Objective Morality can only exist with a God creating such a System and then Mankind Enforcing it. Without him it cannot exist. If Morality is Subjective (for example across Cultures or such) then it has no true value and can be neglected. If culture A allows one action but Culture B doesn't, then it doesn't matter which one I pick as then that Morality is subjective and therefore baseless, however if God is one either of their sides then and only then is one of the cultures Objective in their judgement, and since Morality can only have value if it is Objective and Universal, that gives Mankind no right to dictate what is moral and what isn't as we are a tiny fraction of the Universe and we are in no position to dictate any rules for the entierity of the Cosmos, for any Alien Civlizations or such. Therefore, only Objective Morality matters and it can come only from God. So without God, no good action or bad action you take will have any consequence, like Doestoevsky said "without God everything is permitted" .
Without God there can be no Objective Morality
Other urls found in this thread:
Morality doesn't need to be objective, it just needs to help cater to the average human's well-being.
If it isn't Objective then like mentioned earlier it doesn't matter and can be disregarded, freely so without consequences (other than legal ones)
Without a metaphysical source there is no objective moral code*
Doesn't mean it's a semitic war god who wants you to cut off the tip of your kids dick
by God I merely mean a being which is both Omnipotent and Omniscient, I don't mean any specific God mentioned in any specific Religion, just an all powerful entity
)))*i°(((
imagine a pond and you the frog amongst the waters above sow below this transluminal twitch of the eyes listen not, feel want. trust the middle i, none middle say nigh.
mourn°ing sayeth the dew as the eyes drop waters of salient ~i~ cry not for the past for the future behold spellbound untold.
to your side floats a confluence of grist and bold light a caesium droplet from thine eyes has cast light and speak none but to grasp at long last in the minds eye as this is red gred dred to those who spite with the gripe of thine own so the waters so deep hold you for dearly untold.
vivaldi four seasons backwards
youtube.com
What constitutes as "average" and a person's "well-being" is subjective; an opinion.
Without god there can be morality. It’s called empathy.
You are confusing universal and objective, morality is human invention and therefore always subjective. It can be universal at best, but never objective.
Morality isn't objective though, so materialism 1 theism 0 i guess...
Empathy is a mere tool for Survival as Humans are Social Animals, and can also vary depending on the person so that makes it Subjective and not Objective, even so, it's still a baseless Morality as it is not Objective.
Kant proved that it doesn't need to be a single source although I'm not sure of the validity of that claim.
by Universal I mean "applicable everywhere", while yes the two terms aren't Synonyms they are closely related in this context
>then it has no true value and can be neglected.
yes, like it has been since the beginning of time. Including the time god was all hands out and shit and now where he's no where to be found.
Yes, that's why we created god. To keep the pleb under control
Finally a thread I agree with
If morality can change based on human beliefs than it is subjective
But if it is based on Gods criterion, then it is objective and there is only one set of morals all should follow
That is unchangable
While God certainly did have his use in that regard especially during the Middle Ages, that wasn't the original Reason, the original Reason for God was a desire for Reason, to know why events were occuring, an explanation. Why does it rain, why does night time occur, why this and that, of course these were primitive times with typically Polytheistic Religions but modern Religions did evolve from this, so all Religions in some form or another derive from a desire for an explanation of the Universe and how it works, but like you said it did have many other uses such as controlling the population.
Nope. Not everyone will have the same empathy for another person in a given situation. Empathy is specific per person.
You are a New York Yankees fan and they
won the World Series against the Red Sox 3 weeks ago.
Would you feel empathy for the Red Sox fans or delight in their defeat?
Absolutley correct OP
Subjective morality is no more than changing laws. What this generation considers taboo will be legal in a few decades
Its Sad!
Yes, but who is God and what does he want. Opinion of [insert cult leader/ideology/religion] is not necessarily God. So just because you prove that reality needs a supernatural source for objective morality, you haven't proven which source is the accurate one.
Fundamental flaw.
This might not only apply to Morality but Life in general, unless we apply the Philosophy of "find your own meaning in Life", then the lack of the existence of a God truly leaves us with a Universe without meaning. Only Scientific Truths about how it came to by but no Moral Dilemmas, no purpose for existence or anything alike.
If it isn't then I can do what I damn please
There's no objective morals. Just some shit some faggots in the 21st century say is right
Why do I have to adhere to their morals if its subjective and I can follow the morals of someone living in 16th century?
lol
Its fair game
are you retarded?
I haven't stated which scripture is correct, I merely pointed out a fallacy, and by "God", I do not mean Allah, the Christian God or any other one, I merely mean an Entity which is Omnipotent and Omniscient, that is God.
Jesus Christ is GOD
If Morality changed based off of what Society thinks is right or wrong, then behaviours from decades ago now make you a social outcast and incompatible with it, public enemy number 1. For this sort of Morality to be Objective is simply absurd.
Damn. Thats just depressing man
You go to far even with the entity part. However, to argue that any basis for morality whatsoever cannot be found in an evidentiary way in the natural universe, and therefore even the most basic impetus for human life and purpose needs to seek a supernatural source - that might be accurate.
Going on and talking about entities might, speculatively, be helpful. However, risks being just as much bullshit as moral relativism.
Do you mean Hegel's argument? That describing God as an Entity/ Being is a flawed Description?
>it just needs to help cater to the average human's well-being
That's an objective moral belief. You're saying that our actions should all lead to better well-being for everyone, which is an ethical philosophy (specifically utilitarianism).
>If Morality is Subjective (for example across Cultures or such) then it has no true value and can be neglected.
I didn't need to read any further and neither does anyone.
Why can't there be an Absolute Law without a God? Why does there have to be a law-giver? You're so unimaginative.
Because if it is an absolute law then it is applicable everywhere, and for a Law made by Humanity to be applicable everywhere is quite absurd, as we're irrelevant in the Universe thus making up Moral Systems would be quite laughable. If you mean an absolute law applied only to Humanity then that'd still be impossible since there isn't a single issue 100% of the World's Population agrees on and has the same opinion on it.
Depends on your God. The Abrahamic God is generally considered a non-entity. Yahweh doesn't physically exist
I agree
Which is why I believe morality is inherently objective. Its people that choose to be immoral, even if those people are legislators or officials
>Yes, but who is God and what does he want.
That is good question.
Ignorance of the law does not exempt you from it.
For example, I am working on a ceiling and accidentally drop a hammer and kill a person.
I will be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
He just meant God as in the Omnipotent and Omniscient uhhhh thing? For lack of a better word since he considers the words "Entity" and "Being" to describe God to be plain wrong, because in his view, describing God as an entity or being would be hypocritical as it would limit the supposed limitless God
Hegel, Kant, all of them were wishful thinkers. Raised Christian, they wanted to cling to it. "Might" be true, but wishful thinking doesn't create God, He would be the one creating us.
Part of the nature of the supernatural "something" is that it is beyond description. Conceiving of it as an "entity" is on par with animism which ascribed personality to natural phenomenon, rocks, trees, and so forth. Useful allegorically, but true actually?
There is no objective morality.
But there is cause and effect though. Man is a thinking animal so you have the ability discern right from wrong but right and wrong isn't static. Even the Christians agree with that even if they pretend it's not true.
Which is why it's against the commandments to steal or kill but you can break these laws in some situations such as self-defense, punishment or under ongoing starvation.
Uh....
In human society.
The natural law also doesn't account for ignorance, but works differently.
But combining the two just to be able to jack off to a theory of God is just dumb.
Then again that depends on your description of what an "entity" is
There are always exceptions with laws
I'm glad you see my point. In 100-200 years, the laws will vastly change so it doesnt matter what people 'believe' is right or wrong since the next generation will ban somethings (that were legal) and legalize others (that were illegal) generations before
Morality is a group-win strategy.
>wishful thinking doesn't create God
Objective morality is as real as the faith a group places in it