Except that’s literally all of philosophy. Nothing in philosophy is “real”, as in something that exists independently of humans. That doesn’t mean that things don’t have philosophical implications. Also, just because something is subjective, that does not mean it is arbitrary.
I've used the dictionary definitions for every term in this thread. You are welcome to refute the definition i provided, or show how it is inaccurate, if you wish. But the arguments provided do not hinge on a specific definition, but the reality of the sociopath.
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/sociopath Sociopathy is defined by psychiatry as an inability for a person to recognize and comprehend the feelings of other people. It has to do with a lack of empathy. It’s nothing to do with “morality”. The reality of sociopaths in fact undermine the argument you attempted to use.
No, others are talking about the universe we live in whether godless or not, there is no universal morality in THIS universe.
It has the same 'look and feel'. 'I prefer blue, and not adultery.' 'I don't like murder, but i like jambalaya!' If all 'morality!' is just subjective preference, then it is the same as arbitrary morality. You pick and choose what you like, and nobody can fault you for your choices.
You thought about this topic and I respect your effort. I also believe in intuition as you do. Francis Schaeffer's theology, as for an example, has many flaws however. Paul Tillich has a group of essays titled "My Search for Absolutes" which I think is very good. In Christianity the Holy is the Absolute. All theology is circular (Hermeneutical Circle). So we don't totally disagree on some issues. On one ever said that anything is original in this short conversation. Argument from Authority is no argument. The simplicity and logic flow you mention is merely circular reasoning. What is a distraction and distortion is the very question at hand, not a conclusion. This is not just logic, but ontology also if someone claims inherent instinct. The flow chart is a circle, O: "Either G or ~ G universe" is a tautology. "Either it is going to rain, or not going to rain" is also a tautology. "Males are either married or unmarried" is another tautology" because it is true by definition. (Either G v ~G) is also a false dilemma since there are other definitions of divinity that may not be a common definition of a divine being--such as the Hegelian concept of Mind/Spirit as the teleological actualization of potentiality in time. “The wise is one only. It is willing and unwilling to be called by the name Zeus.”-Heraclitus of Ephesus, 535-c. 475 BCE”
It is subjective, not arbitrary. Arbitrary implies there are no supporting ideas or reasons. The point about adultery is a very good example. You can say “adultery is immoral” and have your own subjective reason why, but someone who is polyamorous or a couple that are into swinging will have subjective reasons why you are wrong. Why should either of you be faulted for your subjective morality?
There is no conflict in that site's definition with the dictionary one. Or Mayo clinic's: Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others harshly or with callous indifference. They show no guilt or remorse for their behavior. The more definitions and expansion there is on the sociopath, the more my point is made. It is someone with no apparent 'sense' of right and wrong, which is clearly stated in the link you provided.
“Murder” is another great example of subjective morality. How are you defining that word? Is all killing murder? Does it only apply to “unlawful killing”? Since you are now bringing subjective law into the matter, if the law says it’s legal to kill women who dishonor their families, does that make those killings no longer murder?
Doesn't matter. See above. No, it's a statement of a self-evident truth. That's only a means of clarifying the point, not a premise on which the statement depends for its truth value. Damn it's tough to slip anything by you. Not if they're true, they're not. who the hell cares In case you didn't get the memo, there isn't a square inch of real estate that God doesn't own; so if He says it belongs to the Jews, it doesn't matter what anybody else says. You're welcome. Of course you do. Everybody does.
Regard is not the same as sense. I can have no regard for your rights whilst understanding them perfectly.
So yes for situational morality. If God says something is moral, no matter how supposedly objectively evil it is, it magically becomes moral.
I don't see it as a false dichotomy, but a Real one. There is either: A God made universe A godless universe That is the dichotomy, and it is not false. The IMPLICATIONS of each, regarding morality are also simple dichotomies: Morality is EITHER, A God embedded sense A human construct Those are also simple conclusions, from the premise of each assumption. They are not tautological or false dichotomies. It is not necessary to define God, other than as a Creator able to infuse moral senses in humanity.
How does it follow that if a god made the universe, then morality must be an embedded sense? What if said god doesn’t give a **** about humans?
Or what if many gods made the universe and they have competing moral values? That would explain why there is no universal morality.
You keep claiming absolute morality exists and that it is embedded in humans but you have yet to give a single example or proof of this.
Once again, you are simply moving the problem, not solving it. Where did God get his morality from? According to the arguments you've provided, either he was given this morality by an even greater God or his sense of morality is arbitrary and delusional. If he embedded his delusional/arbitrary morality in us, it would still be delusional/arbitrary.
Yes, this is the difficult part, and the best possible result is only ambiguous. Yet, ethics is necessary for life; but, if ethics is arbitrary/relative then somebody else will step in and define the Absolute (like money). This is why for Wittgenstein ethics is mysticism we need to have a life. That is why democracy is important for choosing the structure of a free society. Freedom is not going to spring from a life of endless toil, grinding poverty, and stupidity.
That is not my argument. IF.. there is an embedded sense of morality, it can only come from an Embedder.. a Creative Force able to do such a thing. ELSE, in a godless universe, there is only human construct and instinct. So morality, to be a Real Thing, and not just a delusion, must have a Creative force, to exist. We call this Creative Force, God, for this discussion. It is comepletely possible that God may exist, but no embedded morality. But then, the end result is that 'morality' still is a delusion.. a human construct, since God did not embed it. The OP had that covered: The existence of morality, as a Real Thing, hinges on the embedding ability of a Creator, or some Force able to endow such traits into the inner psyche or soul of man. In a godless universe, morality is not real. It is either animal instinct, a delusion, or arbitrary law by a compelling force.
I've claimed no such thing. I am presenting logical conclusions for the 2 basic premises for our existence: 1. Created by God 2. Natural occurance/accident of nature Morality can only exist from premise #1.
