tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post6280924406742807472..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Walking the Fine Line…bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-57465335166010846732019-01-03T13:48:35.717-08:002019-01-03T13:48:35.717-08:00I am not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing. ...I am not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing. The 20th century is full of moral systems based on utility, with millions dead. Abortion is derived from a moral system based on utility - it has lasted far longer than eugenics.<br /><br />Utility is in the eye of the beholder; every utilitarian defends his moral system as good or the best. How do we compare? On what basis?<br /><br />When utility butts up against reality, the utilitarians have no choice but to change their minds. But countless millions die between now and then.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33181055650131272322019-01-03T08:22:17.657-08:002019-01-03T08:22:17.657-08:00I'm confused. Feser is saying atheism can'...I'm confused. Feser is saying atheism can't produce a moral system or can't defend it as good or the best.<br /><br />I responded that they do based on utility.<br /><br />You seemed to disagree with me using eugenics as an idea that disproves what I said about utility and the inability to defend.<br /><br />But eugenics is a dead idea. It wasn't an idea en vogue very long and is now rejected as heinous, even by atheists. To my point, it could be described as useful but its goodness couldn't be defended very well, simply because of the harm it did to other humans.RMBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73922362338613191332019-01-02T13:35:52.784-08:002019-01-02T13:35:52.784-08:00"Their weakness is that even if there is util..."Their weakness is that even if there is utility no one can really argue one system vs another with any real conviction."<br /><br />Eugenics. A very rational, reasonable, socially utilitarian idea. Hard to argue against it on this basis. Just one example of many.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71008103115608917112019-01-02T12:53:47.026-08:002019-01-02T12:53:47.026-08:00I will be interested to see where this goes. I th...I will be interested to see where this goes. I think I have other articles about this book or others like it. They seem to be very straightforward arguments. I think one of the main disputes is that atheists believe that morality can be built upon social utility ideas. Same with logic. There may be no truth but that doesn't mean humans don't have any motivation to think logically and morally. Their weakness is that even if there is utility no one can really argue one system vs another with any real conviction. Morality is "good" but there is no real way to determine which moral system is better objectively.<br /><br />"a war between rival philosophical or metaphysical systems, namely the classical worldview versus modern naturalism"<br /><br />Also, NT Wright helps frame the war differently. He views the war as between 2 ancient philosophies. One is found in ancient Pagan/Jewish/Christian/Medeival culture where natural and supernatural are intertwined. The other is Epicureansim. Maybe not quite as ancient as the default human paradigm but not anywhere close to Modern. RMBnoreply@blogger.com