With out any higher powers to determine good and evil why would vengeance be bad?

I don’t really need an invisible sky wizard or a red guy with a sadistic streak to determine what’s right and wrong or good and evil for me. I know that helping the weak is good and eating babies is bad because I’m a rational being with a conscience.

Vengeance isn’t necessarily logical in that it often inherently causes more damage than what initially happened. Vengeance exists in society as a form of institutionalized punishment, but that is because we have all decided on a social contract that requires it within certain constraints. Individually, however, my conscience tells me that vengeance, more often than not, should only lead me to dig two graves as Confucius would have put it.

In what way is God declaring something a sin different from a legislative body (be it composed of one or a million people) declaring something illegal?

Because it’s a thoroughly negative act that has an uncanny habit of eating away at your soul.

@SavoirFaire That would be a different matter. For the sake of this question God does not exist and has no influence or imprint on man. This is about man and his actions. With no God, there is no evil, so what is the logical or reasonable debate to debunk vengeance?

Take a land where the people there decide that if a woman or girl loses her virginity outside of wedlock she has shamed the family name. The only way to purge the stench off the family name and not have it taint future generations is for one of the elders of that family to put the woman or girl to death in front of an assembly of the family and community elders and officials. Who is to say that is wrong? Surely if you have more guns and more might to forcibly stop them then you are right, if not, who is to say it is, one group that doesn’t live among them? A family member might feel it should not have happened that way. If they do, and they have the ability to kill the family member who carried out the deed, are they wrong? In their mind, they are right but because they are outnumbered, they are not right.

What if one group of people crosses over onto territory others feel are theirs, they take the timber and game those there feel is their survival? They feel wronged and disrespected so they go to the land of these interlopers and cart off some of their daughters for breeding. To those who took the timbers they would say it was an act of vengeance, to those who had the timbers and game taken it was justice.

@ucme Because it’s a thoroughly negative act that has an uncanny habit of eating away at your soul. How, to whom, the people/person who did the first act or the people/person who did the seconded act to counter the first act? With nothing other than the here and now, there is no soul to speak of, just this life force that goes _”blip”- when we die off to nothingness. It might be negative to the one who came out on the unfavorable end if the exchange but to the one who came out victorious why are they going to lose sleep over it?

If there is no higher authority, man is the authority about what is right and wrong. Therefore, although we can state that our judgment of fallible, we do have a normative sense of right and wrong, which we accept as the authoritative statement on morality until revise.

Vengeance is wrong, however, because it is based on an emotional need to satisfy a bloodlust of sorts, rather than a reasoned approach to determine a proportional reaction. Vengeance involves a rush to judgment, and will often result in punishing innocent people, or by punishing guilty people in a manner that is far more severe than the original offense merits.

Lynching is a prime example of vengeance over justice.

Vengeance causes vengeance causes vengeance. There would be a never ending cycle of death and violence until once side is eradicated. Hundreds, if not thousands, would suffer and die. Which in turn makes the society in which this occurs unsafe and unpleasant for the general population, compromises and diminishes its integrity, stability and ability to survive as a whole.
That is why vengeance is undesirable, or “bad”.

Why would there be no evil without god and satan? Why would there be evil even if god existed? All you would have is god’s actions and words versus satan’s actions and words. Who decides which of those is evil, and on what basis? god?
Does god declare something evil because of actual reasons? Then evil is evil independently, and we can just skip god and go straight to the reason.
Is evil, evil , and good, good because god proclaims it to be, without any reason at all? Then god’s version of good and evil are even more arbitrary and meaningless than humanity’s laws, because human law is, at least in theory, based on actual reasons and effects of said actions on individuals and society.

@Hypocrisy_Central You misunderstand my intent. When I say soul I mean right to the very core of who you are as a person. Vengeance is inherently a negative vibe which ultimately helps no one. Therefore it seems to me to be an excercise in futility & an unhealthy one to boot.

There is no higher power, but there is certainly good, and “not good” which I guess some people will always call evil.
But the notions of morality, good etc. are not in and of themselves concrete things. They are abstractions.
We can certainly observe examples of the good and the “not good”, but the concept is abstract.
Certainly since Plato, people have grappled with the nature of abstractions. Plato believed that they came from a different reality. That is probably the origin of the idea of a higher power.
Since then, people have realized that they can make observations of material events, and integrate them mentally in generalized abstractions, which is a function of the mind. Thus, the higher power is really a mental power.
There are objective moral principles, and they clearly apply to all human beings since human beings are in the most fundamental sense the same sort of critter.

If by vengeance you mean justice, then it is not bad, because justice is a real thing, and it occurs in nature, can be observed, and cannot be argued with.

If by vengeance you mean capriciously acting out for the sake of an unreconciled negative emotional response to justice, then that would be bad because caprice has no particular basis in reality and is thus irrational.

Vengeance is destabilizing to society. We can look at tribal societies were vengeance killings are common, and compare them to state-level societies where punishment is concentrated in the hands of a justice system. State level societies compare favorably (I would certainly rather live in one of them).

People are often wrong or misled. Sanctioning vengeance puts too much power in the hands of the victim of an alleged crime, who may well target the wrong person for vengeance, or for the wrong reason.

Vengeance is not much of a deterrant to future crime. As @ragingloli noted, it tends to simply lead to more vengeance attacks.

Karma

Vengeance is bad because two wrongs don’t make a right. But it depends on what kind of vengeance.

@Hypocrisy_Central My point is that your question seems to assume that the situation without God is different from the situation with God. I am questioning the underlying assumption that God could bring any extra ability to determine right or wrong with Him. Thus my answer to your question is that the existence or non-existence of God makes no difference to good and evil. The situations are exactly the same.

@iamthemob Vengeance is wrong, however, because it is based on an emotional need to satisfy a bloodlust of sorts, rather than a reasoned approach to determine a proportional reaction. Bloodlust, really? If you were a peaceful people but some herdsmen from way over there rides through and see on of your daughters and think to make her his wife , so they just snatch her up and ride off. The other women race back to the village and tell what has happened and you and many of the village men ride out to intercept them. If killing them all is what it took to free the woman those in the village would see it as correct. The people of those who were slain would see it a different way. Maybe they were a peaceful people who now want to even the score because they don’t think the taking of a bride should have been met with death. Bloodlustful people will go killing for the sake of their own enjoyment, not spurned to it by a cause.

@ucme Vengeance is inherently a negative vibe which ultimately helps no one. The one that came out on the up side of it did. Even if the next round he/she/they didn’t, that instance there they did.

@josie We can certainly observe examples of the good and the “not good”, but the concept is abstract. What I am told by popular pundits then it doesn’t exist. Unless it can be measured, weighed, seen, touch, smelled, or manifested it doesn’t exist. So good, or “notgood” doesn’t exist less just an ideal of man, and where would he get that from?

@ragingloli There would be a never ending cycle of death and violence until once side is eradicated. Hundreds, if not thousands, would suffer and die. Which in turn makes the society in which this occurs unsafe and unpleasant for the general population, compromises and diminishes its integrity, stability and ability to survive as a whole. How so? At one point one group will be the dominant and able to enforce their will and the others will just have to accept it. It has happened many time over man’s existence since the pyramids. Society survived because many who were mistreated had no ability to retaliate, they just had to suck it up and accept that whatever was done to them, was done to them.

Why would there be no evil without god and satan? Why would there be evil even if god existed? All you would have is god’s actions and words versus satan’s actions and words. Who decides which of those is evil, and on what basis? For one, no one can seem to point out from a true clinical reason why it should not be done less keeping order, but keeping order can be done vengeance or not; and has been. The closest thing said about it is that is a concept, not anything you can measure, see, hear, touch or subject to experiments so it doesn’t exist unless it can. Since this is about an action man does I could pose the same questions. Why or where would evil come from if not from Satan and who determined that? Why would something be evil simply because men said it was? Where is evil manifested and who determined that is correct?

@SavoirFaire My point is that your question seems to assume that the situation without God is different from the situation with God. It is, that is why people have to, or try to keep bringing God into it. I clearly said go about is as if there is no God, to tackle it fully from a man-side perspective. Avoiding vengeance to hold back chaos doesn’t address if vengeance on a whole is OK to do because vengeance doesn’t necessarily destabilize every areas it runs unchecked.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Vengeance is bad because two wrongs don’t make a right. If you don’t have a wrong to begin with, you can’t have more than one to make the concept of right.

@Hypocrisy_Central You say that people keep bringing God into it, but you must be talking about events happening elsewhere. For as far as this question is concerned, the only people who have mentioned God are @ragingloli and myself. And both of us have mentioned Him only to question in what way His existence would be at all relevant to determining what is good and what is evil.

The moral status of vengeance is completely unaffected by the existence or non-existence of God. If vengeance is wrong, God does not enter the picture in the explanation of why it is wrong. God merely declaring it wrong is not sufficient. Why should I care about His opinion? From whence comes His authority? Is it because he’s more powerful? Then it’s the same “might is right” mentality you mention in the OP.

Sin is merely the name for a violation of God’s law. If that’s enough to make something immoral, then a world without God can still have immorality insofar as it can have laws. But this, I think, is the wrong way to think about morality. We are morally mature when we stop needing external reasons to be kind or friendly and not to be cruel or hostile.

People who are terribly concerned with why we should act in such ways, or who insist on reasons like “God says so” or “that’s objectively right/wrong,” seem to be focused on things that are ultimately irrelevant. Just be kind, just be friendly. Don’t do it because you’re afraid that God or the universe will be disappointed otherwise. That is the mindset of a child.

@Hypocrisy_Central

Your example isn’t one describing something most would understand as revenge. Revenge involves doing wrong to someone who has wronged you.

The event you describe is preventing someone from harming a member of your family. It’s defense of others.

And the kidnapping represents one of the more universally accepted moral wrongs: one cannot impose one’s will on another by force merely for one’s own benefit.

@Hypocrisy_Central
It can certainly be measured.
Good is a description, like big or strong.
The concepts big and strong are meaningless without a standard. If someone says big, one also has to say “by what standard” i.e. what are we comparing to?
Standards are certainly established by convention. For example, a Jack Russell terrier would not be conventionally regarded as a big dog.
But some standards are established by nature itself.
Moral standards are among these.
If we say good, then we must also ask, by what standard or good for what?
Since human beings make choices, and since they are mortal, and since their choices make a difference between life (and in the human case, not just life, but life AS a human being), then the good would be that choice which enables their existence. The “not good” would be that which threatens their existence.
Many people have been convinced that morality has to do with how they deal with others. This is simply propaganda from the political church, or a controlling government.
How we treat others is established by social convention.
And in many cases, these correspond to objective moral principles. But not always. In some cases, they are in conflict with the facts of reality.
For example, it is a natural fact that a person must recognize, find, and harvest or produce food in order to survive. If they do not they will starve.
It is not a natural fact that human beings MUST recognize, find, and harvest or produce and then donate food to those who cannot or will not.
Not saying people should not be charitable. They should, because it clearly makes us feel useful and helpful, and these are human values.
But there is nothing in nature that says that we MUST do that.

@Hypocrisy_Central Right, so? Doesn’t mean that vengeance is right.

@SavoirFaire If vengeance is wrong, God does not enter the picture in the explanation of why it is wrong.* Them with God out of the picture, why is it wrong? It maybe illogical or cause more problems later but that in itself don’t make vengeance wrong, even if the byproduct of it is less than helpful. Am I to believe vengeance is wrong because a group of men said it was wrong? How would that be different from believing some other source?

Don’t do it because you’re afraid that God or the universe will be disappointed otherwise. That is the mindset of a child. To say a logical and natural concept of humans if left to their own devices is said to be altered because a group of men derived the concept some time ago and perpetuated it through the centuries is a mindset I would be scared to even fathom, but sheep comes to mind.

@iamthemob Revenge involves doing wrong to someone who has wronged you. At least we have that agreement. It also illustrates the whole point, what one man or group feels is wrong to them, another would not care. If it happens to be a law degreed by a power over that land or those people makes no difference. The only difference is that the vengeance take a set course of action, carried out by those in charge and not by individuals. Take that vehicle away the need to even things up which some call justice still remains.

And the kidnapping represents one of the more universally accepted moral wrongs: one cannot impose one’s will on another by force merely for one’s own benefit. As said by who? There have been many instances, time and situations where if you can take it, you took it while the picking was good. If they have a way to stop you, fine, if they didn’t they hid until you left. What universal commission in what nation said that and what makes them correct? They have more numbers and more guns to enforce it or extract a form of revenge on those who defy it? Kidnapping and worse might be less accepted in these times and in most of today’s society but just because the ”today society” deems it wrong makes it so?

@josie Good is a description, like big or strong.
The concepts big and strong are meaningless without a standard. If someone says big, one also has to say “by what standard” i.e. what are we comparing to? Good as I hear it being applied to is an action, one of which many would have a different determination. It dose not matter if I believe a person is strong if a large rock rolls on my ankle and they have the physical ability to lift it off it doesn’t matter if I think they are weak or not, they can get the job done. If they can out run a dog chasing them, they are fast, no matter what I think about it.

But some standards are established by nature itself. Vengeance, hatred, are not one of them, and you can hardly apply love, compassion, forgiveness, and jealousy as we know it to nature either.

If we say good, then we must also ask, by what standard or good for what? That is what I am asking. Who is establishing this standard? Why should I trust them? I should trust them on that simply because they have larger numbers and more guns? Where and how I base my standard on you don’t agree, where you want to base your standard on I don’t agree. If you believe my standard is wrong and merely propaganda how is the standard you follow if one can even be identified, any better?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir It might not be seen like that to you, but to the person that came out on top evening the score, it so was coorect.

@Hypocrisy_Central Well, obviously it seems correct but it isn’t.

@Hypocrisy_Central The point is, you or anybody else can preach what you think is good or bad. But if the measuring standard can change over time, or according to faith or geography, then it is arbitrary. It really has no value as a true thing, unless it has a basis in reality.
I already explained why vengeance may or may not be “bad”. In some cases, the pursuit of justice is not vengeance at all. It is simply a rational activity. In some cases it is simply a reflex, apart from human reasoning.
Anyway. I have made my point. I really don’t have much more to offer. Thanks for the question. Lurve for you. Lots of comments here, not much GQ for you. I really have never understood that.

Because of what we’ve made of it in our cultures, through the concept of morality. Even if that may originally have been shaped from spiritual beliefs, it’s in the modern cultural systems now as something we’ve basically decreed as either good or bad. Regardless of things like laws and social limitations/boundaries/standards, what morality brings is like a tree on the side of the road.
Whether one agrees or not, we’ve shaped the unspoken rules of things like vengeance and what they relate to, and basically live by them in our every day lives. Or at the very least, make claims thereof. Generally, I mean.

Now I’m not setting anything in stone about whether vengeance is good or bad, but I do observe a pretty significant consensus on the issue.

@Josie Thanks for the question. Lurve for you. Lots of comments here, not much GQ for you. I really have never understood that. Thanks for the reminder…I always forget ;)

@josie Lots of comments here, not much GQ for you. I really have never understood that. Well, that would be a whole other issue. I guess when you really challenge people and leave them with little actual defense they don’t tend to want to reward you for that. I could say it is because you are new, but you aren’t, so I will say you have not been at the wrong places at the right times; nothing new here. By the time I get to 20k it will be in foreclosure too. ;-)

But if the measuring standard can change over time, or according to faith or geography, then it is arbitrary. I agree with you that much in context, it comes down to one’s standards however they came by them, even if they don’t know how they got to be.

@Symbeline Now I’m not setting anything in stone about whether vengeance is good or bad, but I do observe a pretty significant consensus on the issue. Lurve that, thank you for a sound answer well though out.

Since I’m already at this state of non-belief, I see it all as merely actions, and actions have consequences which vary from lethal to arousing. The only question that I have is whether or not the course of action has significant value to me. If not, I probably won’t do it, thus “evil” or “good” action avoided or executed.

@Hypocrisy_Central
You are infusing a premise that begs the question. You state that good cand evil annot be defined in absence of God. Then you fail to explain why that is but instead you base that on your notion that one needs god to define good and evil. To me it seems a circular reasoning.

Would you say that things are good if and only if they please God? Or would things please God because they are good?

@whitenoise You are infusing a premise that begs the question. You state that good cand evil annot be defined in absence of God. Basically the closest anyone has come to describe vengeance is a concept, not anything that can be weighed, measured, seen, held, or smelled. Popular pundits say anything like that is no realer than the Tooth Fairy. I keep hearing vengeance is bad because society deemed it so. Where did they get that notion from, some guru way at the top of a mountain in some cave? If it was passed down through the centuries from generation to generation is still started somewhere? Where and how did it come to past that vengeance was bad? If you were the person wronged you certainly believe vengeance is good if you evened the score or bested the person whom you feel done you wrong, not so much if you were the person who got paid back in spades.

You tell me, why is vengeance wrong other than a group of people forcing people not to do it because they have greater numbers and more guns, and will punish you, (maybe a form of vengeance against those who go against the establishment), if you do.

@Hypocrisy_Central You ask why, with God out of the picture, is vengeance wrong. But you have not answered my question: why, with God in the picture, is it wrong? We cannot begin to address the issue until you stop dodging this question.

As for the second part of your answer, it doesn’t seem to respond to anything I personally said. My statements about laws, for instance, were all given as conditionals not as assertions. If you would please rewrite your answer in English, I would be most obliged.

@Hypocrisy_Central

Your assertions are based on two problematic assumptions:

(1) That might makes right, and
(2) Without higher authority on morality, morality is subject to absolute moral relativism.

As to (1), the fact that one is more powerful than another, or has a more powerful group, does not mean that what they do based on that is morally correct or acceptable. In fact, I would be surprised if you can find any significant number of people who claim that it is morally correct to take something from someone for yourself merely because you can.

As to (2), there are many atheistic individuals who do not deny the existence of some form of general moral authority – but that it is based on people, biologically or based on reasoned analysis. Buddha, in fact, found Gods irrelevant to moral philosophy, and produced one of the most profound moral systems in history, one that is based on the assertion that we are always erring and subjective because our perceived reality is always false, but that we can get to a better moral system by contemplation.

@SavoirFaire But you have not answered my question: why, with God in the picture, is it wrong? We cannot begin to address the issue until you stop dodging this question. I am not dodging any question. I didn’t place God in the equation because that would make it too hard to answer or easy to dismiss by those who do not believe in God so anything connected to God they want to ceremoniously say it is all bunk.

I can answer your question though, because I can clearly articulate why with God vengeance would be wrong and furthermore, not done; all that even if God did not exist. Vengeance would be wrong from a God size perspective because the Bible commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves for one. It also admonishes us away from violence and such because such would be sin. By having a belief in that, even if it were untrue, would keep people from vengeance. As long as vengeance would be wrought in sin, believers have reason and need to avoid it.

If you would please rewrite your answer in English If you can comment on it, you can read English, so there is no need.

@iamthemob Your assertions are based on two problematic assumptions:
(1) That might makes right,… Might does make right. The only reason many people are not gravitating to vengeance outside of a higher entity keeping them from it, is the fact that the law or the military will deprive them of their liberty, money, or life if they do. Without those deterrents, the only other thing that will keep them from it is the fear they could not best the person they sought vengeance and will suffer double

As to (2), there are many atheistic individuals who do not deny the existence of some form of general moral authority – but that it is based on people, biologically or based on reasoned analysis. Biology? Animals do not have a working construct of revenge, so where does this biology come from in humans and why not all the animal kingdom? Natural reasoning is if someone does something to you, that you want to pay them back the same way or worse. The reason for that is then they won’t victimize you again because they know they won’t get away with it without retaliation. There is no biological reason for vengeance. There is many reasonable ideals on why vengeance is good if there is no consequence other than the person you harmed or injure you will inflict further injury. There is no fear that by doing so you condemn your soul. Only lost of life, property or liberty deters.

@Hypocrisy_Central You say ”I am not dodging any question.” Well, you aren’t anymore. But you were previously. I asked why vengeance would be wrong if God existed. Since that is a conditional, it cannot be dismissed by saying “but God doesn’t exist.” So your reasons for avoiding it are really quite nonsensical.

Regardless, you have finally answered. Your response, however, boils down to “because God says so (or because we think God says so).” But so what? Why does God’s say-so matter? This is the underlying question that gets at the root of the issue. Answer me that and we can go further.

Also, my ability to comment on your second point was limited to noticing it was incoherent. All that proves is that I can recognize you were trying to say something, not that you actually succeeded. If you wish to admit you were speaking nonsense and abandon the point, very well. Otherwise, please rewrite it in words that make sense.

@SavoirFaire You say ”I am not dodging any question.” Well, you aren’t anymore. Have you stated why vengeance is not good? I must have missed it. All you seem to be doing is questioning if God should or should not be involved. So, if God is involved you can say I don’t believe God is not real so therefore anything He says about vengeance don’t count. From a secular standpoint, why is vengeance not good or OK? Let not go with because it is universally repugnant or the global community says so or something lame like that. Everyone on the planet don’t believe vengeance is so repugnant. How are you or any group to say they are wrong? For those who say vengeance is bad, who makes them correct over those who would advocate it? Your chance to answer up, or duck, dodge and hide.

@Hypocrisy_Central

(1) If you can point out how most people over time and globally have had as part of their accepted moral code that “might makes right” objectively, that would be interesting.

The problem with your claim is that you are now asking about a situation where there is absolutely no authority whatsoever. Where we as a people agree on laws, it is an expression much of the time of the moral will of the people.

Therefore, the exit of God stage left does not eliminate all authority, and men can determine on general basic principles how they want to live, and what is generally good for men and bad for them (e.g., what is moral).

Those decisions are what we consider moral authority, enacted through legal authority much of the time.

(2) The primary motivation for revenge is rarely concern for future safety. It is simple anger. Concern for ensuring it doesn’t occur again would result in handing the issue, arguably, to governing authorities so that maximum resources can be spent to ensure that safety.

Dear @Hypocrisy_Central

The reason why vengeance would be wrong is exact the same reason it is wrong to those that believe in a higher power. Or actually it may be that it is only truly wrong to those that do not believe in a higher power.

I asked you “Would you say that things are good if and only if they please God?” for a reason. Unfortunately you didn’t answer it. The question is close to what is known as the Euthyphro dilemma.

Simplified: If god is the basis for the definition of good and wrong, as you imply, then there is a serious problem. Then plunder and rape, for instance, would be OK as would be child sacrifice through ritual cannibalism, if that would please God. God would be randomly choosing what would be right or wrong. That seems not the case. After all God isn’t random. If on the other hand God isn’t randomly choosing right and wrong and he has reasons for His choice, then right and wrong are not depending on the existence of God, since there are other criteria then his whim.

So: if your premise is right and the definition of right and wrong is dependent on God, then vengeance isn’t intrisically wrong at all. It is merely something that displeases God. If your premise is wrong and the definition isn’t dependent on the God, then vengeance is (or at least could be) intrinsically wrong.

Now this in my mind shows that your premise is at least questionable, if not wrong.

Now to answer your question:
Let me first define vengeance as to prevent a semantical discussion: vengeance is the act of intentionally inflicting harm to someone that has done harm to you.

This is wrong, from my perspective, since doing harm to someone else is not the opposite of being harmed. It therefore doesn’t compensate the harm that was done to you, but merely doubles (or at least increases) the overall amount of harm. Even if one would say that guaranteed vengeance would prevent future harm to you, then this would be questionable. There may be other more effective ways of prevention for instance, without having to inflict harm first. The other reason is that the preventive effect is likely non-existent or outweighed by two other effects. 1) Vengeance evokes more vengeance. 2) The threat of vengeance only deters when it is credible and may therefore even invite greater levels of harm to yourself as to prevent vengeance. Dead people will not inflict vengeance for instance.

Sorry for the long post.

@iamthemob The problem with your claim is that you are now asking about a situation where there is absolutely no authority whatsoever. Where we as a people agree on laws, it is an expression much of the time of the moral will of the people. What I am saying is this authority people keep speaking of is only relevant to say if vengeance is bad or good because the authorities have more numbers and certainly more guns. In short, might makes the right because they can enforce what they believe is right. If everyone was on such high moral turpitude naturally, millions of cops would be out of work. But people have a natural affinity to take what is not there and it is the threat of jail that keeps many from acting. Some will not do it because they respect ownership rights of others, and others don’t care at all and do act with the hope of avoiding the consequences of the authorities.

Therefore, the exit of God stage left does not eliminate all authority, and men can determine on general basic principles how they want to live, and what is generally good for men and bad for them (e.g., what is moral). If people believe that if you do something to me you will get paid back, why would they not believe that was right, and moral? You keep using ”moral,” from whose perspective? Again, if used from a the collective thought of people how do they instill that to the masses and get them to comply? Simply because they pulled it out of their wazoo somehow what makes it right other then the fact they have the power to enforce it on people?

@whitenoise The reason why vengeance would be wrong is exact the same reason it is wrong to those that believe in a higher power. How so? A person that doesn’t even believe there is anything higher than man what would make them believe vengeance was sinful? That is gonzo logic to me.

So: if your premise is right and the definition of right and wrong is dependent on God, then vengeance isn’t intrisically wrong at all. Wh-wh-what!?! Man has no choice to choose vengeance, vengeance goes against the commandments of compassion, loving your neighbor as yourself, and one of the biggest, forgiveness. Unless God sanctioned one to carry out an act against someone or a nation then vengeance would be sinful. To try to graft in what pleases God or not, none of which makes any difference to those who don’t believe if it doesn’t please God, by the Bible it is sin, thus the believer would use that as a reason for not acting on vengeance.

This is wrong, from my perspective, since doing harm to someone else is not the opposite of being harmed. The operative word here is your perspective, now we are getting traction. Where did your perception come from, God or man; even if it was by way of your father and his father and his father before him? If that is the case somewhere back in history some mortal man said ”I decree vengeance as bad”, and thus it was. Leaving no real reason to call vengeance bad less some man started calling it bad.

Vengeance evokes more vengeance. Only if certain conditions are evident:
• If there is someone left to act on it if the original person to whom the vengeance was acted upon is deceased.
• If the person whom the vengeance was acted upon feels they can return the vengeance and prevail.

If the person to whom the vengeance was acted upon or their agents or people feel that trying to act on the vengeance would not be successful but bring about more loss to them, then vengeance will not begat more vengeance.

Sorry for the long post. Don’t mind me, take as much space as you need to try and state your case. I love it.

Vengeance can only be intrinsically wrong if there are actual reasons for it.
Being displeasing to god is not a reason, just as being displeasing to a white supremacist is not a reason for black being wrong, even if the white supremacist were god.
If god thinks something is wrong/immoral/a sin then that is just its subjective and ultimately meaningless opinion, unless god had actual, convincing reasons for holding that opinion, which would make the wrongness of the thing in question independent of god.

If god suddenly changed its opinion and decreed that from now on vengeance is good, does that make vengeance good?
Or would it merely expose the fact that god disliking vengeance without actual reasons is just as arbitrary as any random human disliking vengeance without reasons.

@Hypocrisy_Central “Have you stated why vengeance is not good?”

Yes, I have. But my main purpose has been to show that your question is loaded, and thus fallacious. You assume God can make a substantive difference to morality. He cannot.

“All you seem to be doing is questioning if God should or should not be involved.”

I am not questioning whether or not God should be involved. I am saying His involvement makes no difference. Those are not the same thing. There is no rationale for morality that is available to God that isn’t also available to men. If we accept your belief that might makes right, then the mightiest man (or group of men) determines whether or not vengeance is bad in a world without God. In other words, you yourself are appealing to a principle that could be applied even if God does not exist. I do not think it is a correct principle, but the point remains that your own view does not support the assumption embedded into your question.

It is also worth noting that believing that might makes right entails that morality is just as arbitrary as the moral relativism you have referred to as “lame.” For if morality is just whatever the mightiest says, it is variable at a whim. Your own view, then, is lame—and by your own standards. Furthermore, I see no reason to think that someone is right (in any sense of the word) merely because they can force their will upon someone and get away with it.

“So, if God is involved you can say I don’t believe God is not [sic] real so therefore anything He says about vengeance don’t count.”

Not only have I not tried to do anything like this, but it would be at odds with what I am trying to do. I have asked what role you think God plays in morality so that we can examine whether or not something else could play that role in a world without God. I have been trying to go about this Socratically, but you seem unwilling to look at your own assumptions. While you refuse to answer my questions, however, you have indicated your thoughts in responding to @iamthemob. As such, we can work around this problem.

“From a secular standpoint, why is vengeance not good or OK?”

There is no single secular standpoint, and many secular theories of morality exist. My own view is that there is no such thing as an objective or absolute morality in the traditional philosophical sense of the term. I think this is true regardless of whether or not God exists because I do not believe God could provide any basis for such a system of morality. Instead, I take morality to be something which was impressed upon us by evolution and which we took up as a social institution due to the benefits of cooperation. “Wrongness” is not a feature of the world, but rather a feature of our experience of the world. Yet as we are not the only beings in existence, how we personally feel about things is not the final word on what is acceptable. Morality then becomes a semi-cooperative social enterprise, which puts certain constraints on behavior—not because some external force will be upset by our actions or because we personally dislike them, but rather because they are inconsistent with the enterprise itself.

I notice that most vengence is based on a deity that professes that vengeance is a good, godly thing. Simply looking at the Arabian Peninsula shows what happens when you add god to the justice system. There are honor killings, beheading, family feuds, revenge killings, and suicide bombing of the infidels, all in the name of god.

In less religious countries, there are fewer revenge killings. I postulate that if god was completely removed from the populations’ philosophy, problems would be primarily solved using logic and reason and the killing would only be done by the deranged.

@ragingloli Man made God in his image. I think I see where you’re heading with this. We decide what’s right or wrong, but nothing ever confirms that, beyond how we feel about it.
I guess a lot of reasons are hard to argue though, I mean, nobody wants to get hurt or die.

@SavoirFaire “Have you stated why vengeance is not good?”
Yes, I have. No, you have spent time trying to disprove or invalidate a question that was not asked.

I am not questioning whether or not God should be involved. I am saying His involvement makes no difference. I stated quite clearly why God’s involvement makes a difference.

Man has no choice to choose vengeance, vengeance goes against the commandments of compassion, loving your neighbor as yourself, and one of the biggest, forgiveness. Unless God sanctioned one to carry out an act against someone or a nation then vengeance would be sinful. To try to graft in what pleases God or not, none of which makes any difference to those who don’t believe if it doesn’t please God, by the Bible it is sin, thus the believer would use that as a reason for not acting on vengeance.

If we accept your belief that might makes right, then the mightiest man (or group of men) determines whether or not vengeance is bad in a world without God. BINGO, now you are getting it. With no God, the only thing saying if vengeance is good or bad is whoever has the might to enforce that believe, or at least punish those who openly break it. We can go home now.

It is also worth noting that believing that might makes right entails that morality is just as arbitrary as the moral relativism you have referred to as “lame.” With just man and the here and now how can it not be? No one has pointed any logical reason why it would not apply.

…but you seem unwilling to look at your own assumptions. I have, and had from the beginning. You have not wanted to accept that if there were no God or high power to lay down the criteria of vengeance etc, then it had to come from men. That somewhere deep in the past some men/man pulled it out of his wazoo and said ”I dub vengeance bad”, then it was bad, and to prove it, anyone going against that came up lost of liberty, property or both.

There is no single secular standpoint, and many secular theories of morality exist. That right there stitches everything I said all up in a nice clean seam. Just as one group pulls out of their wazoo vengeance is bad, another group will see it as quite logical, and acceptable. Again, we can really go home now because there is no single voice of authority that can claim vengeance is not good. You see it, just don’t want to embrace it.

@Ron_C Simply looking at the Arabian Peninsula shows what happens when you add god to the justice system. There are honor killings, beheading, family feuds, revenge killings, and suicide bombing of the infidels, all in the name of god. Just because people do an action in the name of God does not mean it was of God. The soldiers guarding Abu Ghraib were their because the US placed them there but it was not an open US policy to do what they were doing.

@Hypocrisy_Central I find it stunning the extent to which you are unwilling to look at other people’s reasoning.

A person that doesn’t even believe there is anything higher than man what would make them believe vengeance was sinful? That is gonzo logic to me. I didn’t use the word sinful. Sin is a religious construct. I used the word wrong.

The biggest beef I have with you on this thread is that your reasoning sincerely scares me. Your implication that wrong (evil) is only wrong due to a definition by God means that you see nothing intrinsically wrong in this world. Since your reasoning about vengeance seems universal, you also say that killing babies is wrong because God has told us that through the bible.

Does that mean if God tomorrow reveals to you that killing babies is OK, it is OK, from then? That all that stops you from killing babies is the bible?

@RonC your remark regarding the Arabian peninsula is a disgusting example of populistic nonsensical propaganda.

You said that “Simply looking at the Arabian Peninsula shows what happens when you add god to the justice system. There are honor killings, beheading, family feuds, revenge killings, and suicide bombing of the infidels, all in the name of god. ”

Such things are in no way normal, nor are they accepted by law or the people that live there. Your statement seems not to be hindered by any knowledge of the area.

It would be like saying. Look at the United states… these people live for capitalism and care about nothing but money; their people are shooting each other in the streets, raping and plundering while drunk and serial killers are everywhere. The justice system doesn’t protect you when you’re poor and the rich get away with anything.

@whitenoise @whitenoise I didn’t use the word sinful. Sin is a religious construct. I used the word wrong. My mistake, guess I didn’t quite see where you were going, it wasn’t very clear to me.

Your implication that wrong (evil) is only wrong due to a definition by God means that you see nothing intrinsically wrong in this world. If there are things intrinsically wrong with the world, and it didn’t come from man/men who had the means to declare it and have it followed, where did it come from, and why not followed by everyone?

@Hypocrisy_Central I’m baffled.

You do not truly seem to be looking for a discussion. You invite people to challenge a premise and dismiss their arguments by repeating the premise. This thread has shown many reasons why vengeance would be wrong. But in your case… open your mind. Not just your heart.

There are many different theories on leading the good life. A whole field of science is dedicated to it: moral philosophy. Very interesting, I promise you. But you must be willing to open your mind to other people’s arguments.

@whitenoise You do not truly seem to be looking for a discussion. You invite people to challenge a premise and dismiss their arguments by repeating the premise. This thread has shown many reasons why vengeance would be wrong. But in your case… open your mind. Not just your heart. Because that is the only avenue anyone else has given. All it comes back to is vengeance is wrong because society deemed it wrong because it is immoral. It still have to start with one person to be spread to a group, than a larger group to even be close to global. Outside of that no one has come up with anything new. No one said it is innate, hard wired into one’s being like the fear of heights. That is was a chemical imbalanced or chemically induced. Just that it came from man and even that is arbitrary because there is not all in all definition of morality or why vengeance is bad or not. I am not thinking with my heart because in my heart I know vengeance is bad, and I know why. Other than the reason I have stated the arbitrary definition of a certain group, what is there that is concrete, something you can put your thumb on other than it coming from some men/man of the past?

But you must be willing to open your mind to other people’s arguments. I am and trying to steer them away from conjecture since they believe that is what I am using.

@whitenoise

First of all, I feel that many on this thread have tried to hand arguments to you why vengeance can be deemed wrong without a need for a God. So I wouldn’t want to reiterate on those.

However… you wonder if this disapproval of vengeance would be innate. That is an interesting thought again and fairly recently more and more evidence leads to many of our morales being hard coded. Chimpansees, for instance, also show morally guided behavior and many of our moral values have a tendency to keep popping up over various cultures, independent on religious background. The Geneva convention on basic human rights is shared by most – if not all – successful cultures.

Now again, whether something is hard coded into our system is a totally different question from your original one. You asked “With out (sic) any higher powers to determine good and evil why would vengeance be bad?” That is what I and – as it seems – others try to answer.

Yourself seem to focus more on “Without any higher powers to determine good and evil how would we know whether vengeance is bad?

Well to answer that one… that is by continuous search for answers.

@Hypocrisy_Central “No, you have spent time trying to disprove or invalidate a question that was not asked.”

I am undermining an assumption, not a question. Again, those are different things.

“I stated quite clearly why God’s involvement makes a difference.”

The statement that you go on to quote was made in response to @whitenoise and not until after my fifth response to you here. It is unreasonable for you to think I’m going to read every response you make to every other person, especially if you do not direct me to it.

Regardless, your response does not work. It does not answer my basic question, which is why God has any authority. If your answer is “because might makes right and God is mightiest,” then this is still possible in a world without God. If the mightiest man (or group of men) commands compassion, love for neighbors, and forgiveness, we are in the same position as if God commands them.

“BINGO, now you are getting it. With no God, the only thing saying if vengeance is good or bad is whoever has the might to enforce that believe, or at least punish those who openly break it. We can go home now.”

If you read my response, however, you’ll notice it was a conditional. I said that if we accept your belief that might makes right, then whoever is mightiest makes the rules. But I don’t accept that belief—regardless of whether the mightiest entity is God, a man, or a group of men. You’ll also notice that I was asking if this is why you think God has authority and pointing out that it can apply even in his absence. It is part of my argument that God makes no difference.

“With just man and the here and now how can it not be?”

How can it not be that might makes right? Because the notion makes no sense. The concept of “rightness” is normative, whereas the concept of “mightiness” is descriptive. It may be true that whoever is mightiest can make things go his way, but that doesn’t mean it is right. The concept of “rightness” carries more with it.

“I have, and had from the beginning.”

No, you really haven’t. The best evidence for this is the fact that you are responding to my questions as if they are assertions. You are assuming that when I ask something, trying to get a better picture of what you think about certain things, I am making implicit assertions about the way things are. I am not. But you cannot tear yourself away from your preconceptions about why people might respond to this question in certain ways. Case in point:

“You have not wanted to accept that if there were no God or high power to lay down the criteria of vengeance etc, then it had to come from men.”

Show me where I have ever said anything contrary to this. While it does not logically follow from the premise “there is no God” that morality comes from men (it could be some natural feature of the universe, for instance), I have never once asserted that morality does not come from men. Indeed, I have explicitly stated that it is a social construction that grows out of evolutionary pressures. Perhaps you are confusing me with one of your other interlocutors? Or perhaps you think everyone who disagrees with you is exactly the same? In either case, you have simply assumed things about my moral beliefs that are not true.

“That somewhere deep in the past some men/man pulled it out of his wazoo and said ‘I dub vengeance bad,’ then it was bad, and to prove it, anyone going against that came up lost of liberty, property or both.”

I think the story is more complicated than this, as noted previously. There are natural features of things like cruelty and vengeance that make them more likely to become prohibited than things like kindness or helpfulness. I have not, however, said that there is any mystical property of the universe that makes vengeance bad in some absolute or objective sense. My main contention, however, is that the situation is no different if God exists. He’s just a bigger guy with a bigger gun, and He could not be a source of absolute and/or objective morality any more than nature, man, or anything else could be. That is my position.

“That right there stitches everything I said all up in a nice clean seam.”

Not really. I was pointing out that there is room for debate. Utilitarians and neo-Kantians think that there are ways of defending objective morality without God. Utilitarians, for instance, will say that happiness is objectively good, and so our moral duty is to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. The neo-Kantians, meanwhile, will argue that we are logically committed to certain courses of behavior qua rational beings. While I do not hold either of these views, the success of either one would mean there was a strict right and wrong even without God in the picture.

Moreover, there is no single theistic standpoint, and many theistic theories of morality exist. So the same argument you make about disagreement applies even if God does exist. Thus we return to my basic point: the existence or non-existence of God makes no difference to our moral situation.

“Again, we can really go home now because there is no single voice of authority that can claim vengeance is not good.”

And this is true even if God exists. If I do not need to listen to the mightiest man or group of men, I don’t need to listen to God either.

“You see it, just don’t want to embrace it.”

I have embraced it. I’ve embraced it for a long time. You just assume otherwise. You cannot get over your preconceptions about my moral beliefs.

@whitenoise I used the Arabian Peninsula only a an example of tribal areas using religion as a basis for tribal traditions of using lethal vengeance to right perceived wrongs. I could have used any region in the world like the hills of West Virginia, African tribal wars and genocide based on religious meanings to extract vengeance.

Even the U.S. prison system that uses Christian values to change our prison system from reforming criminals to a punishment system that ignores reformation and concentrates on punishment and vengeance.

It’s nice to imagine, like “Lord of the Flies”, every man for himself. As I always say,“two wrongs don’t make a right, but it sure hell makes it even!

@whitenoise Chimpansees,[sic] for instance, also show morally guided behavior and many of our moral values have a tendency to keep popping up over various cultures, independent on religious background. There is a lot done in the animal kingdom that done by humans would seem down right barbaric. To try to take the nice parts of certain species and say they are an example of humans behavior to me is a non-started. Who is to say we are more like wolves, or elephants and less like sharks?

Now again, whether something is hard coded into our system is a totally different question from your original one. It might be but, that what seems to come from the question because no one seem to can answer the original question but to say ”vengeance is bad, that is it”. With nary a shred of evidence other than some nebulous authority or worldly brotherhood of man said so. How these authorities or world society came up with the concept that it was wrong less the masses just decided so, no one seem to have a clue.

@SavoirFaire Regardless, your response does not work. It does not answer my basic question, which is why God has any authority. Been there, done that.

said that if we accept your belief that might makes right, then whoever is mightiest makes the rules. But I don’t accept that belief—regardless of whether the mightiest entity is God, a man, or a group of men. Then who do you believe and why do you believe them/him/her to the point you will blindly follow what they say of vengeance with blind allegiance?

The concept of “rightness” is normative, whereas the concept of “mightiness” is descriptive. It may be true that whoever is mightiest can make things go his way, but that doesn’t mean it is right. The concept of “rightness” carries more with it. Now we are going to hat dance around semantics. Let me make it simply clear. No matter what you call it vengeance is natural and normal not to mention logical if there are no higher power or spiritual influence. You can call that what you want.

The best evidence for this is the fact that you are responding to my questions as if they are assertions. I have responded to your question. Just because you don’t believe a slider over the outside corner of the plate is not a legal pitch the strike is still there. You have yet to come up with anything other than conjecture why man finds vengeance avoidable in a natural sense with no influence. I ask again where does this influence come from in it geneses?

I have explicitly stated that it is a social construction that grows out of evolutionary pressures Again, we can go home now. If man came up with the concept it is no more provable than the Big Bang. People just pulled it out of their wazoo, said it was bad and thus it was. It has no standing on being evil, good, proper or anything. It is essentially equal to men who deemed slavery proper. So long as there were no one to make them act a different way, their thinking for them was correct. In short, it is a concept that is no different from if driving is good or bad.

Utilitarians and neo-Kantians think that there are ways of defending objective morality without God. Utilitarians, for instance, will say that happiness is objectively good, and so our moral duty is to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. All that is moot, they are just men with a concept that is unproven and can’t be proved.

While I do not hold either of these views, the success of either one would mean there was a strict right and wrong even without God in the picture. Another moot point. How can someone standing in the same pit as everyone else say how high the walls of the pit is? They can’t, they have just an ideal that don’t apply to everyone and not everyone believes to for them to say what is right, good, proper for everyone else is ludicrous.

Moreover, there is no single theistic standpoint, and many theistic theories of morality exist. Did I mention this is not about what theist or people of faith would believe or not. It is for those who _do not believe to say how and man can decide if vengeance is good or bad. Man can’t any more than he can make water good or bad, right or wrong, proper or immoral.

Thus we return to my basic point: the existence or non-existence of God makes no difference to our moral situation. That is where you are bogged down at, the issue is not about what is moral or not, because there are many levels or ideals or morality. This question is of a singular action and that is vengeance. Clear your cache files and just stick with that. But it is all moot now because where you are citing and coming from is all man-based conjecture. No different from a bunch of men saying the Moon is made of cheese or the world is flat and thus it is until proven otherwise.

And this is true even if God exists. If I do not need to listen to the mightiest man or group of men, I don’t need to listen to God either. You taught yourself that vengeance was not the thing to do? If you learned it from someone on Earth than I guess you were listening to man, the men you do not need to listen to. Then what makes their word to true that you chose to listen to them for?

You cannot get over your preconceptions about my moral beliefs. Curious, I was the one saying that vengeance could and might be good if it was just man and his own being. I certainly wasn’t the one who kept injecting morality into the conversation, especially a morality they have no ideal where it came from or how it got started.

I guess it boils down to to you believing that man is not inherently good and goodness needs to be installed into persons by an authority. (If needs be by threat and punishment, although that is taking another thread on corporal punishment out of context, I know.)

I belief that good and wrong are not concepts made up by anyone. They exist as is.

Whether any authority tells me I am right or wrong to rape and kill young children, doesn’t change anything to the rightness or wrongness of doing so. I hate the thought of people relying on external sources for that guidance.

The only impact such an external authority would have, in my opinion is to the culpability of a person. When an authority leads you in good belief to do wrong acts, these acts are still wrong, but one may not be culpable for not knowing better.

To conclude by an example: were a deranged person to hear the voice of God, telling him that he should go out and kill the first ten people he comes across, then his actually doing so would be wrong. Even if it were truly God talking to him. If and only if you disagree on this with me and say that in that case the act would be a good act, then I will concede that your reasoning is sound. It would make you scary, but at least you would make sense.

@whitenoise I guess it boils down to you believing that man is inherently good and goodness needs not be installed into persons by an authority, because it is innately in man. I guess sense goodness is a trait that springs in man by default all those who kill, rape, assault, maim, plunder, steal, etc know they shouldn’t do those things but do them out of choice. Guess they must be demented or deviants.

I belief that good and wrong are not concepts made up by anyone. They exist as is. Where, the bottom of a well? A tree is just there, no matter what I or anyone else want to call it, it will still have the same leaves, bark, and roots no matter who sees it. If good, evil, right or wrong was just there, who is to say which is which? What man got the privilege to name one from the other? The guy who discovered it or invented it?

To conclude by an example: were a deranged person to hear the voice of God, telling him that he should go out and kill the first ten people he comes across, then his actually doing so would be wrong. If he were deranged he would not really be hearing God.

@Hypocrisy_Central
Tour dodging the question by manipulating my words…. I give up.
(You conveniently left out ‘Even if it were truly God talking to him.’)

It bothers me though that you ask a question, allow me to invest my time in answering it and then act in such a unsporty way.

@whitenoise Unsporting, because I ask you to add some backbone to your assertions? You say good and wrong just is, as if it springs up like toadstools after a brisk spring shower but have no explanation how or how one knows when you can’t see, feel, smell, or measure it. You say if you don’t believe man why should you believe God, yet can’t explain where or how your morality came about if you did not use any cues from your family, friends, or school. You are coming up with a lot and I am just asking you to clarify how it came to be.

Unsporting, because you dodge questions, twist my words and refute straw man arguments.

I didn’t talk about “if you don’t believe man why should you believe God”. Whether God exists or not has no relevance to my reasoning.

I didn’t imply “morality springs up like toadstools after a brisk spring shower”

You say that I “can’t explain where or how morality came about if one did not use any cues from family, friends, or school.”… that is not something you can judge about. I didn’t try.

I didn’t try, partly, because I am confronted by your stubbornness that morality without God is impossible anyway and partly because that topic is a little more complex than a single post in Fluther allows. I spend a considerable time of my life studying moral philosophy. My experience is that there is little use to continue a discussion if one bases is a false premise. The topic merits more than simplification to appease your aggression against reason.

I fundamentally disagree with your reasoning that ‘badness’ (for lack of a better word) is dependent on God defining it. That is why I asked your opinion as follows:

Were a deranged person to hear the voice of God, telling him that he should go out and kill the first ten people he comes across, then his actually doing so would be wrong. Even if it were truly God talking to him.

You dodged that question, likely since that causes a conflict in your belief system, but I am not sure why. Unsporting it is, or just careless reading on your side.

@whitenoise Unsporting, because you dodge questions, twist my words and refute straw man arguments. I cannot dodge the question because the original question was mine. I set the construct of the question, It was up to you to explain it away if you did not believe it. The tenets of the question was very basic, nothing confusing about it.

I didn’t try, partly, because I am confronted by your stubbornness that morality without God is impossible anyway and partly because that topic is a little more complex than a single post in Fluther allows. Don’t use that excuse. There is no limit on words you can use to make your point, but if it takes that many words to try and make it, it may not be a strong point at all.

I spend a considerable time of my life studying moral philosophy. From a book some man wrote, right?

My experience is that there is little use to continue a discussion if one bases is a false premise. The topic merits more than simplification to appease your aggression against reason. Only if you could show it as false, which you have not.

Were a deranged person to hear the voice of God, telling him that he should go out and kill the first ten people he comes across, then his actually doing so would be wrong. Even if it were truly God talking to him. I will school you a little on answering a question, even when that has nothing to do with the original question you keep using needless question to duck. First of all a derange man would not have the mind to discern God’s voice anymore than a 5yr old could. If this happen to be a special deranged man and was able to hear God he would know to test what he was hearing with scripture and thus see it dosen’t jive and not listen. To say God would have a man sin for arbitrary reasons would make about as much sense as gravity lessening 80% of its power so the crippled helicopter full of Boy Scouts could have a soft landing.

Whether any authority tells me I am right or wrong to rape and kill young children, doesn’t change anything to the rightness or wrongness of doing so. I hate the thought of people relying on external sources for that guidance. Your feeling it is wrong to kill children, where or who told you it was wrong? If your parents never told you that, you never heard it was a crime or anything like that you would have come to that anyhow. Then how do you explain wars and prisons? People knew it was wrong but chose to do it anyhow? Those who do or did it have a reprobated mind. Let us see if you can stay on point and answer those questions with out ducking it.

@Hypocrisy_Central
The question was yours? So you cannot dodge mine? Hey…. You posted this in the social section. If you wanted merely an answer, then post it in general.

Don’t confuse reason with excuse.

With regard to the false premise… You don’t allow me to show the falseness of the premise. Primarily by dodging questions.

I asked you a serious question that you have still not answered. You condescendingly modified it and then answered the modified version. Straw man.

And yes… I studied from a book and from discussion, and even through classes at university. I read the bible, that is a book. Also written by man. What’s your point? Do you object to acquiring knowledge from a book? Do you object to the bible? I don’t get it.

Do you seriously suggest that it isn’t wrong to rape and kill children if no one told you that?
Again… You seem to confuse wrongness from culpability.

I asked you a serious question that you have still not answered. You condescendingly modified it and then answered the modified version. Straw man.
I asked you a serious question that you have still cannot answered. You conveniently use stall tactics and semantics to avoid the question because you have no answer. Then spin off on questions that doesn’t even address the OP. Dodging. Like everything else in life you learned it from another human so you are going by what they told you was good or bad so your values are their values indirectly, it is OK to admit that.

It seems to me there are very good reasons not to answer this question directly. The question in the OP is a bad one, but it raises issues worth addressing. So someone might want to comment without falling in line with the false options laid out by @Hypocrisy_Central.

I say the question is a bad one because it involves assumptions that may not be true. First, it says that without God or Satan there are no sin or evil. Now, I understand why there would be no sin because sin is just a violation of God’s law. Without a God, there is no law of God. Therefore, there is no sin.

But let’s look at this logically. If sin is breaking God’s law, then “sin” is just a special word for “illegal” in God’s language. Committing a sin is morally the same as breaking the law. So really, sins are like crimes. That means the equivalent of sin in a world without God is breaking the law. And since we can have governments and laws in a world without God, that means we can have crimes. So we can’t have sin, but we can have something that is morally the same.

It is not logical, however, to say that there can be no evil without God. In fact, it begs the question to say that there cannot be evil because evil is just a kind of immorality and the question asks how a particular act can be immoral if there is no God. So saying that there can be no evil without God is fallacious, and being fallacious is illogical. So the question does not follow basic logic. It might be right, but we can’t just assume it is if we want to have a logical discussion.

And that’s the other problem with the question. It says in advance “don’t give these answers” even though those answers might be the right ones. The weird thing is that @Hypocrisy_Central thinks they are the right answers, but he won’t let people give them. He also thinks they are the right answers if God exists. But if they are bad answers without God, then they are bad answers with God. Or if they aren’t bad answers with God, then they aren’t bad answers without God. So it’s a dishonest question and again not logical. That means it’s a bad question.

This is all logic and unflappable fact. I’m sorry that @Hypocrisy_Central has been so disrespectful in arguing with people. I think you’ve all done a good job, even if he can’t admit he is wrong.

@TypoKnig welcome to fluther. Well said. Stay around!

@TypoKnig I say the question is a bad one because it involves assumptions that may not be true. First, it says that without God or Satan there are no sin or evil. By all means then, please educate us all where the evilness comes from? Go at it in with the premise there is no spiritual influence at all. Where is evil? Can I fond it in the trees, under a rock, where? All that has been said, because no one can debunk it, is that what is wrong or evil is man created. So I guess if enough people decide on something that would make it correct? Off that logic if 10,000,000 people belief clouds are pieces of celestial cotton that is what it is. The clouds will do and act the way they will by nature no matter what any man thinks of it. No one has yet to prove that simply of nature, evolution, etc that there would be evil because if left to man, it is all some arbitrary belief like Big Foot, you believe it exist because you chose to believe it existed. If you have something more concrete, please elucidate. A clan of cannibals would see no evilness or wrongdoing to go about to neighboring clans and snatch a few people for dinner, but those who had an uncle or sister snatched away for the main course would see it as wrong or evil. Who is right? If the cannibals are the strongest clan in the land and no one can make them capitulate, they can say the are wrong all day but they can’t make them stop or administer any justice upon them because they have no might. If they banned together with many other clans so they have the superior numbers they can then subdue the cannibals and bring them to justice because they have more numbers and more weapons. Even a soda cracker and follow that.

I’m sorry that @Hypocrisy_Central has been so disrespectful in arguing with people. I think you’ve all done a good job, even if he can’t admit he is wrong. Wait, let me quit laughing 1st. If you had proven something else other than opinion and conjecture was right, them maybe I would. But since everyone wants to duck behind God, or dodge behind religion rather than answer one simple question, there is nothing showing me any more wrong than anyone else.

@Hypocrisy_Central “Been there, done that.”

You should have kept reading. I recognize that your view is “might makes right.” My point is that it doesn’t really answer the question. To say “might makes right” is really just to say “there is no such thing as right and wrong, there is only power and the ability to impose one’s preferences on others.” If God has authority because “might makes right,” then the mightiest of men has the same authority in a world where God does not exist. So if we accept your premise that “might makes right,” then the answer to your question is “without any higher powers to determine good and evil, vengeance would be bad if (and only if) the mightiest person says so.” In other words, the mightiest person is the highest power (in a non-euphemistic sense where “higher power” is not just a substitute for “deity”).

“Then who do you believe and why do you believe them/him/her to the point you will blindly follow what they say of vengeance with blind allegiance?”

More assumptions. At no point did I say that I have any sort of blind allegiance to the view that vengeance is wrong. Nor did I say that I have derived my beliefs regarding vengeance from some individual and group. It is true that we all get our start based on what our parents taught us, and this is as true of me as it is true of you: someone had to tell you that God exists and introduce you to the Bible (a book written by men, albeit men who claim to have been inspired by God). Regardless, the point is that neither of us came to this free of background or influence.

But to answer your question: the “who” that I believe is myself, and more specifically my capacity for reason. I evaluate the action or behavior, consider its effects (e.g., what a world that condones said action or behavior looks like vs. what a world that condemns said action or behavior looks like, how such an action or behavior contributes to future happiness vs. future misery, and so forth), and reach a conclusion about whether or not my life and the life of others is better with or without vengeance. When available, I will also consider arguments from other sources regarding the same issue.

Furthermore, I do not consider these issues in isolation as you are prompting us to do. My views about specific things such as vengeance are based on broader principles about right and wrong (a constantly evolving set of principles that I adjust based on new experiences, lessons, and arguments that I encounter). Morality is not something I simply accepted whole cloth from another and never thought about again. It is an ongoing area of investigation for me based on the underlying assumption that I am not perfect and should always be open to reconsidering my beliefs.

“No matter what you call it, vengeance is natural and normal, not to mention logical, if there are no higher power or spiritual influence.”

That something is natural in no way tells us anything about whether it is good or bad. To think otherwise is to run afoul of the appeal to nature fallacy. But it is unclear why you think it is logical. Presumably, you think it is illogical to exact vengeance in a world where God exists (and forbids it) because of the threat of punishment. But human beings can also punish one another for exacting vengeance. Even the mightiest human being can be taken down by a group of less mighty people. Everyone has moments of vulnerability, after all.

“I have responded to your question.”

Go back and reread. I didn’t say you haven’t responded to my questions. I said you responded to them as if they were assertions (which they were not).

“You have yet to come up with anything other than conjecture why man finds vengeance avoidable in a natural sense with no influence. I ask again where does this influence come from in it genesis?”

Not only have I answered this, my answer is literally the next thing you quoted in your last reply:

“I have explicitly stated that it is a social construction that grows out of evolutionary pressures.”

You can call this conjecture, but so is the entire existence of God (or any other putative higher power). So if that is a problem with my view, it is equally a problem with your own. And that, of course, has been my point all along: adding God to the picture doesn’t get you anything that cannot be had without Him.

“If man came up with the concept it is no more provable than the Big Bang.”

The Big Bang is provable (and disprovable)—by which I mean there are things we could learn in the future that would prove or disprove the theory—so this isn’t really the riposte you think it is. Furthermore, every concept we have is of human origin, including the concept of God. That’s part of what things like science and philosophy are about: investigating whether or not those concepts connect to anything real in the world (since God and the concept of God are not the same thing, just as right and wrong are not the same things as the concepts of right and wrong or theories about them).

“People just pulled it out of their wazoo, said it was bad and thus it was.”

This does not follow. People didn’t just flip a coin and say, “I guess we’ll say it’s wrong.” Our judgement is related to real things: feelings, experiences, relationships, consequences, etc. Saying that something is bad or wrong is a way of expressing its place in human life and interactions. That you want it to be something more is immaterial.

“It is essentially equal to men who deemed slavery proper. So long as there were no one to make them act a different way, their thinking for them was correct.”

Again, such a radical moral relativism doesn’t really follow. That morality is evolving doesn’t mean it’s just whatever we say it is. Things like slavery, for example, can be incompatible with our other moral principles even if we don’t all recognize it all the time. Furthermore, slavery was always controversial. There are arguments against it going back to the oldest philosophical texts we have.

In any case, we are again running up against your mistaken assumptions. You think that the only way for something to be good or bad is for it to be objectively good or bad, and you assume that everyone here is trying to defend precisely that view. But I do not believe that anything is objectively good or bad (something that we agree on if there is no God, though I go further and say it is true even if there is a God).

So your frustration and misunderstanding is largely based on a false assumption of what sort of view I am defending here (and also the mistaken assumption that I am primarily interested in defending my own views despite the fact that I have repeatedly noted that my main interest is undermining the presuppositions of your question).

“How can someone standing in the same pit as everyone else say how high the walls of the pit is?”

This is a strange question considering that this kind of calculation is one of the many things that math enables us to do.

“Did I mention this is not about what theist or people of faith would believe or not.”

Of course you did. But your question is based on presuppositions about what is true if God exists, so examining those presuppositions is essential to answering the larger question.

“Man can’t any more than he can make water good or bad, right or wrong, proper or immoral.”

But neither can God. That’s my point, and that point undermines the presupposition on which this question is based (a presupposition that you have already admitted is there).

“That is where you are bogged down at, the issue is not about what is moral or not, because there are many levels or ideals or morality. This question is of a singular action and that is vengeance.”

But vengeance does not stand alone. When evaluating whether something is right/wrong/good/bad/etc., we do so in the context of a set of moral principles. It is nonsense to ask someone to give a moral evaluation of vengeance without allowing them to reference morality.

“No different from a bunch of men saying the Moon is made of cheese or the world is flat and thus it is until proven otherwise.”

Do you really believe that a bunch of people saying that the Moon is made of cheese would make it true until proven otherwise? Because I don’t think that’s how facts work. The Moon has always been made of rock and metal regardless of what anyone thought.

“You taught yourself that vengeance was not the thing to do?”

I didn’t teach myself so much as I reached that conclusion. Learning and deliberation certainly played a role, however.

“If you learned it from someone on Earth than I guess you were listening to man, the men you do not need to listen to. Then what makes their word to true that you chose to listen to them for?”

Same question for you, but about God, Jesus, the veracity of the Bible, and so forth. These things were all introduced to you by another person. Do you not believe that there is a way to take the information you are given and evaluate it for yourself in order to reach conclusions?

“Curious, I was the one saying that vengeance could and might be good if it was just man and his own being.”

Irrelevant. My point wasn’t about what you were saying, it was about what you mistakenly believe I am saying.

“I certainly wasn’t the one who kept injecting morality into the conversation, especially a morality they have no idea where it came from or how it got started.”

Except that (1) the rightness or wrongness of vengeance is already a moral topic (meaning you can’t ask a question about the rightness or wrongness of vengeance without “injecting morality into the conversation”), and (2) your own morality is also something about which you have no idea where it came from or how it got started (or at least, no better idea than I have, and perhaps worse since the documentation of my own views is more recent and more reliably attested to than yours).

@Hypocrisy_Central My whole post was a parody of the pseudo-intellectual bullshit you spout on this website. That you failed to recognize it is hysterical. That you found it laughable is even funnier.