|
Who What Now posted:There are atheist Jews, though. But the term "atheistic Jewish person" only makes sense in the context of the Jewish faith which binds together various ethnicities and converts together, allowing there to be "atheist Jews" rather than "atheist Ashenkazim" or "atheist Mizrahim" or "atheist Beta Yisraeli" or "atheist Sephardim".
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Every Jew I've ever known with the notable exception of two Conservatives would strongly disagree with your assertion that Jewishness is necessarily religious, but whatev's. I'm not saying that you repulsive little toad. What you are saying is that Jewishness is purely ethnic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:You can't build a moral system without an irrational and arbitrary selection of values somewhere at the foundation, and to talk about "what works" and "what benefits all of society" as if it could be determined through pure reason rather than through moral judgment (which is subjective, unless you believe in an objective, external model for morality... which in turn is a hop, skip, and a jump from believing in God) would be either a mistake or an evasion. Which, of course, is why there's a persistent minority of leftists who declare morality a capitalist/bourgeois/liberal notion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Have you ever heard of utilitarianism? Morality can be can quantified as what is best for society. Not in any absolute godlike sense, but as what best works toward certain goals. That is something that can be studied and measured rationally. And how are these goals selected? How is "utility" defined?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Utility is defined by the society in which it will be applied, by a democratic vote, for example. And what makes this rational and non-arbitrary?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:More seriously, some people would rather die for a cause they believe in than maximize their own happiness; some people think suffering can be ennobling or instructive and might be appropriate here and now even if the eventual goal is the total elimination of suffering. Yeah like if you define "happiness" naively the ultimate goal of utilitarianism would be to have everyone mainlining heroin with all their needs cared for by robots. Which is why Epicurus and other philosophers that define pleasure/happiness as the highest moral good have always emphasized ephemeral pleasures and sources of happiness over purely hedonistic ones.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 23:30
|
|