“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” ~ Charles Darwin
“And now, they find their Day is over! their power gone! and the throne of this nation possessed by a Royal, English, true, and ever constant member of, and friend to, the Church of England! Now, they find that they are in danger of the Church of England’s just resentments! Now, they cry out, “Peace!” “Union!” “Forbearance!” and “Charity!”: as if the Church had not too long harboured her enemies under her wing! and nourished the viperous blood, till they hiss and fly in the face of the Mother that cherished them!”
No Gentlemen, the Time of Mercy is past, your Day of Grace is over, you should have practised Peace, and Moderation, and Charity, if you expected any yourselves.
British Literature 1640-1789: An Anthology, pp. 370.
I meditate on this whenever an enemy of progress gets too big for their boots and feigns umbrage, especially the Muslims. Especially the Muslims.
The author in particular is Defoe.
He has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often, and loved much; who has enjoyed the trust of pure women, the respect of intelligent men and the love of little children; who has filled his niche and accomplished his task; who has left the world better than he found it, whether an improved poppy, a perfect poem, or a rescued soul; who has always looked for the best in others and given them the best he had; whose life was an inspiration; whose memory a benediction. – B A Stanley, 1904.
Immediately Tesla springs to mind.
…”But when you speak of such gentility as is descended from ancient wealth–so that you knights should therefore would be gentlemen of breeding–such arrogance is not worth a hen. Look who is always most virtuous, openly and secretly, and most inclines to do what gentle deeds he can; take him for the gentlest man….
For though all their heritage of our ancestors, by reason of which we claim high rank, may descend to us, yet they cannot at all bequeath to any of us their virtuous living, which made them to be called gentle men and to bid us follow to them and do in like manner….
“Here you may well see how nobility hangs not from ancient possessions, since people do not always perform its works, as does the fire, according to its nature. For, God knows, one may often see a lord’s son do vicious and shameful deeds; and he who wishes to be esteemed for his gentility because he was born of a noble house and had virtuous and noble ancestors, and yet himselfwill not perform the deeds of gentility nor follow after his gentle ancestor who is dead, he is not gentle, even if he is a duke or an earl; for base and sinful deeds make a commoner. For gentility then would be nothing but renown of your ancestors for their high worthiness, which is something that has nothing to do with you….
“Think how noble was that Tullius Hostilius, as Valerius tells, who rose out of poverty to high nobility. Read Seneca, and Boethius as well; there you shall see expressly that he who does noble deeds is noble. And therefore, dear husband, I conclude in this way: albeit my ancestors were untutored, yet may the high God–and so I hope–grant me grace to live virtuously. Then I am noble, when I begin to live virtuously and to abandon evil….
Whoever keeps himself content with his poverty, I count as rich, even if he does not have not a shirt! He who covets is a poor creature, for he wishes to have that which is not within his power. But he who has nothing, nor covets things, is rich, albeit you count him as only a serving-lad…
“Now you say I am old and foul: then have no fear that you will be a cuckold. For ugliness and age, upon my life, are great wardens over chastity. But nevertheless, since I know your delight, I shall fulfill your appetite….
“Choose,” she said, “one of these two things: to have me foul and old until I die, and to you a true, humble wife, never in all my days displeasing you; or else to have me young and beautiful, and take your chance on how many visits there will be to your house–or perhaps to some other place–which will be for my sake. Now choose yourself which one you will have.”….
Love. Or, don’t.
They are moral absolutes founded in religion.
I find it astounding how little self-awareness atheists display when they use those words, without a superhuman or divine arbiter. They don’t like the concept of a list they cannot edit, one with Encouraged (virtue) and Forbidden (vice).
The mere words themselves are religious.
The Good and the (D)evil.
They have no meaning as relative terms. It’s cute to see them try.
It’s as irrational as equating light and dark. One is the presence of bouncing photons, the other an absence. Nobody would mistake the two.
Humans are animals that may be noble. Morality is the lantern leading the way out of that primeval darkness.
Most supposed utilitarianism is incorrectly calculated. It is sum good over infinite time. As in, a perspective of low time preference, yet many examples you see falsely persist in giving short-termist examples. These short-term examples are, in fact, hedonic. They last as long as the feedback loop in the brain to motivate selfish action e.g. stealing food. OK, but what happens after? Once you are sated? These examples do not fit, they are not utilitarian, because true utilitarianism recognizes the ripple effect of long-term consequences. That is why Communism, while being collectivist and allocentric, is NOT utilitarian. Because it cannot be sustained without bloodshed and mass murder and rape. Communism is only utilitarian from the elite arbiter’s perspective. They’re literally playing God and this allows them, as human animals, to do great evil. See the connection here?
In case you think that was a petty example, the same holds true for atheist nations. They do not exist. They have never existed and sustained themselves. They are selected out by evolution, as was the neurobiology of faith selected for.
Nowadays we hear plenty of minority opinions as if they are fact. If they brought in direct democracy, gay marriage would have never passed in America. Many liberal causes are minority causes, they should be arguing against any and all utilitarianism.