplicity of different things, they say "good" to different things. Of course, all these things that are "good" have nothing to do with the moral good, that good that all religions and cultures seek, that which has sought every human society, that which seeks to achieve self-realization and fullness of human being, who seeks to place him in its highest state.
Now, if what all people consider good will lead them to that state then we would live in the paradise, which is not true. Good has nothing to do with opinion, and exists objectively, as does truth, which is not tangible.
The fact that many people differ in what is good means that; or there is ignorance; or two different concepts are spoken but the same word is used to designate them; or very well that being variable circumstances that what is considered good is also variable. However, the good continues to exist despite such differences.
It's like in math, someone can say that 2+2=5, but he will be wrong because of ignorance. Or two different operations can give the same result, 2+2=4 or 3+1=4, which creates an appearance of relativity.
The good, like the number, and the truth, are objective. Or at least that's what I think. And I'm not God, I swear.
You are underestimating the power of evolution, culture and human nature. The key is in something that you said.
As evolution, cultural values and circumstance have influenced human beings, they have imposed a certain common sense, an instinct, involuntary impulses both on the body and the mind.
What this means is that it's not for "no good reason", it's a very good reason, and it's that we perceive it as such. If I see that a cup is red I'll say it's red. The difference is that this perception lies within our genes, our culture and our minds.
However, as it is not an ultimate truth beyond our bodies but a truth within ourselves, what is "good" is different for every person. Evolution and culture have inserted behaviour guidelines so deep into us that we perceive them as as intensely as the truths outside of us. So if someone says something is good, they say it for a good reason: they perceive it as such.
Posted using Partiko Android