Because tit-for-tat can only explain why it is better for two lions to avoid each other than to maul themselves until one is dead and the other near death. It says nothing about how the lion should deal with the gazelle.
Enlightened self interest has never been enough to dissuade those who KNOW they have an advantage. This is why the overwhelming majority of human history has been characterized by kratocracy.
Which is better? Men killing men to elevate themselves, or men killing men to elevate their god? The former will NEVER end. The latter... supposes that one day it potentially could end, when all are united in veneration of one god and accepting one morality (however bloody the trail may be to get there).
where's the proof
This is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove religion right and the moral nihilists wrong. I can't do this, and religion never set out to do this. Religion itself doesn't beat nihilists, because both religion and nihilism come from unassailable but ultimately untestable foundations. Faith is what beats the moral nihilists, and I can't give you that in words. Even the nihilists conviction that there is nothing beyond is a kind of faith, albeit a pessimistic one.
You either have the certainty in yourself that some things are fundamentally wrong, or you don't. Just as I have the certainty in myself that if someone says they DON'T have that certainty, I am certain THEY are lying.
I do not believe for an instant that you believe the nihilists are right (that nothing is fundamentally moral or immoral). You wouldn't be here if you did.
i know we as humans made it up
If we "made it up" then the nihilists are right.
Look, this is a CHOICE. If you "know" morality is made up, then all your feelings about what is right and wrong are just you. If you "know" some things are fundamentally right or wrong, then that has to transcend you in order to be projected onto others, it can't just be something made up.
It is YOUR CHOICE to acknowledge a higher source of moral truth in order to give your moral judgements greater weight than your own disapproval. Only the divine can transcend you and encompass your enemies.
can i not already project my morals unto people already?
Yes, but the result will never be more than kratocracy.
Its a distinction between:
"The utter certainty that there will never be an end to violence because it's all against all."
"The unlikely but theoretically possible future where there could be an end to violence because one moral (one divine) has prevailed and all (who remain) abide by it."
As long as it's literally just you versus me, the victor will only be you or me, and there will always be more of us to continue that fight.
While I doubt Islam's ability to deliver peace (given that they couldn't go one generation without finding a reason to fight amongst themselves), they do at least have the problem framed correctly: that there can only be peace when all are united around one consistent morality.
To be blunt with you Blue, I don't believe you're grasping the nuance of the point I'm making. You're a caveman; you see a problem, you hit the problem with a stick until it's no longer a problem; and that will work for you as long as the problem doesn't have a bigger stick. You don't care what history will say about your stick swinging and how it ended; and you certainly don't care about putting an end to all the stick swinging.
Because tit-for-tat can only explain why it is better for two lions to avoid each other than to maul themselves until one is dead and the other near death. It says nothing about how the lion should deal with the gazelle.
Enlightened self interest has never been enough to dissuade those who KNOW they have an advantage. This is why the overwhelming majority of human history has been characterized by kratocracy.
Which is better? Men killing men to elevate themselves, or men killing men to elevate their god? The former will NEVER end. The latter... supposes that one day it potentially could end, when all are united in veneration of one god and accepting one morality (however bloody the trail may be to get there).
This is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove religion right and the moral nihilists wrong. I can't do this, and religion never set out to do this. Religion itself doesn't beat nihilists, because both religion and nihilism come from unassailable but ultimately untestable foundations. Faith is what beats the moral nihilists, and I can't give you that in words. Even the nihilists conviction that there is nothing beyond is a kind of faith, albeit a pessimistic one.
You either have the certainty in yourself that some things are fundamentally wrong, or you don't. Just as I have the certainty in myself that if someone says they DON'T have that certainty, I am certain THEY are lying.
I do not believe for an instant that you believe the nihilists are right (that nothing is fundamentally moral or immoral). You wouldn't be here if you did.
If we "made it up" then the nihilists are right.
Look, this is a CHOICE. If you "know" morality is made up, then all your feelings about what is right and wrong are just you. If you "know" some things are fundamentally right or wrong, then that has to transcend you in order to be projected onto others, it can't just be something made up.
It is YOUR CHOICE to acknowledge a higher source of moral truth in order to give your moral judgements greater weight than your own disapproval. Only the divine can transcend you and encompass your enemies.
Yes, but the result will never be more than kratocracy.
Its a distinction between:
As long as it's literally just you versus me, the victor will only be you or me, and there will always be more of us to continue that fight.
While I doubt Islam's ability to deliver peace (given that they couldn't go one generation without finding a reason to fight amongst themselves), they do at least have the problem framed correctly: that there can only be peace when all are united around one consistent morality.
To be blunt with you Blue, I don't believe you're grasping the nuance of the point I'm making. You're a caveman; you see a problem, you hit the problem with a stick until it's no longer a problem; and that will work for you as long as the problem doesn't have a bigger stick. You don't care what history will say about your stick swinging and how it ended; and you certainly don't care about putting an end to all the stick swinging.