Does morality exist without God?

[TomZzyzx]

How exactly does that follow?

Who invented this rule?

So there are different morals for your god and for humans? Moral relativist!

My statement already answered your first question.

This rule has been around since the beginning of man. You can also do what ever you want with anything you create.

Different morals because He is a different type of being.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This rule has been around since the beginning of man.

So has the idea that slavery is good. But that doesn't justify the idea, and most people now reject that idea.

You can also do what ever you want with anything you create.

So, if you had the power to create a woman, who was a fully sentient being, you would have the right to rape her or harm her in any way you saw fit? There would be nothing wrong at all making her suffer?

Different morals because He is a different type of being.

Perhaps, but then why call God good?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Verv]

And why would we be prone to error?

If morality is about "right and wrong" - about what one is supposed to do and supposed to not do - then doing something that doesn't do what it is supposed to do is "wrong".

Yes, doing something that is morally wrong is wrong.

those are some big asumptions

Naturally.

We are dealing in a field called philosophy now.

Philosophy is not science. It is not provable.

The easy thing to do is to say there is no God and there is no objective morality, because then you are simply giving up on a lot of questions about right & wrong and being a purely inductive person.

In a sense, it is much like behaving as an animal -- it is the action of only reacting to whatever stimuli is nearby, and not bothering to even try to look and see what is beyond.

 

[quatona]

My statement already answered your first question.

No, it was a non-sequitur.

This rule has been around since the beginning of man. You can also do what ever you want with anything you create.

Who established this rule?

Different morals because He is a different type of being.

And there was me thinking that a supposedly superiour being could be held to stricter moral standards. Or is called "superiour" exactly because it is superiour (when held to the same standards). My mistake.

 

[TomZzyzx]

So has the idea that slavery is good. But that doesn't justify the idea, and most people now reject that idea.

So, if you had the power to create a woman, who was a fully sentient being, you would have the right to rape her or harm her in any way you saw fit? There would be nothing wrong at all making her suffer?

Perhaps, but then why call God good?

eudaimonia,

Mark

So your saying that the idea that slavery is good is the same as someone destroying a painting they created. Really?

If I had the power to create life then I would be God, and God is a spirit being and neither male or female, and rape would be an impossibility.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So your saying that the idea that slavery is good is the same as someone destroying a painting they created. Really?

It is in principle. If someone is your property, you may destroy them.

If I had the power to create life then I would be God, and God is a spirit being and neither male or female, and rape would be an impossibility.

And if you could send your angels or other creations to rape this woman, would you see yourself as morally entitled to do so?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TomZzyzx]

No, it was a non-sequitur.

Who established this rule?

And there was me thinking that a supposedly superiour being could be held to stricter moral standards. Or is called "superiour" exactly because it is superiour (when held to the same standards). My mistake.

It's a moral rule that we discovered. Not man made.

There's no such thing as stricter moral standards, sounds like moral relativism. I guess it is your mistake.

 

[TomZzyzx]

It is in principle. If someone is your property, you may destroy them.

And if you could send your angels or other creations to rape this woman, would you see yourself as morally entitled to do so?

eudaimonia,

Mark

People are only God's property. Since we didn't create slaves they are not our property and we cannot destroy them.

You just can't stop making up scenarios that never happened or can never happen.

 

[jayem]

In a sense, it is much like behaving as an animal -- it is the action of only reacting to whatever stimuli is nearby, and not bothering to even try to look and see what is beyond.

But so what? I do believe that morals are basically instinctive, though we are not totally controlled by them. We are animals, but unique ones. The neuronal architecture of our brains gives us a singular capacity to learn, think, and put our thoughts into action. Which, as far as we know, is greater than that of any other extant animal species. Our reasoning ability allows us to consciously override our instinctive drives. So we have a much greater range of behavioral choices than all other animals. But even if our behaviors were largely reflexive, without much cogitation, that wouldn't be a "bad' thing. It would be how we evolved. It would just be our nature. Concepts of good and bad don't really apply to natural phenomena.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, doing something that is morally wrong is wrong.

That would mean that creating humans - moral beings, who are supposed to "do right" - in a way so that they don't do right.... is wrong.

 

[quatona]

It's a moral rule that we discovered. Not man made.

So where and how did "we" discover it?
Who made this rule?

There's no such thing as stricter moral standards, sounds like moral relativism. I guess it is your mistake.

Well, you were the one who said the moral standard for God was different than for us. Yes, sounds like moral relativism.

Still wondering who or what it was that set the moral standards for God. Must be an incredibly powerful source.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You just can't stop making up scenarios that never happened or can never happen.

As a matter of fact, I can, because I'm speaking about principles.

You have claimed that "You can also do what ever you want with anything you create." I'm seeing if you really believe this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

You can also do what ever you want with anything you create.

I found this quote somewhere here in this thread: "...subjective moral relativism. A morality that believes that everyone's morality is what ever they believe it to be or what ever they feel it is. This leads to some people that have no regard for human life."

That seems to be pretty much the God that you just described. A being that has no regard for human life and can do whatever he wants without ever being wrong.

You are attacking subjective morals on the ground that they lead to believe it is ok to steal and murder and lie. But somehow we who believe that morals are subjective do not advocate theft and murder and lies. Somehow all these subjective moralists found a way to agree on things.

You one the other hand, the proponent of an absolute moral, cannot offer something better than a being who says one thing and does the other and follows the ultimate "might makes right" plan.

 

[Belk]

If you create something you have the right to do whatever you want with it, including destroying it. Human beings have always been God's property, He created us.

So it all boils down to might makes right?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Let's get back to basics, shall we. "Does morality exist without God?"

If you don't believe in God's objective morality then you believe in a subjective morality. Subjective morality states that moral truths apply to the subject, the person, not the object. Objective morality states that moral truths apply to the object, like murder, not the subject. If murder is an objective moral wrong then it applies to everyone, whether they believe it or not. if murder is a subjective wrong, then it only applies to the subject, or person, who believes it's wrong. Subjective truths are based on our preferences and can change according to our whims. Objective truths are realities that we discover and cannot be changed by our whims.

Moral Relativism is a type of subjectivism. It states that moral truths are preferences, like our tastes in foods, or cars, or the the type of people we are friends with. What's the difference between a moral relativist and a person who admits that he has no morality at all? There isn't any. How does a relativist make a moral decision? He decides for himself whatever he thinks is best. How does someone with no morality know haw to act? He decides for himself whatever he thinks is best. If you believe morality is determined by subjective preferences then you give up the possibility of making moral judgements about anyone's actions. Relativist can't accuse anyone of wrongdoing.

Moral objectivism states that moral rules are true regardless of whether anyone believes it. Moral objectivist believe that moral rules are self evident, the same way that math and logic is self evident. We don't invent morality, we discover it. Morality is universal, applying to all people at all times. If murder is wrong for one person then it is wrong for everyone. Christians believe that God has given us this objective morality.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

This being possess this authority because He is the creator of the universe. He has the right to do what ever he wants to do to his creation. If He chooses to give life He can give it. If He chooses to take life He can take it. It's not immoral for God to take the life of his own property.

might makes right again your god is a monster who treats his creations he give a mind to like any other object

hes a horrible parent and id say evil and i do say such a god is evil no universal morality is telling me otherwise

according to you such a force is only a cosmic thug any way

 

[blarg the 2nd]

If you create something you have the right to do whatever you want with it, including destroying it. Human beings have always been God's property, He created us.

i hope people like you never create an ai that's sentient or engineer an intelligent form of life if you do i hope they rise up and kill you

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Yes on your first question, no on the second.

Objective morality applies to everyone at all times, even if they don't believe it.

unless that's bull you just happen to like the sound of

 

[blarg the 2nd]

My statement already answered your first question.

This rule has been around since the beginning of man. You can also do what ever you want with anything you create.

Different morals because He is a different type of being.

man never built something that could think for itself with independent desires

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Yes, doing something that is morally wrong is wrong.



Naturally.

We are dealing in a field called philosophy now.

Philosophy is not science. It is not provable.

The easy thing to do is to say there is no God and there is no objective morality, because then you are simply giving up on a lot of questions about right & wrong and being a purely inductive person.

In a sense, it is much like behaving as an animal -- it is the action of only reacting to whatever stimuli is nearby, and not bothering to even try to look and see what is beyond.

i dont know if there is a god its also easy to say ther is one to say that someng is always right or worng for every one because moral cetanty comforts you