Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
And here I thought it was only @Moral Orel l who could crack witty jokes ...
I really wasn't joking.
Upvote
0
And here I thought it was only @Moral Orel l who could crack witty jokes ...
I really wasn't joking.
I was afraid you were going to say that. ...................................
Rather, it's that subjectivity isn't necessarily subjective in the 'way' in which we so often allow it to be defined, and being that this is the case, and despite our various ethical matrices, there remains some objectivity among us in our common moral endeavors by which we may conceptualize our seemingly individual morality during our ongoing social actions.
If that was your point, no wonder you regret bringing up sociopaths.
So, while I'm here, does everyone understand that as far as this thread is concerned, I do not equate atheism with sociopathy? I have to ask because it seems that some of the 'come-backs' are such that they are given and measured by some underlying idea that I'm imputing sociopathy upon atheists everywhere. I am not.
Thanks.
I don't think the moral issue should be concerning the person who makes the split decision to switch the track or not, as long as he makes the decision he thinks is best at the moment, nobody has the right to (Monday night quarterback) judge him for making the best decision he could concerning the circumstances of not having time to weigh his options. I think the judging should be reserved for whoever was responsible for the trolley running away in the first place, not the person faced with such a tragic decision to makeThe usual progression of the trolley problem is that you have a runaway trolley heading for 5 people, but you can switch it to a track with one person. Most people will switch it.
What if there's one fat person you could push in the way to save 5 people? most people wouldn't.
To take it a step further, what if there's a fat person already in the way, and you could save them, but then the trolley would hit the 5 people? Do you push the one person out of the way and allow the 5 people to die?
This raises a good point in the debate about atheistic and theistic morality. Like belief in God is the key to salvation and no objective evidence is going to prove God. It is the belief in God's objective morality that is the key and not any direct evidence for it in the end.When one atheist disagrees with another about morality, it sounds a little like what we find in the following video by atheist and Oxford graduate, Alex O'Conner (a.k.a. 'Cosmic Skeptic' on youtube).
In the 20 minute video below, Alex takes a little umbrage with fellow atheist Sam Harris's view that human morality has some kind of substantial 'objective' quality to it. Rather, Alex thinks human morality is firmly 'subjective.'
Is Alex right in saying that Sam is wrong about the nature of human morality? Well, watch the video and decide for yourself. Or don't decide ...
But none of that equates to something being objectively right or wrong. And saying something is wrong doesn't mean its wrong without any independent measure. In other words, saying you don't murder because you have better things to do means when you don't have better things to do murdering can be something to do. No one in the immediate vicinity to murder means that when there is someone in your vicinity it is OK to murder etc.No, I'm far too smart to ever be caught.
I don't murder people for many reasons. I think it's wrong. I have better things to do with my time. No one in my immediate vicinity really needs to be murdered at the moment.
As usual, this is just a sad apologetic that without signing up for religion brand X, people would be monstrous villains.
This raises a good point in the debate about atheistic and theistic morality. Like belief in God is the key to salvation and no objective evidence is going to prove God. It is the belief in God's objective morality that is the key and not any direct evidence for it in the end.
We can come up with good arguments for morality being objective based on our intuition, it's better for us, subjective morality cannot establish any clear and consistent moral code and therefore ultimately don't work, our lived moral experience shows that we act and react like there are objective morals despite subjective moral claims.
We can also show support for Jesus being the only true representation of God. But in the end these can never directly fully support objective morality. Ultimately it is only by faith in God and therefore His moral laws that we can know the objectivity of morality. But that doesn't mean there is indirect evidence.
At the end of the day if there is a God unlike what the Cosmic Skeptic argues there must be objective moral values because God is also a God of judgment which implies a measure to determine accountability. Whether we can directly prove that is another thing and therefore relies on faith. But if he wants to use the example that there is a God then he has to also acknowledge the implications of God's judgment for morality.
But none of that equates to something being objectively right or wrong.
Assuming you believe Objective morality is based on God, in theory if God said murder was good, would you believe murder to be good?This raises a good point in the debate about atheistic and theistic morality. Like belief in God is the key to salvation and no objective evidence is going to prove God. It is the belief in God's objective morality that is the key and not any direct evidence for it in the end.
Have your ”god” created morality or is it independent from him/her/it?
Can your ”god” change moral rules?
So god(s) can change what is right/wrong, doesnt that defeat the idea of ”objective morality ”?Yes, He can! Why? ...... because as the Apostle Paul implies in his letter to the Romans, moral "rules" are presented to humanity by God for the sake of the "unruly." In fact, we don't even need written rules if we already have God's unwritten moral code implanted, however intuitively structured, within our individual psychologies......................unless, of course, any one of us is a sociopath, then we might flout the social and humanitarian rules we should all, and everyone, already sense we need to do.
So, if a person is already moral, they don't need rules to abide by. And some rules can be changed as imperfect people adjust to dealing appropriately with their sinful proclivities.
So god(s) can change what is right/wrong, doesnt that defeat the idea of ”objective morality ”?
If we assume there is a God, how does that make him the moral dictator?At the end of the day if there is a God unlike what the Cosmic Skeptic argues there must be objective moral values because God is also a God of judgment which implies a measure to determine accountability.
Nope. Because it doesn't change what is right and wrong on a general level. Why? Because even biblical rules (laws) never fully represent all of what is right and wrong in the human world, and at least some of the biblical laws are ensconced within priorities and provisions and weren't just 'absolute' on their own. Some of them could even be considered with exceptions under certain conditions. For example, the 1st Commandment is non-negotiable, but some biblical laws come with contingencies and exceptions. So, we can't really say that it was One Law, Once for All in an absolute way.
The only thing that is 'once for all' is the sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross for you, me, and everybody else.
This makes zero sense.