Originally posted by neil67d Is it fair to hate all religionists equally? If not, how should I discriminate?
Religons that propogate violence as a means to an end should be discriminated against. Imo, true religon should be peaceful. Other than that live and let live. And worship and charge whatever you want!😀😀
Originally posted by twhitehead What do you mean by 'hate' and why would it be the correct response?
Hating a mindset which prevents humans from actually understanding the world around them in an age where this information is readily available is perfectly reasonable, though hardly fashionable.
As for hate, personally I can't do this, even though I know what I just said above. Reason being I know there are people who have had terrible things happen to them in life, and religion gives them meaning. Taking this away is cruel, even though I wish they could find equal strength or inspiration from something real.
I'm sorry for answering this question as if it was directed to me!
Originally posted by The Dude 84 Hating a mindset which prevents humans from actually understanding the world around them in an age where this information is readily available is perfectly reasonable, though hardly fashionable.
As for hate, personally I can't do this, even though I know what I just said above. Reason being I know there are people who have had terrible things happen ...[text shortened]... ion from something real.
I'm sorry for answering this question as if it was directed to me!
Originally posted by twhitehead What do you mean by 'hate' and why would it be the correct response?
Intense displeasure or dislike felt toward something.
Do you hate death? I do. While I have come to accept my inability to do anything about it, I still despise it--- everything it represents and everything it does. Someday, I'm going to seriously kick its ass, though.
Originally posted by Lord Shark Given that by 'hate', you mean "Intense displeasure or dislike felt toward something." then I stick by my original assertion.
Which one: the "obviously false" one or the "isn't a moral response" one? Either way, how so?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Which one: the "obviously false" one or the "isn't a moral response" one? Either way, how so?
Both I think.
They are logically connected.
There is a fundamental incoherence here. If there is a moral imperitive for me to hate X then it follows that I ought to hate X. But 'ought' implies 'can'. And I cannot choose my emotional response without an infinite regress. Therefore, I cannot choose to hate X. So if I don't hate X, and cannot choose to do so, I cannot, by the preceeding argument, have a moral obligation to hate X.
So the assertion to the contrary is pretty obviously false.
moral quandry
15 Mar '10 02:30
Back to Top