...
If you want to make the case that something is moral or immoral then you first need to define what you believe is moral. Once you accept that this is subjective and needs defining then you have to accept that logic (read math) and morality cannot co-exist. (I hope the majority will one day accept the objective morality of math)
If you're seriously interested in logic,
Kurt Godel, & his
Incompleteness Theorems, are worth knowing. Also check out
THIS. Just a taste of why "proof" is a much squirmier concept than most people believe
Is it wrong to kill someone? Wrong is subjective, what if you're at sea and killing means you will live? While it's a horrible decision to have to make and I would sympathize with anyone who decided they would rather die than live with the guilt, the guilt is subjective and does not result from a logical interpretation of events.
There is nothing intrinsically irrational in ethics or guilt; at least everything could be easily interpreted relying on nothing more than basic behaviorism. Guilt, for instance, serves as negative reinforcement after pointless killing, just as revulsion & squeamishness serve as a deterrent. Both optimize the survival & propagation of a group or a species. From that perspective, morality is an effective means to a very pragmatic & utilitarian end. You don't want mom eating Shnookums just because she's too lazy to run out to the store, do you? *Not* life-affirming.
As you will see if listen to the majority, I have a minority point of view. That's ok, the way the majority of humanity is behaving right now I'm happy to be in the minority. I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm doing my best to use logic and reason to prove that morality is a subjective emotion used to create weakness in others.
Just because morality may be subjective doesn't imply that it's wrong, "unnatural," or only exists as a tool to "create weakness in others." If you posit a goal for mankind, you can start grading ethical systems by how well they serve that goal. If you believe, like the Christians, that the goal is to serve God, the Bible serves as a good starting point. If you adhere to hedonism, anything that maximises hedons & minimises dolors is right; if you think depopulating earth is the way to fly, then a moral code that advocates killing and frowns at compassion is for you. Name a goal, rate a moral code accordingly.
If animals had morals (as described by the majority) they would not survive, humanity is suffering from a bad case of moral superiority right now, and all these so called "libertarians" are blind to a mathematical interpretation of morality.
If animals had morals, and there's absolutely nothing telling us they do not, they'd be just fine -- what's bad for one critter is good for the herd, if GI Joe throws himself on a grenade, he saves several of his buddies. Nothing wrong with morals. Morals are life-affirming.
Math and logic should tell you that Tax is Theft, using morality to trick people into feeling guilty for stealing, that's priceless LOL
Wha? You have to be clearer.
^^^
