tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post2356361765552837004..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Berlinerblau on Living Large vs Living RightAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18031097194152390712007-11-29T12:52:00.000-07:002007-11-29T12:52:00.000-07:00Anonymous these sound like versions of the Golden ...Anonymous these sound like versions of the Golden Rule and yes, in principle, if most subscribed to this whether atheist or theist it might appear that all are motivated to leave the world a better place. However this looks very naive if you don't mind me saying so. <BR/><BR/>There are a number of problems with and I will highlight what I think are the two major ones.<BR/><BR/>(1) Different people could implement the Golden Rule (assuming its the same version) in different ways that clash. For example, some, certainly some atheists, think the world would be a better place if no-one proselytized their religion or other beliefs, certainly some xians and muslims, would, on the contrary think that prosletysation was important to help leave the world a better place. Both think they are following the Golden Rule or the sentiments expressed in your post, how would you resolve this?<BR/><BR/>(2) Not everyone does want to leave the world in a better place. How do you deal with such people? Again there can be and is disagreement over how to treat those who, for one reason or another, do not act according to some Golden Rule or your sentiment (even if they claim to). An example would be capital punishment. (Abortion is another one applicable to both these points.)Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-48117835136385925242007-11-29T10:20:00.000-07:002007-11-29T10:20:00.000-07:00It seems to me, that regarding "leaving the earth ...It seems to me, that regarding "leaving the earth a better place" is something that both the decent atheist and the theist can agree on, by simply commiting themselves to two standards:<BR/><BR/>RADICAL HONEST with EVERYONE,<BR/> and <BR/>HUMANE TREATMENT toward EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING. <BR/>Surely, the Atheist, Agnostic, and Theist<BR/>can all find common ground here,(and mutual respect) if they truly want to make a postive difference in the world.<BR/><BR/>The strife that exists between the two groups need not exist, if they would recognize these two primary habits are the highest form of human decency and are the foundation of progress and peaceful co-existence with everything in this world.<BR/><BR/>Robert M. Burns,<BR/>spiritknight_2000@yahoo.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47608037850121098532007-11-12T09:24:00.000-07:002007-11-12T09:24:00.000-07:00One of my favorite things about your blog is how s...One of my favorite things about your blog is how seriously you take and respond to reader questions.<BR/><BR/>Thank youCameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550676050413627351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-41090149775896507332007-11-12T05:35:00.000-07:002007-11-12T05:35:00.000-07:00Cameron I will be answering these questions on ton...<B>Cameron</B> I will be answering these questions on tonight's post (Monday, Nov. 12).Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-33724420166134280852007-11-05T08:07:00.000-07:002007-11-05T08:07:00.000-07:00Quite a while ago, you made a post about the desir...Quite a while ago, you made a post about the desire to count grass as a desire that is "neutral" - that is, it doing it can fulfill the desires of the doer, but morally cannot really be praised or condemned, because he's not hurting anyone.<BR/><BR/>Now if I, as a moral person, truly want the world to be a better place than it otherwise would be, it seems to me that these so-called "morally neutral" desires, ones that don't directly help or hinder the desires of others, should be the subject of condemnation.<BR/><BR/>Since many of these "neutral" desires have to do with personal well being (relaxation, health, etc), there's some flexibility. As a moral society, should we not direct that flexibility towards everyone's benefit?<BR/><BR/>For example, if both watching TV and planting trees are relaxing, should we not condemn those that choose to watch TV when they could be out planting trees?<BR/><BR/>Since both eating vegetarian, and eating meat can provide nutrition requirements, should we not condemn those that eat meat (due to the massive additional inputs required to produce it) instead of vegetables?<BR/><BR/>Since both donating to church and donating to a local homeless shelter ostensibly fulfill a desire for charity, should we not condemn those that choose to donate to church instead of the homeless?<BR/><BR/>Now obviously we should direct our praise and condemnation towards where it can do the most good (e.g. condemning truly bad desires to prevent things like rape, murder, etc), but should not some of our effort be directed towards encouraging people to fulfill their own desires with morally positive acts instead of morally neutral ones?<BR/><BR/>My apologies if any of these examples any critical flaws, I am writing "off the cuff" a bit as it were.Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550676050413627351noreply@blogger.com