Justification For Evil Actions

[Asimov]

Evil = Immoral....not the religious evil type shit.

 

I don't think it is possible for someone to justify their actions based on "atheism" or Science itself.

 

If anyone can rebut this, I'd like you to try:

 

It is generally claimed by many on the religious side of things that Hitler was an atheist, and therefore he felt he was justified in killing the jews, or that Hitler used Evolution to justify killing jews. Let's assume for a minute that this is correct. Hitler is a convenient example because it is so often used.

 

How is Hitler justified in taking lives as an atheist? Which doctrines that are atheistic condone killing people unjustly?

 

You can only use prescriptive things to justify your actions. Atheism isn't prescriptive because it has no set doctrine. The same goes with Science. Many Creationists use the excuse that Evolution supports "Survival of the Fittest" and therefore it is ok to kill people because they are obviously not fit to survive. Since Science is a descriptive philosophy and doesn't in any way say that it is ok to do these things (since it is not prescriptive), you cannot use Science to justify an action!

 

On the other hand, any religion with a doctrine is usually written by a religious leader who claims to be in tune with the divine. Thus there are usually a multitude of statements in the Holy Book which can justify hatred, killing people, and prejudice.

 

Thus, I contend that atheism is on a morally higher level since it uses reason and intellect to discover correct moral obligation, rather than the writings of someone who tells you what to do.

 

Punch a hole through that....I dare ya.

[dibby]

On the other hand, any religion with a doctrine is usually written by a religious leader who claims to be in tune with the divine. Thus there are usually a multitude of statements in the Holy Book which can justify hatred, killing people, and prejudice.

 

Thus, I contend that atheism is on a morally higher level since it uses reason and intellect to discover correct moral obligation, rather than the writings of someone who tells you what to do.

 

Punch a hole through that....I dare ya.

 

Hi Asimov

Do you think that you are using "science" and "atheism" in too an isolated way? I hope I got the sense that you are using them right. Science has implications that impact on other areas. For instance, genetic research in a purely scientific sense is descriptive,for sure. But it has ethical and philosophical implications.

Atheism would be good if used in the way you describe, but it is not necessarily so. For instance Soviet Russia (an atheistic societal system) could be described to be immoral in the suppression of its citizens. In this case it could be argued that a theist who was using reason and intellect would be morally higher.

So science and atheism are morally neutral, until they are combined withsomething else. In the case of atheism: if combined with intellect and reason, as you say, then it could be good; but if not , then it could be bad.

[Asimov]

Hi Asimov

Do you think that you are using "science" and "atheism" in too an isolated way? I hope I got the sense that you are using them right. Science has implications that impact on other areas. For instance, genetic research in a purely scientific sense is descriptive,for sure. But it has ethical and philosophical implications.

 

What implications? Science doesn't tell you how to live life, nor does it give a specific doctrine. The only implications regarding this are how the descriptions in science apply to ethical systems, just like the implications of any observation or fact must apply to an ethical system.

 

For instance, if it is observed that morality is not objective/absolute, then any absolutist ethical system is rendered null. The observation that morality is not objective is not a prescription for what morality is or how we should behave, it is simply an observation.

 

For instance Soviet Russia (an atheistic societal system) could be described to be immoral in the suppression of its citizens. In this case it could be argued that a theist who was using reason and intellect would be morally higher.

 

Stalin didn't kill people in the name of atheism, nor did he use atheism to justify his actions. Communism is atheistic, no doubt, but nowhere in the Communist Manifesto do I remember hearing about how we should kill people.

 

So science and atheism are morally neutral, until they are combined withsomething else. In the case of atheism: if combined with intellect and reason, as you say, then it could be good; but if not , then it could be bad.

 

No, because atheism is not a religion and has no doctrine. It's a statement of disbelief. It would be like saying Theism is evil because of x. Theism is simply a statement of belief. This is what I'm pointing out.

 

Theism itself has no doctrine, Atheism itself has no doctrine.

 

Atheistic systems (or religions - for instance buddhism, where a doctrine is apparent) which do support killing other people cannot be used for justification because they have no absolute basis with which to attribute why people should be killed.

[dibby]

On the other hand, any religion with a doctrine is usually written by a religious leader who claims to be in tune with the divine. Thus there are usually a multitude of statements in the Holy Book which can justify hatred, killing people, and prejudice.

 

Thus, I contend that atheism is on a morally higher level since it uses reason and intellect to discover correct moral obligation, rather than the writings of someone who tells you what to do.

 

Punch a hole through that....I dare ya.[/b]

Since theism itself has no doctrine, are you not, therefore, appending the morality of the above example of the religious leader onto theism?

An interesting discussion Asimov.

[Asimov]

Since theism itself has no doctrine, are you not, therefore, appending the morality of the above example of the religious leader onto theism?

An interesting discussion Asimov.

 

No. There are a few things we must consider, dibby.

 

Theist doctrine always claims their authority is divine. Since their authority is from the divine, they believe their justification for doing immoral things is because God is commanding them.

 

Not all theists have doctrine.

 

Atheist doctrines cannot claim divine authority. Unless they can justify what is said through reason and logic, then they have no justification.

[dibby]

Since theism itself has no doctrine, are you not, therefore, appending the morality of the above example of the religious leader onto theism?

An interesting discussion Asimov.

 

No. There are a few things we must consider, dibby.

 

Theist doctrine always claims their authority is divine. Since their authority is from the divine, they believe their justification for doing immoral things is because God is commanding them.

 

Not all theists have doctrine.

 

Atheist doctrines cannot claim divine authority. Unless they can justify what is said through reason and logic, then they have no justification.

 

Yes . I agree with what you say about theist doctrine. It can cause all sorts of problems, there are as many ideas about divine opinion as there are people. Do you think that atheist doctrine always rely on reason and logic? or could they rely on something else? Could atheist doctrine rely on unreasonableness, and so cause chaos?

[Asimov]

Yes . I agree with what you say about theist doctrine. It can cause all sorts of problems, there are as many ideas about divine opinion as there are people. Do you think that atheist doctrine always rely on reason and logic? or could they rely on something else? Could atheist doctrine rely on unreasonableness, and so cause chaos?

 

Yes, it could.

 

Scientology, for instance.