Does morality exist without God?

[Common Sense]

Tod, I know I'm not reading yourpost correctly but it sounds like you might prefere torture and rape and consider it a pleasure. Could you be happy if your home is robbed and your wife or daughter raped. I can't get a handle on this at all. Am I in a Christian Forum?

 

[Common Sense]

Never mind, I see your an Atheist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In order for you to say it is wrong for a gang to torture men and rape women, you must assume that torture and rape are objective and not a personal preferences.

No you don't.

However, in order for torture and rape to exist objectively, morals must also exist as real, objective things.
[//quote]

No they don't.

Otherwise, torture and rape are not truly wrong; it's just a personal preference like choosing one's favorite flavor of ice cream.

OK. And as long as society at large continues to see Torture and Rape as immoral (which it undoubtedly will), that's perfectly fine.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My morality began with the teachings of my parents, as they were taught by their parents, when I began attending Church The things I had been taught were confirmed. I believe the teachings came fron God but I don't believe you have to get it from the Bible , not if you had parents with good morals. There isone most important thing you can get from no other book and that's the perfect plan of Salvation. You are right however that other books will contain tachings on morals that provide a man with the knowlege to perserve his self dignity, obtain the respect of others and be known by all as a man who will not back down from his beliefs to please anyone. His handshake is more important that a writen agreement. Might not all this have originated from Godly men before pen was ever put to paper?

No, because morals predate Judaism and Christianity.

However, I am happy you can recognize morals can come from secular sources. Many Christians can't even do that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Tod, I know I'm not reading yourpost correctly but it sounds like you might prefere torture and rape and consider it a pleasure. Could you be happy if your home is robbed and your wife or daughter raped. I can't get a handle on this at all. Am I in a Christian Forum?

How on earth did you pick up off his post that he likes torture or rape, he never said any such thing.

Never mind, I see your an Atheist

What does that have to do with anything, you ignorant bigot?

 

[Common Sense]

As long as you realize I'm not saying they orginated with secular people. Morals in no way predate God.

 

[Dave Ellis]

As long as you realize I'm not saying they orginated with secular people. Morals in no way predate God.

Morals pre-date civilization, and very well may predate humanity in general in one form or another.

 

[TomZzyzx]

False. If a subjectivist says that torture and rape are wrong, they're saying they're wrong to them. Nothing objective is implied.

Yes. And?

Your correct in saying that "If a subjectivist says that torture and rape are wrong, they're saying they're wrong to them". But if your a subjectivist you cannot say that torture and rape is wrong or immoral for anyone else. You can say the you don't like torture and rape but you can't tell us that they're wrong or immoral.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Tod, I know I'm not reading yourpost correctly but it sounds like you might prefere torture and rape and consider it a pleasure. Could you be happy if your home is robbed and your wife or daughter raped. I can't get a handle on this at all. Am I in a Christian Forum?

Yeahhhhh, you completely misread my post.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Your correct in saying that "If a subjectivist says that torture and rape are wrong, they're saying they're wrong to them". But if your a subjectivist you cannot say that torture and rape is wrong or immoral for anyone else. You can say the you don't like torture and rape but you can't tell us that they're wrong or immoral.

False. when a subjectivist says "you shouldn't rape or torture", they're saying they desire that the person to whom they are speaking adopts their views on the subject. Being a subjectivist doesn't mean you can't have opinions on other people's behavior.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ok, where does your morality come from?

My upbringing (mom and dad). Society. My ability to think about actions and consequences. Empathy. In short, my morals come from a myriad different places.

(sorry it took so long to reply)

 

[TomZzyzx]

No you don't.

Yes you do. The instant you say it's wrong or immoral for anyone to rape and torture you shift from your own subjective personal preference to the object of rape and torture being wrong or immoral. That would be objective morality. If you believe morality is just a personal preference like if your favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate then You can't say that it's wrong or immoral for anyone to like chocolate ice cream.

If you believe that society (by society we are talking about the government of that society) dictates morality, then if the U.S. government one day overturned Roe vs Wade and said that it is now illegal to have an abortion you would would be ok with that, right? Not only you but every citizen of the United States would have to agree that abortion is not only wrong but immoral.

 

[Freodin]

Your correct in saying that "If a subjectivist says that torture and rape are wrong, they're saying they're wrong to them". But if your a subjectivist you cannot say that torture and rape is wrong or immoral for anyone else. You can say the you don't like torture and rape but you can't tell us that they're wrong or immoral.

So a moral relativist cannot say that somebody is wrong or immoral, only that the moral relativist does not like this behaviour. And thus the moral relativist is accused of condoning immoral behaviour.

But on the other hand, the moral objectivist states he can tell whether somebody is wrong or immoral, regardless of his personal preferences. That means a moral objectivist CAN like rape and murder... he just knows they are wrong.

And we all know that people rather do what they like, even if they think it is wrong - at least, that is what the Christians always tell us we unbelievers do: living according our own sinful likings.

And still some people think that those who dislike murder and rape and and live according to their own preferences are somehow immoral, while someone who murders and rapes because he likes to do so, even with a bad conscience, is moral and forgiven.

 

[TomZzyzx]

False. when a subjectivist says "you shouldn't rape or torture", they're saying they desire that the person to whom they are speaking adopts their views on the subject. Being a subjectivist doesn't mean you can't have opinions on other people's behavior.

Your have it half right, you can have your own opinions but the instant you say it's wrong or immoral then you shift form your own personal subjective opinion to the object of torture and rape being wrong or immoral for someone else. That's objective morality.

 

[Freodin]

Yes you do. The instant you say it's wrong or immoral for anyone to rape and torture you shift from your own subjective personal preference to the object of rape and torture being wrong or immoral. That would be objective morality. If you believe morality is just a personal preference like if your favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate then You can't say that it's wrong or immoral for anyone to like chocolate ice cream.

If you believe that society (by society we are talking about the government of that society) dictates morality, then if the U.S. government one day overturned Roe vs Wade and said that it is now illegal to have an abortion you would would be ok with that, right? Not only you but every citizen of the United States would have to agree that abortion is not only wrong but immoral.

You are missing the important part of your opposites argumentation. You want the moral relativist making a statement of objective morality. Of course, he won't... he does not believe in such a concept.
And then you attack him for not making such a statement.

So get it: for a moral relativist, any statement of "morally right or wrong" are subjective statements. They are statements about their own preference, their own judgements and their own intentions.
A moral relativist has no problems with stating that liking chocolate icecream is immoral and that he thus intents to act against such a behaviour.

 

[Beechwell]

If you believe that society (by society we are talking about the government of that society) dictates morality, then if the U.S. government one day overturned Roe vs Wade and said that it is now illegal to have an abortion you would would be ok with that, right? Not only you but every citizen of the United States would have to agree that abortion is not only wrong but immoral.

No, society is not the same as the government of said society. Why would you think that?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Your have it half right, you can have your own opinions but the instant you say it's wrong or immoral then you shift form your own personal subjective opinion to the object of torture and rape being wrong or immoral for someone else. That's objective morality.

Nooo...

Like I've already explained, statements from subjectivists have an implied "to me" attached to them. If directed to another, as in an opinion about someone else's behavior, they're still acknowledging an opinion about the other person's behavior, and a desire to have that person adopt the same viewpoint.

There's nothing objective about it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But if your a subjectivist you cannot say that torture and rape is wrong or immoral for anyone else. You can say the you don't like torture and rape but you can't tell us that they're wrong or immoral.

Wow....

Here we go again.

Yes, you can say that. You do not have to respect their opinion that torture or rape is immoral. If they are doing something, or hold a belief that you find is immoral.... then by default, you would think of them as immoral.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes you do. The instant you say it's wrong or immoral for anyone to rape and torture you shift from your own subjective personal preference to the object of rape and torture being wrong or immoral. That would be objective morality.

No you don't.... If in my opinion rape or torture is wrong, and someone goes out and rapes someone, my opinion is still based on the fact that I believe rape is wrong. There's nothing objective about it.

If you believe morality is just a personal preference like if your favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate then You can't say that it's wrong or immoral for anyone to like chocolate ice cream.

Sure you can. I can disagree or say whatever I want to regarding other people's opinions and beliefs.

If someone wanted to overthrow the US Government and replace it with a communist regime, do you just have to accept their opinion and go merrily along on your way.... or do you have the right to believe and speak up about how they're misguided and pose a danger to society?

Your basis that you're not allowed to judge other people is nonsense. If someone holds a belief you think is immoral, you're allowed to disagree and actively oppose them if you wish.

If you believe that society (by society we are talking about the government of that society) dictates morality, then if the U.S. government one day overturned Roe vs Wade and said that it is now illegal to have an abortion you would would be ok with that, right? Not only you but every citizen of the United States would have to agree that abortion is not only wrong but immoral.

Yes and No. If they overturned Roe vs Wade and made abortion illegal, I would strongly disagree with what they did. However in the case of Abortion, even though I'm in favour of legalized abortion, I can recognize the moral arguments from both sides.

However your premise that every citizen would have to agree that it's wrong and immoral again gets back to the point you are not comprehending. No, they would not have to all be in unanimous agreement, just as the Anti-Abortion people are not in agreement with the current legal status of Abortion.

 

[TomZzyzx]

No, society is not the same as the government of said society. Why would you think that?

Then you tell me what you mean by society.