Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2014, 09:58 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:27 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  ...

Oh man! That's a horrible mistake that I hadn't even thought of lol. Seriously, I'm going to change it now. Right now. And I'm usually great with grammer. Crap.

Edit: Changed it but it has to be approved by editor people...

*grammar Tongue

Strictly speaking, ending a sentence with a preposition is not a mistake but it does get the purists all uppity.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
28-03-2014, 09:58 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 08:21 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  I have a question for the first paragraph.

Objective morality is a standard of right and wrong that is unchanging. This standard exists and persists throughout time regardless of outside or opposing factors such as culture or religion. The “what” of this question is actually quite easy to answer and so the more difficult question becomes the most important and it is this: Is objective morality a reality?

On "objective morality" as you define it as existing outside of "opposing factors". For the moment I'm going to accept this definition, because I'm not too concerned with it.

But using this definition of "objective morality", and even hypothetically accepting the existence of the "god" concept, let me ask you to consider this.

What if a "god" did exist, (whatever that would even mean for "god" to exist) but this "god" thing never decided to "create" anything. No people, no animals, no earth, no universe, no matter, no energy...nothing. Just a detached cluster of thoughts that has no reality, which is near as I can figure the "god" concept to be.

But the point is, there is only this "god" thing, and nothing else. What would "objective morality" mean outside of creatures to comprehend it, or more to the point, for them to be able to do it to be able to preform "morality" and/or "immorality"?

In a world/universe devoid of such creatures, in this case, humans, or even any life for that matter, what could "objective morality" even mean? In a world/universe in which even the concept of life or humans is never even conceived of, let alone made reality, then what could it, "objective morality", mean in a non-existence voidful universe?

It seems to me, that even for "objective morality" to be a real thing, (which we aren't even to that point of acceptance of this concept yet) it would remain contingent on the existence of, us, to make it "flesh".

It does not seem to be possible to exist outside of us, even if we assume the premise that it exist. We need to exist in order for morality to exist, it would seem.

Take it one step further, and remove not only all things, matter, the universe, and so on. But also remove the "god" concept. There is truly nothingness, (whatever that could even mean) so what, in this nothingness, would morality mean without something for which morality to mean anything in application to, for it to act on?

"Objective morality" does not seem possible of existing, independently, as a condition of reality or the universe (or whatever this force is supposed to be) outside of...something. There for it cannot be regardless or opposing forces, and thereby cannot be existent based on your definition used.


Your thoughts?

Good! Thanks you for bringing this up. I mentioned in the article that without God, and not necessarily the Christian God, that there would be not objective morality. I think that morality is a character trait of God. Something is morally good because God says it is. God says something is morally good because God is omnibenevolent. God cannot say that something evil is morally good because it would go against His very nature, which is that of omnibenevolence.

If God does not exist and it is only the universe, or multiverse depending on your view, exists, then there really is not objective standard or foundation for objectivity, and so all that would be left is subjectivity. Morals, and everything else, would be subject to any agents experience. So, were I raised in the Aztec culture, and God did not exist, then it would have been good for me to kill others and offer them up as sacrifices to the god of the sun.

If no God or god exists and no thing exists, and all there is is nothingness, then nothingness is all there would be and no morals would be there, because nothingness is just that. Morality is something, and so coudln't be part of nothing.

By oppsing factors, not forces, I suppose I was thinking of natural factors such as human experience, location, religion and such... I hope I answered everything sufficiently, if not let me know!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 09:59 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:58 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 09:27 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  ...

Oh man! That's a horrible mistake that I hadn't even thought of lol. Seriously, I'm going to change it now. Right now. And I'm usually great with grammer. Crap.

Edit: Changed it but it has to be approved by editor people...

*grammar Tongue

Strictly speaking, ending a sentence with a preposition is not a mistake but it does get the purists all uppity.

Yeah, and I spelled grammar wrong.. I'm on a roll tonight... lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheThinkingChristian's post
28-03-2014, 09:59 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:47 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  The 'endless wall of text' is the argument.

Show me a parlarment in which debates start with the handing out of a page long text.

Quote: If you don't want to read it then don't.

If you want to talk with people then tell them what you think instead of refering them to some elaborate description you made of what you think.

Quote: And I'm not trying to start a debate, but simply receive opinions.

To which you intend to and have asnwered - hence debate.

Quote: If you like the article let me know, if not then let me know. If you disagree with it let me know. That's what I was asking for, not for a debate...

For that not to be a debate it would require you not to answere to what people reply.

Quote:It is the first article I have written on theism or any sort of philisophical anything, so I wanted some opinions.

I dont like repeating myself.

Quote:And kindergarteners are rude too.. I have one so I know! lol. I simply asked that everyone remain civil and not call it "bullshit" or "retarted" because I put a lot of work into it. If it's wrong then fine, but tell me you think so like an adult and not a hormonal teenager like some people do...

What is it with this ridicilous notion of political correctness and civility? People who claim horrendous and absolutly idiotic things deserve to be pelted with verbal feces and to be ridiculed. The very essence of wit is the capacity of making your oponent look like a fool. And certain people who make certain claims only deserve a loud and clear "fuck off". Not saying that you do, I am merely disregarding the notion of "civility" in debate.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:00 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:38 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  I concede that subjective morals could exist without God, but that wouldn't really mean anything, because then right and wrong would only be based on experience and say, rape and murder, wouldn't really be wrong.

You mean rape and murder wouldn't really be wrong so long as God placed his stamp of approval on it, which the Christian God inconvienently happens to do quite frequently.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:01 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:27 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Oh man! That's a horrible mistake that I hadn't even thought of lol. Seriously, I'm going to change it now. Right now. And I'm usually great with grammer.

Um, it's grammar, an even worse mistake than ending with that preposition in the title. And, by the way, it's "either-or" and "neither-nor" it's never "neither-or" or "either-nor" ok? It's very simple to remember because the N's stay together.

Not sure if I'll read your piece because, as an editor for 25 years, I can be brutally honest about writing style and grammar, plus even if a god existed, his morality would still be subjective, so your entire piece is likely moot.

EDIT: I wrote this long before everyone remarked on "grammar" but the system bounced into CloudFlare and my post was in cyber limbo. I just want it to be clear I wasn't piling on here.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
28-03-2014, 10:03 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:01 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Um, it's grammar, an even worse mistake than ending with that preposition in the title. And, by the way, it's "either-or" and "neither-nor" it's never "neither-or" or "either-nor" ok? It's very simple to remember because the N's stay together.

Not sure if I'll read your piece because, as an editor for 25 years, I can be brutally honest about writing style and grammar, plus even if a god existed, his morality would still be subjective, so your entire piece is likely moot.

EDIT: I wrote this long before everyone remarked on "grammar" but the system bounced into CloudFlare and my post was in cyber limbo. I just want it to be clear I wasn't piling on here.

My piss starts boiling with rage everytime someone critizises my spelling and grammer on a forum rather than making an actual point.

So I will say that this is a cheap shot.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Germans are coming's post
28-03-2014, 10:06 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 08:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We know from Anthropology 101 where human customs come from, and in general why they arise. One of the fallacies religionists claim is that without their deity, morality would not exist. The fact is that EVERY SINGLE commandment, injunction and law in the Babble existed already in ancient Near Eastern culture, and was imported into the Babble. Religion TOOK their laws from existing culture. Religion GAVE nothing to culture.

Secondly, religionists cannot answer Euthyphro's Dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
The question raises many questions, including the nature and origins of Reality. Even IF something is "good" because the deity is the origin of "the good",
that means as long as the deity existed, "evil", (or the opposite of "the good") existed also. Is the deity the origin of evil ?
If not where, (before it created humans), did evil come from ? It HAD to exist already, if the "good" is from the deity.

Firstly, I didn't say that religion or the Bible was the source of objective morality. I said that there must be a God for there to be objective morality. No God means no objective morality. And I haven't seen the evidence for every single command in the Bible being taken form other cultures. But even if that is true, which I am not claiming, wouldn't it be plausible that any God that exists would have existed there too? As far as the dilemma goes I haven't read it all the way through, more of a skim over. I will read it when I get the time and I will see what you are talking about there. I think that evil isn't possible unless one has free will. I'm sure you've heard the free-will defense, that evil is always a possiblity where choice is a choice.. lol If we have the option to choose good, then there must be another choice, right? I don't exactly know of the origin of evil, all I know is that evil is existent because of free will. Now, God would obviously have free will, and so I don't know if that means that God cannot exist without evil in existence.. That's a topic I don't know much of and hadn't really thought about until you brought it up... So thanks! You've given me much to think about!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:09 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:35 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 07:02 PM)DLJ Wrote:  OK. In response to the question...

I think it is a well written piece. A few slightly clumsy sentences but the flow is generally readable.

Good job.

Well thanks.. so what is your take on the topic? Do you think there can be objective moral values and duties if there is not God?

Oh! You've changed the evaluation criteria from intrinsic to contextual!

OK, no worries. Actually, you can see my perspective in the link I posted earlier but a quick summary:

Do I think there can be objective moral values?
Yes but only once an axiology (or framework) has been agreed upon.

Do I think there can be objective moral duties?
I'll have to think about this. My instinct tells me that no one is obliged to do anything they don't want to do unless they have agreed (tacitly or explicitly) to do so.

"if there is not God?"

No gods required.
Your summary section covers my position regarding human morality being based on the evolution of empathy, reciprocity, disgust, loyalty etc.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
28-03-2014, 10:13 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:03 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 10:01 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Um, it's grammar, an even worse mistake than ending with that preposition in the title. And, by the way, it's "either-or" and "neither-nor" it's never "neither-or" or "either-nor" ok? It's very simple to remember because the N's stay together.

Not sure if I'll read your piece because, as an editor for 25 years, I can be brutally honest about writing style and grammar, plus even if a god existed, his morality would still be subjective, so your entire piece is likely moot.

EDIT: I wrote this long before everyone remarked on "grammar" but the system bounced into CloudFlare and my post was in cyber limbo. I just want it to be clear I wasn't piling on here.

My piss starts boiling with rage everytime someone critizises my spelling and grammer on a forum rather than making an actual point.

So I will say that this is a cheap shot.

She asked for criticism of her piece, I gave it, and in a minor fashion. And I made an "actual point" after that. I could also point out that you made quite a few mistakes in your post, but since you use "English isn't my first language" as a crutch I won't tell you what those mistakes are. Is that a good enough point for you?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: