Cho Seung-Hui

[Johnny5]

We know that there in atheism there is no ultimate morality.  (No true standard for morality).  That being said, do you think that what Cho Seung-Hui did was good, bad, or neither.  Please tell the rest of us why you believe as you do.

(I'm not being funny here.  I would really like to hear your answers).

[donkeyhoty]

Well, I figured it would take less time for an ignorant post like this.  

We know that there in atheism there is no ultimate morality. (No true standard for morality).

Who is "we"?  Based on the statement, "we" would be people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Secondly, Cho Seung-Hui compared himself to Jesus Christ and railed against rich kids and issues of "morality".  

Hmm, so what we have is a holier-than-thou, delusional asshole killing a bunch of people that did not believe as he did.  Make your own conclusions.

[Squid]

We know that there in atheism there is no ultimate morality.  (No true standard for morality).  That being said, do you think that what Cho Seung-Hui did was good, bad, or neither.  Please tell the rest of us why you believe as you do.

(I'm not being funny here.  I would really like to hear your answers).

First let me say that the concept of absolute morality is philosophically problematic.  Absolute morality from a deity is silly.  That does not mean there doesn't exist behaviors which are universally looked down upon from culture to culture and group to group.  One of these is murder or rather the needless taking of another human's life.  Secondly, atheism doesn't rule out any possibility of universal morals at all.  It is ONLY a lack of belief in god(s).  There is no uniting atheist dogma and therefore no united stance on moral issues.  However, you'll most likely find that items such as murder and incest are looked down upon.  These have likely evolutionary explanations, however providing substantial empirical verification for this is hard to accomplish.

Now, in my opinion - what he did was fucked up.  There have been stories of him being mentally unstable - however, I haven't looked into it further.  Murder in pretty much every culture and social group is considered wrong - that is, in most instances.  It would also depend on your definition of murder and if that definition holds true in all instances - there are always exceptions to rules.

[SteveS]

Easy - what he did was wrong.  I believe that the most enjoyable way for us all to experience life is to "live and let live".  We can accept that people are going to disagree with us, hold different beliefs and philosophies, and we can give each other the chance to follow our own ideals.  This leads to fairness, equality, and hopefully happiness (or at least the opportunity for happiness) for everyone.

If he wanted to die, and blew his own brains out, fine.  I don't think he had any dependents.  But why kill anyone else?  As soon as he did that, he committed a moral atrocity in my opinion.

[Whitney]

If if you asked him he would have said he was doing what he was morally obligated to do; making many references to being a maytr for a cause I don't understand because he was unable to really define it..seemed to be mostly about consumerism and sin related things.  He was clearly insane and there is record of his mental state being in question...I'm not even sure how someone clearly that out of it was able to get a gun legally.

Anyway, as Squid stated, murder seems to be pretty much universally defined as bad even though what constitutes murder verse justified killing varies across cultures.  I think there can be an objective basis for morality if we view morality as what is best for the survival of humanity.  Ignoring that the guy was insane (I don't think it makes much sense to discuss if an insane act is moral or immoral since the person doing the act isn't stable enough to make ethical decisions) if we accepted that action as either moral or neutral it would mean that we think it is perfectly okay to go shoot a bunch of strangers who we simply assume to be playing a role in whatever evil is trying to be eliminated through the shooting.

I'm defining the action specifically in that way because he did not believe he was just shooting random people he assumed all those people were part of what he percieved to be such a great harm that it must be eliminated.  Putting it in this way we also have a specific action to look at rather than murder in genral.  Could allowing the killing of random strangers who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, even if you have a suspicion they are part of an evil problem, be considered moral in any human culture?

I was going to say no, but then I remembered religious bassed terrorism.  It seems the only way such an act could be morally justified is through the use of religion.  For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to assume that twisted religous beliefs don't exist to cloud people's judgements.

If we look at morality as what is best for humanity it would definately always be immoral to murder random people because 1) if everyone went around killing random people civiliazation would collapse in chaos 2) we like civilization because helping each other makes life easier 3) even if you think everyone that lives in a certain area contributes to something you view as bad for humanity you are likely to be wrong and kill some innocent people in the process; ends don't justify the means.  4) It is pretty much universally understood that killing innocent people is murder...this moral exists because no one wants to be killed for no reason.

Anyway, I think there is something at least close to a standard for morality and it is rooted in humanity; our own survival...more or less it seems that everyone views humanity as a basis in some form or another (even the religious who consider the spiritual destination of humanity as a basis) and we are ironing out how to decide what is good and bad for humanity as we progress.

[MommaSquid]

What he did was selfish.  

It's one thing to hate your life enough to end it...it's quite another thing to take others with you.

I haven't read any of the articles or watched the videos about this sad, twisted young man.  I don't need to know what was going on in his head.  I feel bad for his family and the familes of those he harmed, but beyond that I don't care.

[Naked4Jesus]

Well, I figured it would take less time for an ignorant post like this.  

We know that there in atheism there is no ultimate morality. (No true standard for morality).

Who is "we"?  Based on the statement, "we" would be people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Secondly, Cho Seung-Hui compared himself to Jesus Christ and railed against rich kids and issues of "morality".  

Hmm, so what we have is a holier-than-thou, delusional asshole killing a bunch of people that did not believe as he did.  Make your own conclusions.

Dude, no need to be that harsh.  He's posting something that's quite interesting to discuss and we all have different ideas on the content of his post, the thought behind it and the resulting analysis that's gonna follow.  Should we really discourage people from posting their faults if someone, in this case you think that it's ignorant?  Come on man, let people say what they have to say.

[Naked4Jesus]

We know that there in atheism there is no ultimate morality.  (No true standard for morality).  That being said, do you think that what Cho Seung-Hui did was good, bad, or neither.  Please tell the rest of us why you believe as you do.

(I'm not being funny here.  I would really like to hear your answers).

First let me say that the concept of absolute morality is philosophically problematic.  Absolute morality from a deity is silly.  That does not mean there doesn't exist behaviors which are universally looked down upon from culture to culture and group to group.  One of these is murder or rather the needless taking of another human's life.  Secondly, atheism doesn't rule out any possibility of universal morals at all.  It is ONLY a lack of belief in god(s).  There is no uniting atheist dogma and therefore no united stance on moral issues.  However, you'll most likely find that items such as murder and incest are looked down upon.  These have likely evolutionary explanations, however providing substantial empirical verification for this is hard to accomplish.

Now, in my opinion - what he did was fucked up.  There have been stories of him being mentally unstable - however, I haven't looked into it further.  Murder in pretty much every culture and social group is considered wrong - that is, in most instances.  It would also depend on your definition of murder and if that definition holds true in all instances - there are always exceptions to rules.

I heard that brother, so here's my take on morality and frickin ethics:

Our ethics are based on beliefs that protect "the most complex biological organ". We feel guilt from stealing because we know we exploited a certain individuals situation and stole a portion of his life, his production. If we accept the notion of taking what represents others lives, we must accept the fact that others will take what represents our lives. It is rational to observe human rights, in order to maintain yours.

We damn well should feel guilt because if we stold life and we wouldn't want our lives stolen we need to protect ourselves.  I may be atheist but I want to live somewhere where I feel safe damn it, hell I'll even go to church if I have to.

So what this Korean guy did was straight up unacceptable and I would have shot his punk ass point blank if push came to shove.   Hell, it could have been me in one of those classrooms and damn, my life may be pointless but I reserve the right to live.

[SteveS]

It is rational to observe human rights, in order to maintain yours.

That's pretty much the way I see it.