Dan seems to have articulated an absolute moral relativism. I can't go with the idea that harming others is simply bad fashion sense.
Harming others has never gone out of style. Just "enlightened", people need a thicker coating of bullshit excuses to sleep well when they do it.
Not speaking for Dan, but for me, knowing that my moral convictions are a function of my culture does not negate that they are my moral convictions. Indeed, it would be a logical fallacy if it did.
Well, what he's saying is that "good" and "evil" are arbitrary. That's certainly true, yet I've come to terms with the fact that I'm forcing my beliefs and standards on others.
I'm certainly not a religious person but I still think certain acts and certain people could be considered 'evil'. However, my list of 'evil' acts would be much more narrow than the traditional list of 'sins' held by most Western religions. For example, I don't think adultery is evil. But it is dishonest, hurtful, and is probably going to cause complications in your life and the life of your partner. So it's prudent to avoid that situation. I don't need an ancient holy book to tell me that cheating on my wife is going to cause me problems. That is self evident to me. But maybe it isn't so obvious to other people. Maybe most people don't think about the consequences of their actions. Maybe they need religion to give them that extra impetus to not do something that would end up causing harm to oneself and to others. If reason and logic are insufficient then perhaps the threat of eternal damnation will do the trick... For that matter, I don't think dishonesty is an evil thing in itself. Sometimes a lie is practical or necessary. But in general, I have found that it makes good sense to tell the truth, because it saves you from needless complications and I tend to feel more at peace with being forthright and not deceiving someone. I think people also respond more favorably to a person they see as honest and truthful. It just makes good sense. There are exceptions of course. It can be a gray area. What about taking another life? Surely that is something we can all agree is evil? Yet there are cases where it is necessary. Is a soldier evil for killing an enemy combatant? Is a housewife evil for killing an intruder intent on raping her? Gets kinda tricky defining evil in some cases. Context matters. Intent matters. I can't think of any context where rape or abuse of another person is justified, so those would count (to me) as evil things. Generally speaking, harming others for no good reason (whether psychologically, physically, or emotionally) would be the big no-no in my book. I think following a simple axiom of 'do no harm...' or 'do unto others...' should be enough for most people. I would expand this to include harm to societies or communities... although this could be a more complex thing to determine. Anarchist acts might be harmful to society in the short term, but what if it improves society in the long term? Justified? I don't know... Homosexual acts? Meh. If it involves consenting adults then it's none of my goddamned business and certainly would not fall under my definition of evil. Yet many folks do find it abhorrent, immoral, or an affront to god or whatever... So clearly what constitutes as 'evil' is not a fixed thing built into the fabric of the universe. I don't buy that. It is something we decide upon for ourselves or agree upon with others for society's benefit. And it only really applies to the human species. For the billions of years of the universe where humans did not exist, good and evil were meaningless concepts. Animals follow their nature, they don't make decisions based on ethics or morality. When we go extinct, all those notions will likely go away with us...
What, are they fucking 5 mentally? I'm not for babying people. I don't give a fuck how well intended it is, it's bad for people.
