Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2016, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 06:08 PM by jason_delisle.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 05:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  To be objectively wrong it would have to be wrong from all perspectives under all conditions. The fact that an authority can enforce their own subjective opinion does not make that opinion objective.

I guess I agree. It does make sense. I just cannot think of any other way to compare a god. But I see your point. Regardless, my point still remains. Without an intelligent being to have created mankind for a specific purpose, we have no standard for objective morality to exist. Like trying to define what a good rock is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 06:32 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
"Without God, there is no evil or good. Just blind pitiless indifference"

Richard Dawkins
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 06:36 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 04:49 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Really? How so? The reason why I modified it was because I wanted to better communicate what my thoughts were. I was not trying to change my position. Rather rephrase my post to make my position better understood.

My objection was not to you clarifying your position. It was to your assertion that someone must disprove objective morality, rather than the burden of proof being on the one who asserts that it exists.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 07:12 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 06:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 04:49 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Really? How so? The reason why I modified it was because I wanted to better communicate what my thoughts were. I was not trying to change my position. Rather rephrase my post to make my position better understood.

My objection was not to you clarifying your position. It was to your assertion that someone must disprove objective morality, rather than the burden of proof being on the one who asserts that it exists.
Oh...ok. I see your point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 08:17 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 06:32 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  "Without God, there is no evil or good. Just blind pitiless indifference"

Richard Dawkins

He is referring to the indifference of the universe, not the absence of caring in people.

I really fucking hate it when someone takes a quote out of context.
It is slimy and dishonest.

Richard Dawkins Wrote:The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
21-03-2016, 08:24 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 06:02 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 05:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  To be objectively wrong it would have to be wrong from all perspectives under all conditions. The fact that an authority can enforce their own subjective opinion does not make that opinion objective.

I guess I agree. It does make sense. I just cannot think of any other way to compare a god. But I see your point. Regardless, my point still remains. Without an intelligent being to have created mankind for a specific purpose, we have no standard for objective morality to exist. Like trying to define what a good rock is.

It doesn't have to have been an intelligent being. A cosmic force could of created consciousness with the essence of objective morals or purpose.

Some forms of Buddhism that believe in Karma and unified consciousness believe these ideas can exist but not from a intelligent. There are still also atheists like Integral Theory believers who think there is this holon layered cosmic order where consciousness and purpose are higher valued that exist. No intelligence created it, it's just the way of the universe to exist alongside objective morality & meaning. They have a standard, they can reach out to these standards too

I'm tired of so many people thinking this false dichotomy is true when there are several worldviews with long standing tradition and modern creation/fusion that hold the other views.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
21-03-2016, 09:20 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 06:32 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  "Without God, there is no evil or good. Just blind pitiless indifference"

Richard Dawkins

He is referring to the indifference of the universe, not the absence of caring in people.

I really fucking hate it when someone takes a quote out of context.
It is slimy and dishonest.

Richard Dawkins Wrote:The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
Or perhaps my source was slimy and dishonest and I didn't know it. I probably should have cited the quote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 10:43 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 06:32 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  "Without God, there is no evil or good. Just blind pitiless indifference"

Richard Dawkins

He is referring to the indifference of the universe, not the absence of caring in people.

I really fucking hate it when someone takes a quote out of context.
It is slimy and dishonest.

Richard Dawkins Wrote:The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

I think Jason is smarmy, so none of this surprises me. Drinking Beverage


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-03-2016, 05:32 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 08:34 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 06:02 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  ...
Without an intelligent being to have created mankind
...
we have no standard for objective morality to exist.
...

Clyde's valid point notwithstanding, I agree.

We have neither.

Bummer, isn't it?

No

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 05:58 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 11:37 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 06:02 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Without an intelligent being to have created mankind for a specific purpose, we have no standard for objective morality to exist.

I don't see any evidence that there is any objective morality so I'm looking for any standard along those lines. I disagree that an intelligent designer would allow for one though -- as I said earlier, it would just be that designer's subjective opinion unless the designer was merely passing along a pre-existing objective standard.

Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?

Quote:Like trying to define what a good rock is.

Specify the criteria under which to pass judgement and we can do that. Good and bad are meaningful only when there is a goal and that is necessarily subjective.

[edited to fix broken link]

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: