TruthSeeker
New
Of all the evils that have been visited upon mankind in the 21st century, I consider the death of the soul to be perhaps the most mournful and heinous. It is with this proclamation by materialistic science that the basis of all meaning and all forms of connection have been extinguished. If, for instance, as some in science today say, I am no more than a biological automaton, controlled by the mere whimsy of impulses and laws beyond my control, where does this leave a role for responsibility? If I am to acknowledge that my only role in life is that of a highly sophisticated computer, of what responsibility can I have to ensure the well being of another? A computer is no more responsible for its circumstances than an ant is to be born on an ant hill. A computer has no more moral responsibility than lichen has to the rock that it grows upon.
If I am to apply this principle of reductionism to my treatment of others, I can conclude that I have no more obligation of beneficence than perhaps the bed I sleep in or the chair I sit on. It may be true that I may have a sensation of guilt for causing harm to another, but this, as materialism explains, is little more than an illusion. If indeed all there is to an individual is individual pieces of dead matter, what guilt should I have to logically break or hurt them than if I were to break a glass out of my anger-indeed, they are one and the same?
The solemn conclusion of empirical materialism is that it cannot be used as a basis for moral reasoning. It is for this reason, whether it is true or not, that I must reject this dogma and propose to imagine that in an individual there are reflections of that substance which forms myself, a substance that is very much alive and encompasses the individual. From this reasoning, it becomes much harder for me to justify causing undue suffering to another, as in doing so, I would be causing undue suffering to myself, violating the very innate drive for self-preservation. If I propose that an individual is composed of more than that which I may break with the strength of my own body, I then cannot reasonably justify destroying or maiming them, as it would be beyond my capacity to do so. It is for the interest of human civilization, then, that we must imagine that there is more to an individual than simply the parts that they are composed of.
If I am to apply this principle of reductionism to my treatment of others, I can conclude that I have no more obligation of beneficence than perhaps the bed I sleep in or the chair I sit on. It may be true that I may have a sensation of guilt for causing harm to another, but this, as materialism explains, is little more than an illusion. If indeed all there is to an individual is individual pieces of dead matter, what guilt should I have to logically break or hurt them than if I were to break a glass out of my anger-indeed, they are one and the same?
The solemn conclusion of empirical materialism is that it cannot be used as a basis for moral reasoning. It is for this reason, whether it is true or not, that I must reject this dogma and propose to imagine that in an individual there are reflections of that substance which forms myself, a substance that is very much alive and encompasses the individual. From this reasoning, it becomes much harder for me to justify causing undue suffering to another, as in doing so, I would be causing undue suffering to myself, violating the very innate drive for self-preservation. If I propose that an individual is composed of more than that which I may break with the strength of my own body, I then cannot reasonably justify destroying or maiming them, as it would be beyond my capacity to do so. It is for the interest of human civilization, then, that we must imagine that there is more to an individual than simply the parts that they are composed of.