|
If we use ‘god’ as our primary & moral standard of value, then whatever this ‘god’ wants is “good” and whatever it does not want is “bad” or “evil”. Such a ‘god’ could do no wrong because whatever it did would be the definition of “right”. It eating human babies for no reason would be "good". It stomping on people for no real reason would be "good". We can intuitively see where this conflicts with common sense if we are to consider that we have inherent worth because under this standard, we would have to say that a ‘god’ who capriciously slays first born babies in Egypt for no real good reason would be “good” simply because it wanted it. This would mean that it would be no less good if it destroyed people (who I will show later to have inherent value) than if it didn’t arbitrarily destroy people. This is to suggest that a value is equal in value to a non-value, which is a logically false notion. If we instead substituted society for this 'god' as our standard of value, then we have almost EXACTLY the same situation. There would be times when what the "society" (actually the spokespeople for that society) wanted would conflict with what is “good” for us individuals. It is illogical for us to suggest that what sometimes is good for “society” is at the involuntary expense of the members OF that society. That would be the ethic of cannibalism, which is no ethic at all. This is what we see in nations that suggest that the government “gives” rights to its citizenry instead of recognizing the inherent rights of its citizenry. If government arbitrarily "grants" said rights, then it has the “right” to arbitrarily take them away, which defies the definition of a 'right'. This is why America is unique and great. It was arguably the first nation to subjugate government to the INHERENT rights of the citizens by law by stating in its foundational documents that we have "unaliable" rights. Humans having rights means that we have a 'right' to live and to prosper. Anything else is being a slave. The conflict in the former case is derived from the logical fact that human lives of sentient beings capable of leading a productive life have inherent value. The conflict in the latter case stems from the fact that the value to any group is ONLY derived from the value of the individuals that make up the group. There can be no value in a system destroying that which is the only source of values for that system. Society HAS no inherent value, only the individuals that make up that society have value. There IS NO entity known as 'society', as it is only a collection of individuals. “Society” has no rights, just as nations that torture and mass bury their own people have no rights and no legitimacy as a government because the only rational purpose of government is to serve its citizenry. An individual’s “rights” is a right to privacy, and right to earn, own and keep private property. This is another way of saying that I am not owned by ‘god’ or by any statist regime, but rather that I own myself. The right to live means a right to make a living, to keep what I earn. A person who has no right to privacy or a right to private property is a slave to some other standard of value. 'Rights' stem from the right to value my own life without apology. The only proper purpose for government is to enforce laws to protect your inherent human rights to work toward a productive life, to work to sustain your own life and to prosper if you wish and to keep the product of that work, that property being both your privacy and earned capital. How do we know that human life has this value that I suggest? Is it merely an emotional parochial position born of survival instinct as a crocodile may “value” not eating the other healthy crocodiles around it? No, it is a logical truth. It is only the concept of human life that gives the concept of human values any meaning. (The dead don’t value). Therefore ALL human values are derived with life being the primary value. What is “good” is what helps us prosper in a healthy life, and “bad” or “evil” would be the opposite. The standard is logical and non-arbitrary, but the interpretation of what is “good” or “bad” in comparisons to this standard is subjective. And of course, morality requires the THINKING of the individual, not an act of a trained circus animal or a trained rat performing for the amusement of it's keepers. Any sense of morality beyond the simplest instinctive understanding of it requires mindful philosophy and it is the free adult's responsibility to choose to be moral or not. We are free to evade reality, but not free to evade the consequences of this decision. The individual being unhindered in sustaining his or her own life and welfare is the only logical standard of value. This is the standard of human life. Compassion makes perfect sense because we are social beings who value and compassion is valuing. Love makes perfect sense for exactly the same reason. Morality is a function of social existence. (One cannot be immoral to a 'nothing' or to a rock). Sacrifice, however, is not logical or a virtue. Sacrifice is tallying losses and implying a nonconsensual debt. Don't get me wrong. Saving your daughter is not a sacrifice if you value your daughter more than the risk of losing your own life. A sacrifice is a net loss, not a net gain. (A lot of things that are called 'sacrifices' really aren't.) Suggesting that sacrifice is itself a virtue is to suggest that losing a larger value in exchange for a lesser one is a virtue. It is not, it is in fact EVIL. The Dhampire LOGOS |
| Standards of value |
 |
| Back to... 'Why Christianity is evil'. |
 |
| Read/Write comments about this piece |