Who do you think is the worse Christian?

[rah]

And that's just your opinion, that as always you have no facts to back it up. Based on how we post, I'll bet people think I have more empathy than you do.

I'd rather have my morality based on a philosophical argument that requires me to think about it rather than just being spoon fed it through religion.
There are many different religions that make for many different morality systems, many that you wouldn't agree with. What makes your's more valid than theirs.

At least if it's based on utilitarianism, it's more likely to be valid across different groups of people. (obviously not always true)

[Jon Miller]

If you read the Ancient philosophers and their definition of morality based on utility, while they may mention a soul, it's not the God given soul that we're used to.
Their definitions have nothing to do with God, but are equally valid.

Late 18th century is not really Ancient.

JM

[Kidlicious]

And that's just your opinion, that as always you have no facts to back it up. Based on how we post, I'll bet people think I have more empathy than you do.

Yes, that's my opinion. However, it's been well established that there's a difference between abstract philosophical arguments and reality.

I'd rather have my morality based on a philosophical argument that requires me to think about it rather than just being spoon fed it through religion.

You can think about it all you want. When it comes down to actually making a decision in the real world, those who make utilitarian decisions are amoral people. Moral people go with their standards of morality.

There are many different religions that make for many different morality systems, many that you wouldn't agree with. What makes your's more valid than theirs.

Utilitarianism is atheist religion. Only an atheist could screw something up that bad.

At least if it's based on utilitarianism, it's more likely to be valid across different groups of people. (obviously not always true)

Ok. So what makes it valid?

[rah]

Late 18th century is not really Ancient.

JM

I was thinking more the Ancient Greeks, but yes those philosophies have been reiterated over time.

[Jon Miller]

Hedonism is not quite the same as Utilitarianism.

JM

[rah]

Yes, that's my opinion. However, it's been well established that there's a difference between abstract philosophical arguments and reality.

I'll concede that one to a point, but it's not an absolute.

You can think about it all you want. When it comes down to actually making a decision in the real world, those who make utilitarian decisions are amoral people. Moral people go with their standards of morality.

Totally disagree. The can easily overlap and if you go back and read some of the definitions you'll see that Especially when they talk about virtue. Moral people go with their standards of morality by definition, regardless of the source.

Utilitarianism is atheist religion. Only an atheist could screw something up that bad.

Just judgmental babbling. One could say that it takes religion to truly be evil. (it cuts both ways)

Ok. So what makes it valid?

What makes your's valid? If you want to say, your belief/faith, why is that any different then my though process. (the general good)

[rah]

Hedonism is not quite the same as Utilitarianism.

JM

I never said they were.

[loinburger]

what makes it valid?

What is your measure of a life well lived, and have your moral standards helped you to achieve that? If they have, then they're "valid" - if instead they've hindered you then they're "invalid" and are in need of revision.

[Kidlicious]

Totally disagree. The can easily overlap and if you go back and read some of the definitions you'll see that Especially when they talk about virtue. Moral people go with their standards of morality by definition, regardless of the source.

The belief in utilitarianism and justice at the same time is double-mindedness. Like I said, when it comes down to people actually making utilitarian decisions those people don't tend to be normal people.

Just judgmental babbling. One could say that it takes religion to truly be evil. (it cuts both ways)

There's not evidence that a society can be run by utilitarian ethics and increase happiness. It's a religion, and a very bad one. What kind of people believe in something when there is no evidence in the truth of it?

What makes your's valid? If you want to say, your belief/faith, why is that any different then my though process. (the general good)

There is no evidence that your thought process produces any good. On the other hand my faith produces good. Even Aeson and lionburger admit that a society functions better when people believe in moral principles such as 'do not murder.'

[rah]

I believe the general good include most of your value system, especially do not murder.

What the heck do you think general good means?

[loinburger]

On the other hand my faith produces good. Even Aeson and lionburger admit that a society functions better when people believe in moral principles such as 'do not murder.'

How has your faith produced good? And no, "not murdering people" is an example of "not causing harm," not an example of "producing good." Also, being an ******* is definitely not an example of "producing good."

[Kidlicious]

What is your measure of a life well lived, and have your moral standards helped you to achieve that? If they have, then they're "valid" - if instead they've hindered you then they're "invalid" and are in need of revision.

Doesn't it matter what your definition of life well lived is?

[rah]

Yes, and no matter what morality system you believe, it's kind of meaningless if your actions aren't reflective of it.

[loinburger]

Doesn't it matter what your definition of life well lived is?

Yes. Are you going to answer the question?

[rah]

I see no difference if kid's definition of a life well lived is a moral one based on his god and mine is a virtuous one.