Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 04:02 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 02:32 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 02:19 PM)ScottD Wrote:  If we view morality as merely a point of view or something that is man made, how do we determine who has the correct answer?

How we are determining that something called "objective morality" is a good thing to follow? And how exactly this morality look - is stoning woman moral? What about eating shellfish?

you tell me? where do you get your answer? from others? flawed soul-less people?

"objective morality" is man-made. why do you get to tell me what is right and wrong? you are one of billions of people who have passed through life and will cease to exist at the end, no?

Society's view on right and wrong tends to change over time, does that mean what use to be wrong is suddenly right because we say so?

(22-03-2016 02:19 PM)ScottD Wrote:  You can definitely argue that rule of law is based on the 10 commandments.


You also could argue that moon is made of cheese.

not with any weight behind it..

(22-03-2016 02:19 PM)ScottD Wrote:  I believe we know in our hearts what is wrong, because God (i'm asking for it now) made us that way.

[emphasis mine]

Believe is a key word here. But your belief mean nothing to me if it is not backed with evidence.

Also before you claim how god made us it would be nice to present some proof of something called god actually existing.

I said I believe. You want me to prove God exists? Why am I on the hook to prove God's existance? I believe God is evident in everything. No one can prove it. Prove he doesn't exist. You can't
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 04:02 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 03:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  This is just a suggestion and a request. Could we instead try to find something objectively good that everyone can agree with rather that come up with the most horrific? I rather not think about baby torture.

That's obviously not going to happen. Can you figure out why? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
22-03-2016, 04:04 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 03:23 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 03:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It is your argument. You are free to take it in whatever direction you wish.
Ok. If I was to try to provide evidence for the existence of objective morality, I would say that acts of love are objectively good. I define an act of love as any action where you sacrifice your needs, wants, or desires in order to fulfill another’s needs, wants, or desires. Or putting another person's needs, wants, or desires above your own.

Even if that love is unrequited and the sacrifice goes utterly unnoticed?

I think not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 04:09 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 03:03 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  This is just a suggestion and a request. Could we instead try to find something objectively good that everyone can agree with rather that come up with the most horrific? I rather not think about baby torture.

That's obviously not going to happen. Can you figure out why? Consider
Because you believe that God does not exist? Thus objective morality cannot exist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 04:17 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  you tell me?

I'm asking you.

(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  where do you get your answer?

Not from bloody and horrible book called bible.

(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  from others? flawed soul-less people?

Sense of empathy developed through evolution would be a good starting point.

(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  why do you get to tell me what is right and wrong?

You're believer right? If so why your god get to tell me how I should led my life? He isn't depicted like someone that I would be willing to follow.

(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  you are one of billions of people who have passed through life and will cease to exist at the end, no?

And your point is?

(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  Society's view on right and wrong tends to change over time,

Would you prefer this view to be unchangeable? Slavery wasn't so bad I guess Rolleyes

(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  does that mean what use to be wrong is suddenly right because we say so?

Possibility of humans developing empathy with other does not cross your mind?

(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  not with any weight behind it..

That's the point dude.

(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  I believe. You want me to prove God exists? Why am I on the hook to prove God's existance?

Cause your "argument" depends on god?

Aren't those your words I believe we know in our hearts what is wrong, because God (i'm asking for it now) made us that way.?

(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  I believe God is evident in everything. No one can prove it. Prove he doesn't exist. You can't

Pathetic. It is you who must prove existence of space wizard if you want to use him in your arguments.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
22-03-2016, 04:22 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:22 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  But if you take a knife and use it to drive nails, now you have given it the purpose of a hammer...not a knife, and a very terrible one at that.

I don't see how that matters. When something is created the creator may have a purpose for it. The fact that the creator has a purpose in mind would be objectively true but that does not mean that everybody else is required to limit their use of the creation to that purpose. A knife can be used for things other than cutting and it may be that a poor hammer is better than no hammer.


(22-03-2016 03:23 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok. If I was to try to provide evidence for the existence of objective morality, I would say that acts of love are objectively good. I define an act of love as any action where you sacrifice your needs, wants, or desires in order to fulfill another’s needs, wants, or desires. Or putting another person's needs, wants, or desires above your own.

You are saying that is good in every situation, no matter who the recipient of this love is, what they have done, or what the consequences may be to the people affected by these acts? If so, I disagree completely. The morality of every action has to be evaluated based on the situation.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
22-03-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:22 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 01:22 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  But if you take a knife and use it to drive nails, now you have given it the purpose of a hammer...not a knife, and a very terrible one at that.

I don't see how that matters. When something is created the creator may have a purpose for it. The fact that the creator has a purpose in mind would be objectively true but that does not mean that everybody else is required to limit their use of the creation to that purpose. A knife can be used for things other than cutting and it may be that a poor hammer is better than no hammer.


(22-03-2016 03:23 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok. If I was to try to provide evidence for the existence of objective morality, I would say that acts of love are objectively good. I define an act of love as any action where you sacrifice your needs, wants, or desires in order to fulfill another’s needs, wants, or desires. Or putting another person's needs, wants, or desires above your own.

You are saying that is good in every situation, no matter who the recipient of this love is, what they have done, or what the consequences may be to the people affected by these acts? If so, I disagree completely. The morality of every action has to be evaluated based on the situation.
Ok. How about being loved by someone...anyone. Or even feeling like you are loved?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 04:28 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:09 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's obviously not going to happen. Can you figure out why? Consider
Because you believe that God does not exist? Thus objective morality cannot exist?

Not me, we. The only ones espousing objective morality here appear to be theists.

Objective morality could exist absent any gods, and a god does not insure the existence of objective morality.
They are independent concepts.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
22-03-2016, 04:29 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 02:02 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Obviously, I believe that objective morality exists because I believe that God exists. I could explain what those objective morals are, but I would have to use scripture. And you know that it is pointless to try to prove the existence of God by using the bible. The whole circular reasoning thing.

As has been said a few times, a god might be able to enforce a particular morality but that is not the same thing as it being objective. You are confusing objective with inescapable.

Euthyphro holds... if your god chose the rules then they are arbitrary and subjective based on the god's wishes; if your god is following an objective morality then we don't need the god to figure it our for ourselves. I do not see any direct link between the existence of a god and the existence of objective morality. Either could exist without the other and neither appears to be required (or even evidenced).

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
22-03-2016, 04:29 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 02:32 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  How we are determining that something called "objective morality" is a good thing to follow? And how exactly this morality look - is stoning woman moral? What about eating shellfish?

you tell me? where do you get your answer? from others? flawed soul-less people?

"objective morality" is man-made. why do you get to tell me what is right and wrong? you are one of billions of people who have passed through life and will cease to exist at the end, no?

Society's view on right and wrong tends to change over time, does that mean what use to be wrong is suddenly right because we say so?



You also could argue that moon is made of cheese.

not with any weight behind it..


[emphasis mine]

Believe is a key word here. But your belief mean nothing to me if it is not backed with evidence.

Also before you claim how god made us it would be nice to present some proof of something called god actually existing.

I said I believe. You want me to prove God exists? Why am I on the hook to prove God's existance? I believe God is evident in everything. No one can prove it. Prove he doesn't exist. You can't
Scott, please put your reply after the closing quote tag. That will make it easier to read. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: