That implies something codified. The topic here is morality, which requires no codification. And there is no other kind, so QED. There is no need to construct an argument for objective morality, its existence being self-evident; and accordingly, I haven't bothered. To be sure, nothing prevents anyone here from making nonsensical arguments if he's so inclined. I've implied nothing about the rarity of it. That's a specious inference drawn by you. Then pilgrim, you don't think too good. Please, that would be gilding the rotting corpse. No. Lying about your neighbor to make yourself look good by comparison is one thing; lying about him to throw the Gestapo off his trail, quite another. Nevertheless, there are at least a few things that conscience would never approve, like having sex with a 5 year old. On the contrary, every human worthy of the name has it. Perhaps not coincidentally, so is science, if Einstein can be taken as an authority on the subject. That aside, nothing in the OP is based on anything but self-evident truth. I guess that's supposed to be a problem. Makes about as much sense to say gravity is problematic because it's not based on human thinking or reason. Seeing I've yet to do otherwise, clearly the admonition may be safely be regarded with the disdain its presumption merits.
No that is your subjective opinion. Truth has nothing to do with a creator which is based on faith and nothing more. What science is based on is irrelevant to the subject. Unfortunately few theists can comprehend that until they provide evidence for their deity they are following directions that start from never never land! So keep to your faith and enjoy it but leave him/her/it at the door when discussing logic and reason. If you wish to maintain that there is something other than subjective morality, provide evidence of what it comes from! Funny how often we hear theists maintain you cannot get something from nothing but in attempting to argue for object morality without first providing evidence of where it comes from that is exactly what they do.
perhaps a step back and challenge our understandings of the difference between objective and subjective truths. This link may be helpful in this discussion since so much of it revolves around our semantic interpretations of those two terms. http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/claims.html Good read that might help us all reset a bit.
No, it's a stone cold fact, which you could verify in an instant if you so desired - assuming, of course, that you are a human worthy of the name. To be sure. What the hell that has to do with anything I said will forever remain a mystery. Not true, but I'll leave it there for now. Non sequitur, obviously. I'll do whatever I damn well please. Don't like it, feel free to get lost. Next you'll be demanding I provide evidence of the existence of your ass. Obviously false, so I read no further. By all means, reset to your heart's content. Happily, I've no need.
Apparently you don't know what you don't know and have no interest in knowing even that. No worries, be happy in your certitude. Course some might say intransigence, but hey tomayto tomahto.
The whole point of subjective morality is that no statement or claim about morality is objectively true, because objective morality has no evidence whatsoever. If you believe in objective morality, then present the evidence that it exists and explains where it comes from. In subjective morality your moral code is one that you have to reason and judge for yourself based on what results in a happier and more fulfilling life. If morality is subjective, then the statement that might make right is itself subjective and not objectively true. Societies and people are more prosperous when people work together and don't steal from each other. Nations where might makes right like many nations in Africa are themselves extremely poverty-ridden and militarily weak compared to nations that protect their citizens. If morality is subjective then the idea that Stalin led a morally blameless life makes no sense because objective morality and therefore moral blamelessness don't exist. Also, there is no basis for saying that Hitler losing is morally wrong. What we can determine is that these dictators caused an immense amount of death, poverty, and human suffering and that their political and economic policies objectively failed to produce the prosperity promised. These dictators also were unhappy angry people who didn't end up very well, so nothing they did ended well for themselves or for society. So why should anyone become angry over an injustice if there is no objective justice? If there is no objective morality, then there is nothing objectively wrong with getting mad and that includes getting mad at injustice. Getting angry when something unjust is done to us is useful for us to stand up for ourselves and give us the same benefits others are getting. Also, just policies tend to result in more prosperous societies for us and the people we live, so it is totally ok to get mad at injustice.
Thanks for the predictable projectioneering. Thanks, don't mind if I do. which, in the face of appeals to abject idiocy, is of course a synonym for wisdom.
Crystals are not Fibonacci 5 nukes per Puties hypersonic cruise killer? Nuclear Football. We are now in OT
No it is your opinion, repeating it one hundred times will not make it a fact. You are unable to show that your creator exists, so it follows you cannot show where object morality comes from. I realise that is a bit of a stumbling block to your ideas! Best you do that since it is true. Nope. You are free to, and I am glad you also took my advice to leave logic and reason at the door. Well done! No need there is evidence for my ass, no evidence for your creator and you will offer none but fatuous comments, because that is the point you cannot answer. Oh well.
Obviously. No, it's a stone cold fact... ...and repeating this a million times won't make it anything different. Not in the least. Nothing I've said here depends on my ability to show the existence of the Creator to others. As for objective morality, it is sufficient to show that the idea of subjective morality is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Which of course I have. Of course it is. You're afraid to ask why, obviously. If you have no such evidence, then you don't have a conscience either. Enjoy.
Good post. I can think of no greater expression of the idea that "might is right" than a creator who can inflict his morals on you after death, at least Stalin and Hitler had the good grace not to dictate to you after your dead!
No again evidence trumps your opinion, you started a thread and are unable to make a worthwhile contribution since you cannot show where Objective Morality comes from. Keep your mumbo jumbo witch craft for the ignorant and uneducated!
Yes. Would you please take your religiosity off into some corner and shove it into a hole where the rest of us can't even see it?
Probably not. Unless we're the first forms of consciousness who developed the technology, wherewithal, and desire to look. Which seems unlikely. But somebody had to be first, can't rule it out that it WAS us. Then again, the equivalent of a squirrel or cro-magnon man who has only developed in the past century or three on our timeline half a universe away from us would have the same observational powers we do.
'Morality', as an absolute, Real Thing, can only come if it was imbedded by a Creator or Supreme Being. In a godless universe, there can be no morality, only human constructs, to manipulate or control others. I see no rational arguments that can refute these obvious conclusions.
Can you tell us one single moral absolute that is given to you by your creator, and please provide evidence of this creator.
Godless universe = amorality.. subjective, arbitrary platitudes for manipulation or control God made universe= maybe an imbedded moral code or 'natural law'
So you claim that there exists moral absolutes but you cannot show one, you claim a creator but have no evidence for him/she/it and this you call a rational argument?
Well experience shows that man takes the idea of might is right and refines it to produce a moral code which is accepted by different cultures to different degrees,it is far from perfect but in the absence of evidence for any other kind of morality it is all we have! We know there is no such thing as natural law and we can see that in nature everyday, further in a god made universe the moral code must be revealed which is open to disagreement and manipulation which we can see by the various moral codes put forward by those who believe in a creator. Eat pork, no don't eat pork and certainly not a cow, no its Friday eat fish!
Exactly, take God out of the equation and all you have is personal preference. A dead universe doesn't care. CS Lewis called the universal moral code the Tao. Although societies have differed, for example, on how many wives a man can have, none have thought it permissible to steal another man's wife. “The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.”
Incorrect modern society does not see woman as owned by anyone, the concept of stealing another mans wife is not just impossible it is downright insulting to women. An example of how morals have evolved even since the 1940's 1950's.
Or any of the deplorable Abrahamic Faiths, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all claim women are chattels! It is clear what your archaic beliefs are. Not at all I proved how the moral you considered universal was not, in fact it is rather objectionable to reasonable people in the 21st century!
