RicOlie_2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

@ Ryan

Religious texts? Who said anything about those? What I am asking is how you can be so sure that using empathy and your brain are the way to discern good from evil? What about acting on what would help society survive the longest and be most productive? Why do you think that that is not a legitimate way to determine the difference between right and wrong?

You tell me?

(However for myself, I am sure that murdering half the planet to make life for the other half better is wrong because I'd feel empathy for the other half).

The point I was making about Religious texts is that they don't have the answers for every issue (Right or wrong) yet I'm sure you yourself can (And do) make your own mind up on those things anyway. So why not do that with everything?

No, religious texts don't have the answers for every issue. That is why I am Catholic. Catholics are supposed to accept the Bible and Church teachings as truth, using both to help decide what decision to make when the answer is not given by either one (meaning acting in accordance with those teachings and texts and in the spirit of them--practically every decision can be made that way).

You are, whether intentionally or not, avoiding my main question. How can you be sure that murder is wrong if it can have practical benefits for society in some cases? What are your reasons for thinking that empathy is not a weakness and a fault itself? Is survival of the fittest, the most cooperative, or the competitive cooperative the way to go and what makes you think that instead of something else? If someone disagreed with you why are you so sure you would be right?

I personally think it's up to your own beliefs. I personally believe that murder is wrong 99.9% of the time. This has nothing to do with my religion or lack thereof, just how I view life in general.