Dostoevsky's Statement

I think it should be "If there's nothing transcendent, anything goes." One can believe in an afterlife without a God.

But basically I think he means that if you are not accountable for your actions, you can do anything you want. Kill, rape, steal, lie, anything you feel like. And if there is no afterlife or God, you can kill yourself and escape any accountability for your actions, since there is no one or nothing you have to answer to. Ultimately you can become your own God, pleasing yourself however you feel like. It doesn't matter what you do to others, because the only life you'll experience is your own, and since you won't exist after this life, not even guilt matters. Ultimately whatever you do doesn't matter at all, because there is no eternity to look forward to. So what if you become a serial rapist? It's not like it matters one iota in the long run, since all humans will become extinct and all actions forgotten over time. It doesn't matter if you cure cancer either, since it will be erased by the cold, impersonal universe. In fact, no matter how good or bad your memories are, it matters not because the universe will end someday along with everything in it, and whatever you have accomplished for yourself or others is futile in the long run.

That is assuming there is nothing transcendent like a God, an afterlife, or anything you do that can extend beyond time, like a collective memory, consciousness, or eternal records. That's what I think he means, or something along those lines.

reply to post by IamBoon


Nope, not all is permitted.
Be good to all.
If not expect retribution.

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by IamBoon

 

If you review the history, and speaking of the USA, they're anchored to the belief that our rights are the unalienable endowment of a creator. That's the original statement we're discussing. I see nothing attributed to any specific religion or denomination. God. Creator.

If there isn't one, is everything permissible?

My view: If there isn't one, then why would anyone assume anything wouldn't be permissible, based upon the subjective nature of what would be determined "permissible"?

You have no rights other than those granted to you by another person. None. Not to breathe. Not to live. If the only rights you possess are those allowed you by a mortal authority, then what do you see as the logical conclusion from that?

See where we're headed?

If the USA has a belief that "god" enables us certain rights then it must be from a religion or denomination. If not then no creator is invoked and no mention of the "creator " would exist.

The problem with rights from a "creator" is that a creator can pass HUGE moral and ethical judgments without scrutiny or review.Leaving what god or creator unspecified is a huge mistake for what happens if Islam takes hold.... or fundamentalist Christianity?

I see your point , but it is flawed. A mortal authority can be killed and its ideology crushed. The only rights we have now are what is given by mortal authority. Regardless of the conventional use of "god"'s name , what is permissible is bound by culture , society , and well-being.

A society on the brink will have its moral authority collapse. For someone to do explicit harm to someone else and think it good requires similarly irrational ideologies.

As to where we are headed with your hypothesis it seems we need not look farther than what we have today. Everything we have and all of our rights are voted and protected by mortals.... not a supernatural force. If they were we wouldn't need an army.

Any form of law is that of mortal authority and can only be guided by metaphysical ideologies of those in charge. Ig a"creator" had anything to do with this as an authority , I am sure we would use some Holy Book in place of the Bill of Rights and a Church instead of the White House,

It is all and only can be enforces by mortal authority and those ideals.... as in the USA , can change over time.

reply to post by yeahright


A Deist god has nothing to do with anything , including the affairs of men , besides setting the universe in motion. For a "god" or "creator" to say anything about our morals that god must have a moral foundation and of course a society or "denomination" that believes in the entities moral authority.

You Did not reply to the remainder of my post. I thought I made some valid points and would like to hear your view on them.

I would argue that if there is a God, then everything is permitted.

God, if there is such a thing, is the Author of good and evil. He is the yin to his own yang. He is as up as he is down. He is a she, for Christ's sake, and vice-versa.

If we did it, God did it before us. And if he didn't do it, he thought about it. And if we don't do it, we wouldn't be living up to our full potential, seeing as we were created from his image - by him.

Plowing down a family of six on accident is unfortunate, but stupid. A headshot from a bell tower is a deliberate action, one for which the ability was 'granted' us by the creator, when he bestowed upon us a trigger finger. The relatives of the deceased are sad now, but maybe they're not... maybe the deceased was an asshole. The bottom line is that in the grand scheme of things, whether someone is killed by another, purposefully or accidentally, by natural cause, or autonomously, it's just a zero-sum game.

I've taken it upon myself to set my own moral standards, simply because the ones society subscribes to lack common sense. For example, I hate the death penalty. To me, it goes against natural law. I believe that the only time in which it is permissible for one human to take another human's life is when human A's life is directly threatened by human B. Or when there happens to be a human C, who lacks the ability or the information necessary to preserve and protect their own life. Then human A can also kill human B. That makes sense to me.

To throw a switch or inject liquid drano into a guy, killing him for something he did twenty years ago... Well, there's a word for that. And that word is murder. I think the person flipping that switch should just think about that for a minute when he's looking at a guy blindfolded and immobilized strapped to a fiberglass chair.

I just can't believe that this has not occurred to those who make these stupid laws for us to automatically abide by.

I am, however a strong proponent of cruel and unusual punishment, to the extent that I believe that small dark places and minimal sustenance can have an extremely rehabilitative effect on those who may choose to pray on the relatively defenseless, namely women and children.

But back to the issue... Do I think it's all good? Yeah, I think in the end, it's all good. In the end, I don't think what we do or don't do is going to make any difference one way or the other. It's just going to balance out. You want heaven? You can have it here and now. You want hell? You'll get it if you ask for it. Not later. Now. It's a zero-sum game.

reply to post by DeltaChaos


Exactly , a society where everything is permitted isn't a society at all. I think it is based on intuition , survival, abundance , culture, and religion. There will always be immoral acts, it is a human condition and we are bound to it.

Dosotevsky also intentionally put forth the opposite to "If there is no God everything is permitted" which is:

"Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue even without believing in immortality [God]. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity."

I've enjoyed this discussion. The subject matter is something that has haunted me since I awoke 10-12 yrs ago. And has become such a problem in the last 6 years that I've sought therapy to help me come to terms with it and evolve some sort of successful life strategy in leu of it. Six years ago I discovered that Evil wasn't just some concept involving right and wrong. I found out that it was real and tangible and lived and breathed and ate and defecated. Then later I began to question that view and see evil as a strategy.

These days I have several ways of seeing this debate and my adherance to any particular view changes on a daily basis.

Today I feel that if there is no god then surely being a good and moral person is an irrational survival strategy. The food chain shows that predators reach the top. If there is no god then we are just 'bags of mostly water', animals, part of nature. Then if we are part of nature then anything we do is in our nature. If a fox chases some hens, the fox isn't immoral or evil it's just acting within its nature. The fact that psychopaths exist shows that for our species psychopathy is a valid strategy and is evidence that there is an evolutionary advantage to being one. If we value our lives in a way that appears similar to many species of the animal kingdom then we value it by control of resources whether those resources are food, territory, power, harems etc. If that is the case the pyschopathic elites are only acting in a natural and rational manner. If I am merely an animal then everything I do is in my nature and therefore permissable. If I want to succeed I have a much better chance if I act without morals or remorse, without truth but instead full of lies. I wish I could be like that, I've tried but always fail. Alas I am not a pyshopath and therefore I shall not inherit the Earth.

reply to post by yeahright

Back to the original statement, "If there is no god, then everything is permitted." Yes. What prevents anything from being agreed upon as permitted?

Well, I think Dosotevsky thought the problem was raising certain philosophical questions with the intent to circumvent the basic human edifices of morality.

An example would be applying logic to the bible to make it's simple moral codes so big and complex that what was once clear is now vague and thus gives one more freedom of action. Another example would be to deny God as the highest moral authority all together, as in atheism or the distorted view of Christ's teachings Roman Catholocism provides. Each contrives to subdue the force of conscience that accompanies us with every action, unsuccessfully.

reply to post by yeahright


Either way anyone or any being can dictate absolute rights and any being can overturn them.

Case example.

The council on human ethics states what absolute rights every human is entitled to.

The creator states what absolute rights every human is entitles to.

Now party IMMORAL takes over , abolishes either/or and mandates what rights it feels.

In Islam , absolute rights as endowed by the "creator" are far different than those specified by our "creator" . Are you arguing that because of the "absolutist" nature of their law that it is correct in determining morality and moral actions? Or that our notion of these laws are more absolute than their law based on the source?

The theory doesn't hold water by this example . It is ALWAYS human devices that determine law and rights. Saying they are absolute or not doesn't make them so as they can change with what system comes to rule.

And back to the original statement , I am of firm belief that nothing absolute determines morality as it's very tool of implementation is subjective perception.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by IamBoon]