Does morality exist without God?

[TomZzyzx]

Why's that?

Because those who reject an objective morality believe in a 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. They raise a generation of kids that believe it's ok to lie, ok to steal, ok to treat people with no respect and some of then to believe that killing someone else is ok. And each generation is worse than the last one.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Because those who reject an objective morality believe in a subjective moral relativism.

Or rather. People who object to other people's subjective moral absolutism that said people simply LIKE to refer to as their "objective morals" while simultaneously co-opting moral axioms. If history is any indication a lot of people do absolutely horrific things in the name of moral absolutism. The relativism that the average conservative christian objects to isn't really the relativism part but rather moral apathy. Which is it's own kettle of fish.

This leads to some people that have no regard for human life.

Wrong again. Again if history is any example for much of history the moral zeitgeist of the day allowed for many atrocities. The morals of societies at large over time have to change slowly but surely towards stronger moral character. And that's before you even get into conflicting moral ideas of different cultures. The rise of technology and the lessening of geographical isolationism has had a greater effect on morality worldwide than religious has had. Disregard for human life comes from sadism, sociopathy,greed,etc. Moral apathy while despicable in people is not a cause of such things in and of itself.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Because those who reject an objective morality believe in a 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. They raise a generation of kids that believe it's ok to lie, ok to steal, ok to treat people with no respect and some of then to believe that killing someone else is ok. And each generation is worse than the last one.

um murder lies and stealing and disrespect happen

and your disrespecting and lying about people now just because you don't believe in some cosmic force telling you not to lie steal and murder or disrespect others dose not mean you finde it good to do so

like wise its no basis to tell children to do so that doing so would be OK the golden rule idea is still useful for a relativist lying encourages other to lie to you being disrespectful encourages the same to be done to you as dose murder for your own petty pleasure.

most people would not want there children to undertake such risky and generally unpleasant activity and would do there best to point out the undesirable repercussions such actions could have to others.

just because you believe you have to make up your own morality to get by as best you can dosent mean you have abandoned rules and principles governing your actions

i imagine people wiht stong self destrucitve desires tend to get weeded out over time as well

 

[blarg the 2nd]

look absolute morality in the name of god

Imperial Klans of America

 

[Redac]

Because those who reject an objective morality believe in a 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.

Is that so? It seems that those who believe in some absolute moral authority use it to justify their otherwise despicable behavior more often than those who don't.

They raise a generation of kids that believe it's ok to lie, ok to steal, ok to treat people with no respect and some of then to believe that killing someone else is ok. And each generation is worse than the last one.

Except that societies have rules and ethics for a reason. Someone can act on their morality if they want, but they should expect consequences if they do so.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

look absolute morality in the name of god

Imperial Klans of America

well this bit at least

WE BELIEVE men and women should conduct themselves according to the role of their gender in the traditional Christian sense that God intended. Homosexuality is an abomination before God and should be punished by death (Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Rom. 1:24-28, 32; I Cor. 6:9).

 

[TomZzyzx]

Is that so? It seems that those who believe in some absolute moral authority use it to justify their otherwise despicable behavior more often than those who don't.

"it seems"? Your opinion? Where's your proof? Secular dictators have killed millions more than religious dictators

Except that societies have rules and ethics for a reason. Someone can act on their morality if they want, but they should expect consequences if they do so.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for making my point. Since these psychopaths don't know right from wrong, more people get murdered, raped, and all other evil done to them before get caught and go to jail. That a much better solution? It's better to teach our youth the difference between objective right and wrong.

 

[Redac]

"it seems"? Your opinion? Where's your proof? Secular dictators have killed millions more than religious dictators

Secular morality is not the same thing as moral relativism.

Thanks for making my point.

I've done no such thing.

Since these psychopaths don't know right from wrong, more people get murdered, raped, and all other evil done to them before get caught and go to jail. That a much better solution? It's better to teach our youth the difference between objective right and wrong.

We're talking about psychopaths now? Not every person who doesn't believe in an objective morality is a psychopath or a murderer, and that insinuation is insulting, quite frankly.

Also, I'm not saying children shouldn't be taught what they should and shouldn't do and what is and isn't illegal. I'm saying that our society's set of ethics is not derived from some objective morality.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Secular morality is not the same thing as moral relativism.

I've done no such thing.

We're talking about psychopaths now? Not every person who doesn't believe in an objective morality is a psychopath or a murderer, and that insinuation is insulting, quite frankly.

Also, I'm not saying children shouldn't be taught what they should and shouldn't do and what is and isn't illegal. I'm saying that our society's set of ethics is not derived from some objective morality.

Every secular dictator I was talking about was a moral relativist.

I wasn't talking about "every person who doesn't believe in an objective morality". I was talking about "someone acting on their morality" and expecting to pay the consequences.

I didn't say you were talking about children. My point was that parents and teachers who believe in a subjective relativistic morality teach kids that morality is what ever you believe it to be.

 

[TomZzyzx]

well this bit at least

WE BELIEVE men and women should conduct themselves according to the role of their gender in the traditional Christian sense that God intended. Homosexuality is an abomination before God and should be punished by death (Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Rom. 1:24-28, 32; I Cor. 6:9).

Please don't misrepresent what the bible says. You've done this before. It's better to list each verse separately. You incorrectly make the new testament say that homosexuality should be punished by death. The new testament never says that homosexuality should be punished by death.

 

[Freodin]

Please don't misrepresent what the bible says. You've done this before. It's better to list each verse separately. You incorrectly make the new testament say that homosexuality should be punished by death. The new testament never says that homosexuality should be punished by death.

Just for the record....

Does the Old Testament say that homosexuality should be punished by death?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Just for the record....

Does the Old Testament say that homosexuality should be punished by death?

Just for the record. The new testament was written for the Jews. So unless your Jewish it doesn't apply to you. And yes it does say that "homosexuality should be punished by death."

 

[Freodin]

Just for the record. The new testament was written for the Jews. So unless your Jewish it doesn't apply to you. And yes it does say that "homosexuality should be punished by death."

(Old, not new... just saying.)

So this absolute moral you are talking to isn't objective?

 

[Redac]

Every secular dictator I was talking about was a moral relativist.

You could be correct, but I'd bet that more of them saw their own particular brand of morality as the absolute, objective sort, and went about enforcing it on people.

I wasn't talking about "every person who doesn't believe in an objective morality". I was talking about "someone acting on their morality" and expecting to pay the consequences.

People can act on their moral beliefs whether they believe that those beliefs are derived from an objective source or not.

I didn't say you were talking about children. My point was that parents and teachers who believe in a subjective relativistic morality teach kids that morality is what ever you believe it to be.

The source of a person's morals is quite a bit more complex than "lol, you kids just decide whatever you wanna do".

 

[quatona]

Because those who reject an objective morality believe in a 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. They raise a generation of kids that believe it's ok to lie, ok to steal, ok to treat people with no respect and some of then to believe that killing someone else is ok. And each generation is worse than the last one.

You are misattributing the problem. A moral subjectivist may believe that it´s ok to lie, steal and murder - but so may a moral objectivist. It doesn´t depend on the subjectivity/objectivity of their moral code but on the content of the code.

Your actual desire is not for an objective moral code - your actual desire is that everybody agrees with and keeps to your moral code.

 

[quatona]

Just for the record. The new testament was written for the Jews. So unless your Jewish it doesn't apply to you.

Sounds like the textbook example for moral relativism to me.

 

[quatona]

My point was that parents and teachers who believe in a subjective relativistic morality teach kids that morality is what ever you believe it to be.

Parents usually teach kids their own moral code - no matter whether they consider it objective or subjective.

 

[TomZzyzx]

(Old, not new... just saying.)

So this absolute moral you are talking to isn't objective?

What do you mean by that?

 

[TomZzyzx]

You could be correct, but I'd bet that more of them saw their own particular brand of morality as the absolute, objective sort, and went about enforcing it on people.

People can act on their moral beliefs whether they believe that those beliefs are derived from an objective source or not.

The source of a person's morals is quite a bit more complex than "lol, you kids just decide whatever you wanna do".

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A moral relativist believes what he is doing is correct, no matter how wrong it is. This is why moral relativism is a dangerous idea to believe in.

Ok, let me ask you a question. Where do your morals come from?

 

[quatona]

Ok, let me ask you a question. Where do your morals come from?

When I answer "from God" - will you adopt my morals?