RadicalReformer said:
I am sorry, I missed your response - so forgive the delay in responding.
Answering a question with a question really isn't an answer, is it? *smirk* You see, by asking me another question, you have not provided *your* answer. I know what I think on the subject, the point of the original question is to learn your understanding.
So - let's try again: "Why are a majority of people "repulsed"?
As for your question, I would suggest that because there is a divine standard one can have an understanding of right and wrong. Without a standard, there is nothing. It quickly comes down to "well, WHO are you to tell me what is right and wrong?"
You see, the problem with your second answer is just because a society has deemed it that way, doesn't mean it HAS to be that way or even that the society is CORRECT - it just happens that they are in the "majority". A society could easily deem that murder is "pleasurable" - in fact, I would suggest that societies that have declined and no longer exist found things "pleasurable" that they should not have - Roman society comes quickly to mind.
Well, I'm not trying to avoid your question; I merely was trying to make you consider the nature of it by asking you another question. People have all manner of pleasures and aversions, and one cannot always intellectualize these feelings.
And as I re-read your two questions, I noticed something peculiar. You ask me why are the majority of people repulsed. It seems to me that it was a rhetorical question; implicit in the question was a position that the reason a majority is repulsed is because there is some universal moral constant (God, in your case). To ask the question rhetorically (which states your position) is not a problem, until you proceed to your second question, which asks why should the majority decide. And since a majority deciding in my system is problematic for you, you have to admit that a majority deciding in your system (to order society morally) is also problematic, yes?
Onto my answer: I've made it plain that I think one is either pleasured or repulsed by murder, theft, etc, and that these are emotional responses, and therefore psychological. We all know most civilized peoples, nations, states and the like have deemed murder repulsive or 'bad' behavior, and this is because most peoples
feel that this is bad behavior. It is true that societies can devolve into a state where pleasure is found in immoral or bad behavior; but, humanity always manages to check this behavior and re-establish balance. So, the simple fact of the matter is that most people, religious or not, find murder or theft bad and this is reflected in society.
Ultimately, my position is that it is more authentic if morality first proceeds from the self than through religious authorities, the state, a deity, etc. Morality can be authentic whether you have a god or not. That is to say, they are not mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, it would seem to me that a deity would be more pleased if a person could be moral because it came from the authentic self rather than some fear of infernal eternity or a psychological desire to simply obey rules.
