An imperfect system is better than no system at all and such fallibility should be accepted for imperfect is all that there can be
Systems of government and human beings can of course improve over time but true objectivity for either can never be attained
An imperfect system is the same as no system at all. Yes, never attained, a delusional dream.
Who said so?
Your views are too loose in this case.
Evil is basically a moral issue but can be supported by scientific facts.
If evil is imputed into morality, evil still have to be defined.
I have defined ‘evil’ in terms of evil acts.
This definition of evil must be supported by a taxonomy of evils within a hierarchy of evilness.
Obviously genocides has a higher degree of evilness than petty-crimes.
Evil acts that are supported by empirical evidence are the most credible.
If we stumble upon 500 dead bodies, the best way to find out why is to rely on Science [forensic] to differentiate it is due to a biological epidemic, killed due to a genocide or other causes.
What is morally evil is determined by the highest level of reasoning which is independent of time and conditions. There is never good reasons why genocide can be good under any circumstance and time.
The objectivity of religious fundamentalism in regard to morality is dependent on “God Said So” despite the fact that God is an impossibility. If God said circumstancial genocide is not immoral, then it is not evil! Note the genocides of the Yazidis by SOME Muslims upon sanction by Allah in the Quran.
Without any coercion and threat from a God in an immutable holy book, majority of humans in general will agree genocide is evil and abominable based on the principles of the Golden Rule.
Btw, objectivity is intersubjectivity. i.e. rational intersubjective consensus and nothing else.
Thus it is possible for human to reason out objective moral laws as guides not to be enforced.
All systems are imperfect as they are devised by humans who are imperfect so it is an inevitable feature of them
For a system to be perfect would require that humans had absolutely no say in its conception or implementation
and implemented by who else other than an absolutely perfect God!
The resultant is an empirically impossible perfect system by and empirically impossible perfect God.
I was thinking of machines that only think logically which would make them superior to humans
Sad, but true.
If God is perfect from which ethics and morality derives from than they themselves should also be perfect for through religion they were handed down to humanity by God, but we know [we atheists] that God doesn’t exist so we’re left with humanity imperfectly creating morality or ethics for origins of both in terms of social values.
It’s not just that humanity created morality and ethics imperfectly [standard hypocritical socially applied disclaimer/excusable convenient loophole of social irresponsibility] but rather what I believe both were created for ulterior duplicitous purposes other than deceptive public appearances [egalitarianism] that we’re all led [social faith] to believe in. Once you understand all that morality and ethics becomes just another fiction like God that aren’t necessary in explaining anything. Morality and ethics in terms of social value is just another game of acquiring control or power as none of it is genuinely sincere in its professed objectives.
In terms of morality and ethics there is nothing genuinely sincere of either in terms of social value or enhancement. Instead of sincerity there is only the camouflage of ulterior duplicitous motives in play for the basis of social control.
Yet more recently, Secular belief has brought far more horrendous acts (100 million battle deaths since WW1). How many wars have been started in the past 100 years that had nothing to do with religion? All of them.
Religions don’t start wars. Religions are used by war mongers who seek power. But recently religion is no longer necessary. Socialism accomplishes the same thing … with no “god” belief involved, merely a lust to control all OTHER people (most often by Liberals as a ploy and aggression against Conservatives) in the effort to become “God” (people much like Prism).
So you can drop the BS about religions causing wars thousands of years ago.
My bad. The “sad but true” part was in reference to part about the thread being an exercise in futility. The anti-religion crowd isn’t going to admit secularism’s culpability, nor will they recognize that the recognition of “evil” logically demands a Summum Bonum against which it can be measured.