Posted: Feb 10, 2018 6:38 pm
Calilasseia wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Shagz wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:After pointing out that objective morality cannot be defended by making an appeal to the possible unwanted consequences of such a morality not existing;
You should ask your friend if this argument could be used to defend the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.
He's not my friend, just a random Christian who responded to a comment of mine.
Anyway, he'll probably blindly assertr those rules don't promote respect et al because they're not the 10 commandments and not from god. Or something like that.
Indeed, it's a well-documented part of the aetiology - treating their favourite mythological assertions as possessing a special status, just because said mythology happens to give the adherents in question a hard-on. The idea that these assertions are just like any other assertions, and as a corollary, just as dispensable in the absence of independent verification, never once bothers those exhibiting the requisite symptoms. Trouble being, of course, that this malaise is also cross-infecting right-wing politics to an epidemic extent, no doubt because right-wing politicians have a habit of adopting the Seneca view of religion, not as a warning against its malign and corroding effects, but because they seek to make use of it for their own ends. "Prosperity theology" is doubtless a natural outcome of the unholy marriage between religion and corporate business in the USA, and pretty much exhibits the features arising from the influence of corporate business elsewhere - a few mercenary individuals become extremely rich, whilst the rest of us are impoverished.
In the meantime, I'm a little wary of tossing consequentialist ethics into the bin, even if I'm less than delighted at seeing its blatant misuse by individuals such as the one cited above.
What are you referring to with the bolded bit?