Can there be morality without God?

stevevw · Apr 2, 2015

Kiritsugu Emiyah said:
What you speak of isn't logical. Your god didn't do anything that normal human beings wouldn't already do for their loved ones.

I see no reason to see poverty etc and conclude we need god for morality. It's very evident that do have morality even in your god's absence.

Heres one example. Jesus said there is one commandment that covers all the law. To love others as you love yourself. He often spoke of how we should help others such as with the parable of the good Samaritan. He even says that greater love has a person but to lay their life down for another.

So if we were to follow this one simple teaching then we would have a much better world. To start with the system of how secular society runs with commercialism and consumerism means that everyone is buying into that and wanting to have material things. Even to the point where its money and profits before people. Now Jesus teaches us to not conform to this world. So if we didn't follow this we would be sharing more and sacrificing things to help others. We wouldn't make material things so important and would give up that way of life to help others.

When you say normal human beings we are all the same. We are all sinners and we all have the laws of God written in our hearts. But many dent God and replace this with man made ways of doing things. A person can still practice what Jesus taught without him being religious and they maybe more saved than someone who is religious. Its whats in the heart of a person not what good deeds they do or how religious they are. People can be moral but we also have this evil nature which can corrupt things and compromise the truth. This worlds version of truth, peace and good is different to Gods. We can only overcome that evil nature by being transformed by Jesus when we are redeemed and made worthy by His blood.

stevevw · Apr 2, 2015

Kiritsugu Emiyah said:
stevevw

That isn't logical. That humans already pursue morality without god is proof that we do not need a god for it.

Click to expand...

We need God because even though we know of His law such as not to kill we put our versions of what we can allow as well. We move away from Gods ways and start to add our ways. This is where we can justify many things because we dont want to follow God. We start to make a lie become the truth and the truth is watered down. This is seen with things like Marriage and sexual immorality. We rationalize and justify that having sex outside marriage is OK and then getting divorced is even good. We justify its OK to have casual sex and then have things like abortions to deal with the consequences.

It still remains that your god is extremely selective in who he allows to survive and escape his torture ovens and that's not good or kind.

Click to expand...

No the bible says all have the opportunity to be saved.
God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy:2:4)

That isn't logical. Evolution is an honest attempt to explain our existence without magic and myth and it clearly does not promote killing and destruction.

Click to expand...

I realize this and its probably my personal opinion more than anything. But it seems an awful lot of evolutionists dont believe in God. When I say evolutionists I am meaning the Darwinist who support the theory of all life forming from naturalistic methods. There are even group's and an organized movement nowadays such as with people like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss who go around saying we dont need God that is mixed up in it all. One of Lawrence Krauss famous quotes is to forget Jesus because the stars died so that we could be here today. So it is even famous scientists who are bringing this topic into a more personal debate about beliefs.

Evolution doesn't promote killing but if you listen to how some people talk about it being a cold and uncaring process then it certainly doesn't care for whether someone lives or dies. Its just a cold statistical fact of evolution that its survival of the fittest. But then it makes you wonder if that doesn't promote a less caring world where some may not care so much that the weak are phased out so that there is more for the stronger that are left.

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1--Richard Dawkins

LOVEthroughINTELLECT · Apr 2, 2015

Psychologists have conducted experiments that show that people who believe that free will does not exist--that we have no control over our thoughts and actions--are more likely to do morally questionable things than people who do believe that we have free will.

Determinism in philosophy and neuroscience, not evolution in biology, seems to be on the way to being the dominant paradigm. And apparently it will change people's behavior.

quatona · Apr 3, 2015

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
Psychologists have conducted experiments that show that people who believe that free will does not exist--that we have no control over our thoughts and actions--are more likely to do morally questionable things than people who do believe that we have free will.

Interesting. Can you point me to those studies?

Determinism in philosophy and neuroscience, not evolution in biology, seems to be on the way to being the dominant paradigm. And apparently it will change people's behavior.

So?

stevevw · Apr 3, 2015

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
Psychologists have conducted experiments that show that people who believe that free will does not exist--that we have no control over our thoughts and actions--are more likely to do morally questionable things than people who do believe that we have free will.

Determinism in philosophy and neuroscience, not evolution in biology, seems to be on the way to being the dominant paradigm. And apparently it will change people's behavior.

There have also been studies done that show religion is beneficial to your physical , mental and emotional health.

Lower mortality rates for frequent religious attenders are partly explained by improved health practices, increased social contacts, and more stable marriages occurring in conjunction with attendance. The mechanisms by which these changes occur have broad intervention implications.
Frequent attendance at religious services and mortality over 28 years. - PubMed - NCBI

The authors studied the relationship between religious belief and psychiatric and medical status in 30 elderly women recovering from the surgical repair of broken hips. Religious belief was associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms and better ambulation status.
Religious belief, depression, and ambulation status in elderly women with broken hips. - PubMed - NCBI

Being married and being involved in religious activities are generally associated with positive effects in several areas, including physical and mental health, economic outcomes, and the process of raising children.
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Apr 3, 2015

stevevw said:
Heres one example. Jesus said there is one commandment that covers all the law. To love others as you love yourself. He often spoke of how we should help others such as with the parable of the good Samaritan. He even says that greater love has a person but to lay their life down for another.

So if we were to follow this one simple teaching then we would have a much better world. To start with the system of how secular society runs with commercialism and consumerism means that everyone is buying into that and wanting to have material things. Even to the point where its money and profits before people. Now Jesus teaches us to not conform to this world. So if we didn't follow this we would be sharing more and sacrificing things to help others. We wouldn't make material things so important and would give up that way of life to help others.

When you say normal human beings we are all the same. We are all sinners and we all have the laws of God written in our hearts. But many dent God and replace this with man made ways of doing things. A person can still practice what Jesus taught without him being religious and they maybe more saved than someone who is religious. Its whats in the heart of a person not what good deeds they do or how religious they are. People can be moral but we also have this evil nature which can corrupt things and compromise the truth. This worlds version of truth, peace and good is different to Gods. We can only overcome that evil nature by being transformed by Jesus when we are redeemed and made worthy by His blood.

None of that is a logical, sin, law on our hearts, gods, needing to be saved, evil nature... it isn't logical and humans already have a self shaped moral system that is based on what they want done to them.

You claim that a lack of Jesus is what's destroying our world, and you also say that we're supposed to reject the world and pursue heaven. Doesn't make sense.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Apr 3, 2015

stevevw said:
Kiritsugu Emiyah said:

stevevw

We need God because even though we know of His law such as not to kill we put our versions of what we can allow as well. We move away from Gods ways and start to add our ways. This is where we can justify many things because we dont want to follow God. We start to make a lie become the truth and the truth is watered down. This is seen with things like Marriage and sexual immorality. We rationalize and justify that having sex outside marriage is OK and then getting divorced is even good. We justify its OK to have casual sex and then have things like abortions to deal with the consequences.

No the bible says all have the opportunity to be saved.
God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy:2:4)

I realize this and its probably my personal opinion more than anything. But it seems an awful lot of evolutionists dont believe in God. When I say evolutionists I am meaning the Darwinist who support the theory of all life forming from naturalistic methods. There are even group's and an organized movement nowadays such as with people like Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss who go around saying we dont need God that is mixed up in it all. One of Lawrence Krauss famous quotes is to forget Jesus because the stars died so that we could be here today. So it is even famous scientists who are bringing this topic into a more personal debate about beliefs.

Evolution doesn't promote killing but if you listen to how some people talk about it being a cold and uncaring process then it certainly doesn't care for whether someone lives or dies. Its just a cold statistical fact of evolution that its survival of the fittest. But then it makes you wonder if that doesn't promote a less caring world where some may not care so much that the weak are phased out so that there is more for the stronger that are left.

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1--Richard Dawkins

Click to expand...

I said that your god is extremely selective in who he saves, you said this isn't true because he gives everyone a chance to meet his terms of salvation... that's still being extremely selective in who he saves.

I clearly showed you how biology and evolution do not promote the destruction of the human race or the world.

stevevw · Apr 3, 2015

Kiritsugu Emiyah said:
None of that is a logical, sin, law on our hearts, gods, needing to be saved, evil nature... it isn't logical and humans already have a self shaped moral system that is based on what they want done to them.

It seems even scientists and psychologists say we may have the signs of being good and bad within us even from birth.
Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months
So it seems that we all know about good and evil from an early age. Society has to set limits so that people conform to what is good and acceptable. If there wasn't any laws then people would do wrong and thats why we have laws. History shows that humans dont always get along with violence, fighting and wars. So this shows we have both a good and bad nature within us that has always been there. You can cite reasons for humans to conform to being good because of evolutionary pressures but that doesn't explain everything. People still do evil things which history has found we cannot always control.

You claim that a lack of Jesus is what's destroying our world, and you also say that we're supposed to reject the world and pursue heaven. Doesn't make sense.

Well it probably wont seem logical to someone who doesn't believe in sin and God. Just like God creating the universe isn't logical to a non believer. When the bible says that we must not conform to this world it doesn't mean the planet itself or the world as in the entire globe. It means the system of doing things. The bible looks at the way the world works as a sort of worldly kingdom. Even though there are different countries who have different ways of operation politics and laws the overall system is the same in that it does these things without God. The bible tells us to look to Gods Kingdom that is coming.

Even non religious people can see the sense of not always buying into the way this world operates. Many people are worried about a one world government and big brothers taking over their lives. But if you consider that money is the god of our world then we can see that money can cause many problems. God tells us that we should put people before things like money. So it makes a lot of sense what Jesus said when He was teaching about loving others as yourself and following God. I would have thought even your beliefs would be supporting similar ideas of a non material world where we follow spiritual values.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Apr 3, 2015

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying and I'm not interested in talking about mythical creatures and mythical spiritual rules

Human's clearly have moral systems without the torturous god you claim exists

Nice chatting with you

LOVEthroughINTELLECT · Apr 3, 2015

Vohs and Schooler set out to see if otherwise honest people would cheat and lie if their beliefs in free will were manipulated.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Apr 3, 2015

LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
Vohs and Schooler set out to see if otherwise honest people would cheat and lie if their beliefs in free will were manipulated.

I don't believe free will exists.

I also don't believe morality is real, humans made up the moral system to protect their selves and meet their needs so I call morality fake.

People do what they want and moral systems ultimately reflect what people want, that's all they are and that's the only basis for any moral system.

I do have a way I want to be treated and things I want to do but I acknowledge that these are only desires. We all have these systems with or without gods. Human's came first, they made god and the moral system. Even if a god really did exist, a moral system that was supposedly based on him would still be nothing more than a persons desire to live by his rules.

Mediate · Apr 4, 2015

Autumnleaf said:
Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right. That sounds great to many people because they know what is wrong and right. Oddly, people seldom agree on this. Furthermore, when people gain power over others their view of right and wrong tends to change to right being whatever protects their power or grants them more power. Historical cases of this are:

Ukraine Famine | United Human Rights Council

and

Chronology of Mass Killings during the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) - Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence

Religious death tolls happen, but they tend to be relatively small and with good reason, ie crusades to kick out foreign invaders from Europe or the inquisition to root out subversive elements of society ie Kabbalists who were accused of sacrificing Christian children.

The JudeoChristian God, or any God or religion for that matter, has never had a monopoly on morality. Morality predates religion, most definitely. As for wrong and right changing, even the Christian ideals of right and wrong have changed. At one point it was acceptable to stone a witch; beat your wife; have concubines as well as a wife; to torture heretics.

Christian morality is by no means unchanging or objective, no more so than any other form of morality. in fact, although Christians often assert biblical morality as objective because it comes from God, what it actually comes from is the individual renderings of a text written and compiled and chosen from various texts, all themselves written by men.

So, if God does give doen moralities, they can never be objective and unchanging because the interpreter will always colour the text with his or her own perception. That's why some Christian sects believe in self-flaggelation, while some don't. That's why some believe contraception is okay, and others don't. That's why some believed in leading Crusades and Inquisitions, and some didn't.

Christianity's only substantive basis for morality is a code of rules, a subjectively interpreted deontological morality that should be adhered to nomatter what. A rule is a rule, after all.

That's why Christian morality isn't just changing and dependent on individual interpretation, but dangerous. A Christian person can easily believe their interpretations of the bible are divinely inspired, and that their moralities are cosmically correct therefore. They are God given and infallible. That's what led to the Inquisitions and the tortures of thousands; the burning of ''witches''; the slaughtering of men, women and children in the name of God.

As a non-Christian, I base my morality off a few premises:

1. That as the entire universe is made of energy that exists eternally, the chances of which forming as life in the known universe are extraordinarily slim, all sentient life is to be cherished and valued.
2. That empathy is the basis upon which all conscious human moral deliberation should be based. I wish to survive, thus I should not cause another human being to not survive, to die; unless their pain is so great that they cry out for death.
3. What I don't like done to me -- to be unconsensually violated in any way -- others won't like done to them.

That's it. That's a very simple example of how humans can live in societies free of violence, violation, rape, theft, poverty and abuse.

I didn't need any god to come to those realizations. I came to them because they are the the logical route to a peaceful natural equilibrium. Morality must start with ''I'' and extend to others. It cannot be exteriorally enforced through fear or promise of existential reward, because then it ceases to be a true morality and starts to become obeying orders for the promise of profit.

BucksWordBearer · Apr 4, 2015

Mediate.
Okay let me get this straight; you believe morality is simply "What is RIGHT and what is WRONG". Your first premise for morality 1 bases what is right on probability of something occurring. The chances of a child contracting a rare medical condition such as Paraneoplastic pemphigus is very low therefore by your definition of morality this happening is considered "Right".

Premise number 2 simply equates morality with empathy, empathy is not universal therefore in your eyes morality is not universal(e.g.socio paths). It's also based on simply equating survival with what is right. You provide no real justification for why the survival of any form of life is "right".

Premise 3 is based on your petty preference not right and wrong.

One final thing, you seem to believe that Christianity advocates the belief that morality is above God, e.g. God believes something is right because of some moral code, this is incorrect. God's will equals What is right, the rejection of Gods will is wrong. Therefore in a Christians eyes you cannot have morality since without God there exists no such thing as 'morality'.

Mediate · Apr 4, 2015

BucksWordBearer said:
Mediate.
Okay let me get this straight; you believe morality is simply "What is RIGHT and what is WRONG".

morality
məˈralɪti/Submit
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Your first premise for morality 1 bases what is right on probability of something occurring. The chances of a child contracting a rare medical condition such as Paraneoplastic pemphigus is very low therefore by your definition of morality this happening is considered "Right".

This is logically fallacious because it misrepresents what I'm saying.

I said that conscious life from energetic particles is rare, it doesn't happen very often, thus life is a precious and rare thing. That life is so rare and so fleeting, says to me that it deserves to be cherished. Would you argue that point, in that exact context?

I don't think you would.

I think you would agree that life is rare, life is valuable, and life deserves therefore to be cherished and sanctified. But because that realization (life is precious) is not expressly illustrated by me as deriving from the bible's teachings on the sanctity of life you've extrapolated and abstracted it into ''if something has a low probability of occurring it must be morally correct'' in order to discredit it and make it look silly. That is so far removed from any contextual validity that it is blatant intellectual dishonesty. Whether you agree that life is precious or not seems, for you, to come second to discrediting any idea of a non-Christian morality.

Premise number 2 simply equates morality with empathy, empathy is not universal therefore in your eyes morality is not universal(e.g.socio paths). It's also based on simply equating survival with what is right. You provide no real justification for why the survival of any form of life is "right".

As a Christian, would you say that preserving life is wrong? Again, you're extrapolating facets of my argument and abstracting them. You're arguing the point, and yet, I know for certain you would not argue that human life should just be ended at will. Your own bible contains commands to the contrary.

Your own bible also urges you to ''do not unto others what you would not have done unto you''. That's empathy.

If I base my morality on empathy I do so because I believe it is the best way for a moral decision to be made while maintaining interpersonal integrity for each party. I did not, and will not, ever say it is objectively correct. Morality is not, and cannot be, objective. It can be thought to be objective, by those who think ''god's word'' is not subject to personal interpretations, but that view is simply not correct. God's morality, if it were absolutely objective and not subject to personal interpretations, would not vary in interpretation across the range of people who interpret it, yet it does.

What I do know is that no person wants to be violated unconsensually. Do you know of any person who enjoys unconsensual violation? You cannot, because unconsensual means ''not approved''. Nobody can, by very definition, want unconsensual violation. This was one important premise. I shall not violate any person against their will either in speech, or action.
Psychopaths, intellectually, can formulate such an idea and understand it. What they do not want to be done to them, they have the ability to decide not to do to others. Empathy is not an emotion. You confuse (just as many people uneducated in psychology confuse) empathy with sympathy. Read: Psychopaths have empathy switch.

Premise 3 is based on your petty preference not right and wrong.

Actually, point out to me any human being in the entire history of the Earth who wants or enjoys any unconsensual violation, and your assertion will have merit. Otherwise, it will not. Again, nobody, by the very definition of ''unconsensual'', can welcome, want, or enjoy such a violation.

One final thing, you seem to believe that Christianity advocates the belief that morality is above God, e.g. God believes something is right because of some moral code, this is incorrect.

No I do not believe that. I belive that Christian's consider that:

God's will equals What is right, the rejection of Gods will is wrong.

thereby failing to understand that ''God's will'' is subjectively interpreted by man. That means Christian ''morality'' can be dangerous because

in a Christians eyes you (non-christians) cannot have morality since without God there exists no such thing as 'morality'.

You assert an absolutely objective monopoly on morality which is irrefutable in your mind and is always cosmically correct, even though you intepret ''God's will'' with a subjective mind to contrary conclusions than many of your peers who also believe their interpretations of ''God's will'' to be objectively infallibly correct.

It is that kind of vehement conviction that leads some people of a religion to stone adulterous wives in the street while others in that same religion condemn it as absolute barbarity. To you, God's will (as you interpret it) is just, whether it's moral or not.

BucksWordBearer · Apr 4, 2015

Mediate.
I'm just applying your moral premises to logical situations, if they don't fit then the premise doesn't stand, the premise has no conditional statement.

You haven't provided me with a single justification on why life is valuable from your moral standpoint. Your only reason why was because it was "rare" I'm struggling to see why this implicates anything of moral value.

On premise two empathy has nothing to do with my morality as I explained before God's will is "right" while wrong is rejection of his will.

"Your own bible also urges you to ''do not unto others what you would not have done unto you''. That's empathy." This is not my justification for morality as I have stated before but it is entirely yours.

The existence of possible personal interpretations does not make Christian morality void as an objective interpretation exists regardless.

"What I do know is that no person wants to be violated unconsensually. Do you know of any person who enjoys unconsensual violation?" Happiness or pleasantness does not equate "right", if you're going to argue hedonism just come out right out and say it.

"Actually, point out to me any human being in the entire history of the Earth who wants or enjoys any unconsensual violation, and your assertion will have merit." Morality doesn't stem from human hearts and again you're pushing hedonism which you'll need to bring a whole new argument for to support it.

"thereby failing to understand that ''God's will'' is subjectively interpreted by man. That means Christian ''morality'' can be dangerous because" Again you fail to understand that there still exists a objective interpretation regardless of whenever people can grasp it.

"To you, God's will (as you interpret it) is just, whether it's moral or not." No I'm equating God's will with Morality like I've said about four times now.

I'm really not sure why you don't just embrace moral nihilism.

ethicsguy · Apr 4, 2015

BucksWordBearer said:
Mediate.
I'm just applying your moral premises to logical situations, if they don't fit then the premise doesn't stand, the premise has no conditional statement.

You haven't provided me with a single justification on why life is valuable from your moral standpoint. Your only reason why was because it was "rare" I'm struggling to see why this implicates anything of moral value.

On premise two empathy has nothing to do with my morality as I explained before God's will is "right" while wrong is rejection of his will.

"Your own bible also urges you to ''do not unto others what you would not have done unto you''. That's empathy." This is not my justification for morality as I have stated before but it is entirely yours.

The existence of possible personal interpretations does not make Christian morality void as an objective interpretation exists regardless.

"What I do know is that no person wants to be violated unconsensually. Do you know of any person who enjoys unconsensual violation?" Happiness or pleasantness does not equate "right", if you're going to argue hedonism just come out right out and say it.

"Actually, point out to me any human being in the entire history of the Earth who wants or enjoys any unconsensual violation, and your assertion will have merit." Morality doesn't stem from human hearts and again you're pushing hedonism which you'll need to bring a whole new argument for to support it.

"thereby failing to understand that ''God's will'' is subjectively interpreted by man. That means Christian ''morality'' can be dangerous because" Again you fail to understand that there still exists a objective interpretation regardless of whenever people can grasp it.

"To you, God's will (as you interpret it) is just, whether it's moral or not." No I'm equating God's will with Morality like I've said about four times now.

I'm really not sure why you don't just embrace moral nihilism.

You need to understand that for many people their brains cannot handle emptieness answers such as moral nihilism perports. Moral nihilism may, and most likely is, reality but it is a hard world to physically exist in. By the way, the forementioned people have the right to view the world differently than you or I. For ethical answers, have any of you explored Confucianism as a possible ethical possibility? Confucianism has a rather interesting approach to ethical answers. And Confucianism IS NOT a religion. It is merely a method of living a constructive ethical life. At its core it is very easy to understand its methodology. It is based on a simple parable froma Chinese philosopher named Mencius (about two-hundred years before Jesus). The story goes that if a child were to fall into a well would not your first thought to be to go to assist that child? He concludes therefore that this empathetic thought is instinct. If it is instinct than the human being is born "good." He concludes than that evil comes into our lives from us not being deligent about staying and cultivating this good. For Confucianists a constructive ethical path for life is one of consistent self-cultivation. This system lives in the world from the ethical viewpoint of "virtue ethics." (However, even virtual ethics has its problems, no ethical system is perfect) Is this the most accurate answer to the defination for morality? No. Moral nihilism is most likely the most objective answer. Folllowing moral nihilism though is practically impossible to follow with a constructive way to live life. Confucianism is simply a practical successful methodology for ethics (and verifiable, not just ethical because someone told you to do things a certain way). It should be explored (not neccassirly followed) by any educated person. By the way, you can be a Christian and a Confucian at the same time since Confucianism is merely a way to live life. Dr. Robert Neville, for instance, is the Dean of the School of Theology at Boston University and he is both a devote Christian and simultaneously a Confucian. On a side note, the Eastern philosophy of Taoism has some interesting thoughts as well.

Mediate · Apr 4, 2015

BucksWordBearer said:
Mediate.
I'm just applying your moral premises to logical situations, if they don't fit then the premise doesn't stand, the premise has no conditional statement.

No you're extrapolating them out of contextual real world situations to abstract them. That's the opposite of ''applying moral premises to logical situations''. Morality is not applied other than in situations, real world human situations, that require moral deliberations and decisions. Morality has no real world application but betwixt and between human decision making.

You haven't provided me with a single justification on why life is valuable from your moral standpoint. Your only reason why was because it was "rare" I'm struggling to see why this implicates anything of moral value.

An entire universe of energy has erupted into space and time and changed form through eternal processes incalculable times in incalculable space through incalculable individual occurrences, through the births and deaths of stars to give rise to sapient conscious beings that can articulate and define the parameters of their own existence through the interaction of various chemical forms and the exchanges of energy that will never cease to be but sill simply move to a form that no longer supports that conscious viewing of the universe by itself. My right eye and left eye are made of the particles of separate stars, and you can't muster the emotion to understand why that's valuable?

You abstract morality from emotion, and in doing so you strip it of any true significance.

On premise two empathy has nothing to do with my morality as I explained before God's will is "right" while wrong is rejection of his will.

To you. What is ''God's will'' to you is different than what is ''God's will' to others. And you have no real measuring stick against which to compare and contrast and deduce which morality truly is cosmically correct. That's because the application of faux-objectivity to what is essentially subjective and interpreted by you in subjective ways is just that; exchanging ''my morality says'' for ''God's morality says''.

Your morality is not objective. You've just fooled yourself into thinking that it is.

"Your own bible also urges you to ''do not unto others what you would not have done unto you''. That's empathy." This is not my justification for morality as I have stated before but it is entirely yours.

Then you don't listen to the bible you profess to follow.

The existence of possible personal interpretations does not make Christian morality void as an objective interpretation exists regardless.

Then tell me, which one of the 41,000 slightly varying interpretations is the objective and infallible one? If you have no answer, then your point has absolutely no bearing on the real world status of Christian moral interpretations. If you don't know which one is objective and truthful out of them all, then you have no idea which one to apply.

"What I do know is that no person wants to be violated unconsensually. Do you know of any person who enjoys unconsensual violation?" Happiness or pleasantness does not equate "right", if you're going to argue hedonism just come out right out and say it.

Hedonism isn't the same as not violating another person's will. And happiness and the creation of happiness (or alternatively viewed as the cessation of suffering) are the only real, unanimous desires humanity share enough to warrant creating moral codes upon them.

"Actually, point out to me any human being in the entire history of the Earth who wants or enjoys any unconsensual violation, and your assertion will have merit." Morality doesn't stem from human hearts and again you're pushing hedonism which you'll need to bring a whole new argument for to support it.

You obviously don't understand the difference between hedonism and basic human respect for the will of others providing that will does not violate another unconsensually.

"thereby failing to understand that ''God's will'' is subjectively interpreted by man. That means Christian ''morality'' can be dangerous because" Again you fail to understand that there still exists a objective interpretation regardless of whenever people can grasp it.

If people can't grasp it or identify it then its existence is irrelevant in real world applicability.

"To you, God's will (as you interpret it) is just, whether it's moral or not." No I'm equating God's will with Morality like I've said about four times now.

Yet you don't know what God's will objectively is, nor does any other Christian for that matter.

I'm really not sure why you don't just embrace moral nihilism.

Because moral nihilism asserts life is meaningless. I don't believe that's true. You seem to believe that life has no meaning without God. I disagree with that in its entireity.

We, as humans, look up to the cosmos and in having the ability for self realization, an evolutionary trait that allows us to survive, a somewhat cruel price to pay for survival I must say, we cannot often stand the idea that the universe doesn't care about us. I simply don't believe it has to. The universe is indifferent to us, it's big and bad and harsh, and there is no God.

You can't handle that, so you grasp to the idea of some benevolent loving creator God who's going to make it all okay. I don't. That doesn't mean I have no purpose. Purpose has never been offered to me in some confession chamber. In realizing the universe is utterly indifferent to me, I realize it all the more truly and vividly that from it I forge my own purpose. I realize that the universe pays no attention to me, thus those living upon this world are all that matter within it.

I don't need an exterior judgement of value on my being. Being is enough for me.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Apr 4, 2015

Mediate

Because moral nihilism asserts life is meaningless. I don't believe that's true.

Moral Nihilism asserts that morality is meaningless or false, not that life itself is. I am agree with Moral Nihilism and I have desires and goals and ways I want to be treated but I acknowledge that my desires are the only basis of them. That doesn't mean I have no purpose or meaning in life. I have children and friends and needs, I have plenty of purposes and meaning.

Mediate · Apr 4, 2015

Kiritsugu Emiyah said:
Mediate

Moral Nihilism asserts that morality is meaningless or false, not that life itself is. I am agree with Moral Nihilism and I have desires and goals and ways I want to be treated but I acknowledge that my desires are the only basis of them. That doesn't mean I have no purpose or meaning in life. I have children and friends and needs, I have plenty of purposes and meaning.

Morality cannot be meaningless to you, if you have morality. For if you truly felt it were meaningless in its entirety, you would not pay it any heed. It has meaning, even if that meaning is only rooted in fear of repercussion for violating social codes of morality. That is still ''meaning''.

Perhaps you don't believe morality has any cosmically objective meaning. And nor do I.

But that isn't moral nihilism. It's subjective morality -- morality based on shared human desire, or sometimes just personal human desire. And we're all in the same boat on that. Objective morality doesn't exist. Some people just think it exists. It's nice for them to be able to assert their morality as some superior code that they can demand everybody live by.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Apr 4, 2015

Mediate said:
Morality cannot be meaningless to you, if you have morality. For if you truly felt it were meaningless in its entirety, you would not pay it any heed. It has meaning, even if that meaning is only rooted in fear of repercussion for violating social codes of morality. That is still ''meaning''.

Perhaps you don't believe morality has any cosmically objective meaning. And nor do I.

But that isn't moral nihilism. It's subjective morality -- morality based on shared human desire, or sometimes just personal human desire. And we're all in the same boat on that. Objective morality doesn't exist. Some people just think it exists. It's nice for them to be able to assert their morality as some superior code that they can demand everybody live by.

I am a moral nihilist and while I do have desires I recognize that they are ONLY my desires and that I cannot say anything is inherently good or bad. Morality is a made up system to make ourselves happy so I do consider it useless. But that doesn't remove my desires. I do not believe in moral systems.

I don't have to consider life itself to be without a purpose or meaning in order to consider moral systems to be frauds.

Can there be morality without God?

inquisitive

inquisitive

The courage to be human

"God"? What do you mean??

inquisitive

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

inquisitive

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

The courage to be human

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Only Borrowed

Junior Member

Only Borrowed

Junior Member

Newbie

Only Borrowed

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Only Borrowed

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency