Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2014, 10:42 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:39 PM)TheThinkingChristian 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.

Well I appreciate the literary teaching. And if you do read it, try to focus on the topic please and not so much on the grammar and spelling. I tried to make it all good on that note but I'm sure I messed up a bit. I would just rather hear a critique of the argument than of my spelling. And how would God's morality be subjective if God Himself is an objective being? I don't see how an objective being could be subjective in any way. I could be wrong though, maybe I'm not thinking it through in the same way that you are...

The mere fact you are calling your god a being says it all. If he is a being, then what he feels/says is moral is subjective because he created all of us. What makes him an objective being? It's still his view, his morals, so by definition it is subjective.

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
28-03-2014, 10:44 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:20 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 09:44 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  i think morality is based on the amount of harm and suffering an action causes to an individual and the society.
Rape and murder both cause much harm and suffering to the individual and the society,therefore it is REALLY wrong.
This harm and suffering can be shown,whereas your "authority on morality" cannot be shown.

Well there are a ton of argments for the existence of God, but that isn't the purpose of the article that I wrote, it was simply to make the case that I don't think there can be objective morality without God or god or gods or whatever...
i do not ask you to show your god. I am asking you to show that your god is indeed omnibenevolent and can be taken as an objective standard of morality

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:51 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:13 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 09:58 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Something is morally good because God says it is. God says something is morally good because...[SNIP]... location, religion and such... I hope I answered everything sufficiently, if not let me know!
meh

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. That definition works I suppose... I have only heard the arguments for why a God must be omnibenevolent, and I can't think of them right now but I do apologize. Hopefully I'll be better able to explain it at a later time. I don't necessarily agree with you because that is just too flimsy. The greatest level of harm or good doesn't mean that an action is really bad or good, it simply means that it is an action that a group of people do not want to be done to them.. I hope that's readable... lol.
As far as the aztec thing goes, it would still be "good" in the sense that your using it because it would have, in their view, brought good things for the entire culture like rain and bountiful harvest and what not. My logic could be wrong there, but it makes sense at the moment! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:51 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:36 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 10:00 PM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  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.

No. I don't mean that. I mean that, as I've said three times now, that God cannot do the logically impossible task of going against His own nature. And this article was only using the Christian God as an example, I didn't claim that it must be that God that is the foundation for objective morality...

then,by your argument,it follows that god is not omnibenevolent


1. God cannot do something agains his nature
2.god commanded the killing of innocents,condened rape,condoned killing of people who did things wich are morally neutral and much more according to the bible
3.all of these are not fitting in "omnibenevolence"
4.therefore,god is not omnibenevolent,othersise he couldn't have done any of the things in 2

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:51 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:31 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  ...And I never claimed that God was real, I simply said that if He isn't then there is not foundation for objective moral values and duties,...
Fuck you and your patronizing bullshit! Your goddamned name is "the[fucking]"thinking"christian", and you are making an argument for the existence of "god". We're not fucking stupid. Don't fucking dick us around. We know exactly what the fuck you are attempting to do.

(28-03-2014 10:31 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Well okay then if that's your opinion. But it doesn't serve as a viable refutation of my assertion.
That wasn't the refutation, and I already said so. So don't waste my time with it.

(28-03-2014 10:31 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  Anyway, I think you are thinking too much.
Yeah, I bet you would love if we all thought less. It would make your bullshit arguments easier.

(28-03-2014 10:31 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  It's simply this: if you wish to make a claim about God not being in existence and want it to be a plausible option for denying an assertion made by another, then you have to give supporting evidence for your claim that God does not exist. I don't see why we would have to disprove every other thing in the context of this discussion... .
I make no claim that "god" does not exist. It is my opinion, but it is not my claim. I can prove that it's my opinion by telling you that it's my opinion. It is true that it's my opinion. I make no claim. You make a claim, so you need to prove it. If you demand that I supply evidence for that which I don't believe, than so do you. And what you and I don't believe is infinity long.

Proof of what doesn't exist, doesn't prove anything. You are making a claim about what does exist, so prove it. Your two claims are "god" and "objective morality". Your proof for "god" is the existence of "objective morality". Your proof of "objective morality" is the existence of "god". That's circular reasoning. You need evidence outside of that circle. Where is your evidence. Because otherwise you are talking shit.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:52 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:21 PM)Charis Wrote:  Laugh out load Well, I think they kinda beat me to it! I'll refrain from asking for now, since you're already being kept pretty busy at the moment. Wink

Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 10:58 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2014 11:24 PM by Pickup_shonuff.)
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:36 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 10:00 PM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  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.

No. I don't mean that. I mean that, as I've said three times now, that God cannot do the logically impossible task of going against His own nature. And this article was only using the Christian God as an example, I didn't claim that it must be that God that is the foundation for objective morality...

Oh okay, well what God do you propose? The one who has knowledge about all the suffering in the world but is powerless to intervene or do anything to prevent it? Why call that impotent being "good," when it knowingly created a world that would produce ungodly (pun intended) amounts of evil?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 11:11 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:51 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. That definition works I suppose...
great. Because you cut my post i have no idea what term you just tried to define
Quote: I have only heard the arguments for why a God must be omnibenevolent, and I can't think of them right now but I do apologize.
as of this moment,you cannot show that god is omnibenevolent,therefore all your arguments fall like a card structure,because every argument you made rested on that assertion

Quote: Hopefully I'll be better able to explain it at a later time. I don't necessarily agree with you because that is just too flimsy. The greatest level of harm or good doesn't mean that an action is really bad or good, it simply means that it is an action that a group of people do not want to be done to them..
ummm.no. something is immoral because it causes harm.
Name one that isnt based on this principle
Quote:As far as the aztec thing goes, it would still be "good" in the sense that your using it because it would have, in their view, brought good things for the entire culture like rain and bountiful harvest and what not. My logic could be wrong there, but it makes sense at the moment! Smile
just no. They thought it brought rain and good harvests,but it did not. It only caused harm. Since i never said morality is based on what people think,i have no clue why you even said that.

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 11:54 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2014 12:16 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 10:26 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  ...
No. I like that you tried though. I've explained twice though now that God's very nature is that of omnibenevolence and so He couldn't deem it okay to take innocent life ever, it's logically impossible. God can't say "murder is good so kill your wife" because it is objectively not good and it can't be any other way.

And given the evidence of many supposed gods over the centuries having no problem with the killing of innocents... therefore, if a god exists it cannot be benevolent.


(28-03-2014 10:41 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  ...
What would be the axiom needed there? I ask because I don't see any framework plausible that would explain objective morality. And it's not so much that objective moral values are something one must do, but simply duties that are objectively good or bad. Atleast that's the way I see it.

Your omni-god says killing is objectively wrong.
Why? Because it is objectively wrong (therefore the god is just the messenger?) or because the gods say so (so potentially they can change their minds tomorrow)?

Did you watch the Euthyphro vid I posted on the other thread?
I see that Bucky has also pointed you towards that.

Or...
Your omni-god says killing is objectively wrong but my gods say that killing unbelievers is your duty. Which god is the arbiter of objective morals?

The framework / axiology, should one even exist, would not "explain objective morality" it would create/assert it.
You have it the wrong way around.

Undecided

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
29-03-2014, 12:04 AM
RE: Objective Morality
(28-03-2014 09:38 PM)TheThinkingChristian Wrote:  
(28-03-2014 07:11 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  It isn't true, because there is no "god". Considering, regardless of whether there is objective or subjective morality, one or the other exist, and "god" does not, there for objective or subjective morality can only exist without "god".

That is not a very good argument. It seems that you must prove that there is no God or god or gods or any sort of eternally existing, objective and rational being before being able to make such a claim as the one that you have made. The argument begs the question... Now as far as the subjective morality part, 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.


Nope, assuming a god exists is you presupposing it's existence, and claiming that we first need to disprove it is disingenuously shifting the burden of proof. I'll let QualiaSoup explain it. Drinking Beverage





[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: