Today’s post is something completely different. I’m gonna do a little experiment. I’ve had a very interesting dialogue with a Christian on the topics of morality and meaning of life. It will be the longest post so far (so please don’t get mad). I do have to say that in retrospective I could’ve answered some questions better but I asnwered the way I did at that time. I really think, that the following illustrates some key difference in our worldviews and how we go about living life, so I wanted to share it with you. We’ll refer to her as Katy in the following thread:
Katy: Why does it matter if we further humanity if eventually we’re all going to be burned up by the sun? And then why do people go against your system of secular morality so often, then? Finity doesn’t give something meaning or beauty. If we have no purpose, we have no meaning. If our purpose is just to exist, then why do we still crave meaning outside of just existing? Your sense of morality justifies all means. By your system, anything is permissible as long as it furthers humanity. If twenty million people got sick with a life-threatening, untreatable, contagious disease, would it be okay to commit genocide so the rest of the world didn’t get it? If a baby was coughing, alerting Nazis in the other room, would it be okay for his mother to smother it so she and the rest of her family didn’t get sent to a prison camp? Where do you draw the line, sir?
Me:Why do we crave meaning outside of ourselves? Speak for yourself cause I don’t. Most people I interact with don’t and most of my friends are theists. They and I crave secular goals of enjoying life. Why do people go against my system? Well firstly not everybody agrees with my system and secondly there are times when individuals see better consequences for themselves if they ignore their empathy. People are selfish but in most cases people do see the value to behave in such a way that society flourishes because they themselves flourish. our purpose isn’t just to “exist” it’s to procreate it’s to start a family and it’s to live life to the best of our abilities. You must be mistaking me for a utilitarianist. I’m not. I do admit that I do’t know how to answer these difficult moral questions. They’re moral dilemmas. As I already conceded my morality isn’t perfect or absolute. In those situations I would then seek out dialogue with the people involved, consider the experts and decide after debating these topics so that we might make the right decision. It always depends on the situation though. If time was lacking I’d probably go with what my gut was telling me. but yes in general human well being (and the well being of other nonhuman animals) is the goal. I’m shocked that you would disagree, How would you go about those dilemmas and why?
Goodbye from yours truly,
Rene von Boenninghausen @Renevelation
Tarsier Renevelations 