Does morality exist without God?

[steve_bakr]

actuly for me my own verhsion while = to evry one elses in the grand schme of things is more important to me

you can still lie stel and kill with no regard for human life if you bleve absolutly that your doing so serves an inherently right purpose

You mean that the means justify the ends? Not so.

Peace

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[Freodin]

In Exodus 20:13 the sixth commandment says "you shall not murder" not you shall not kill. The bible defines murder as "the unjustified taking of a human life" and killing as "the justified taking of a human life". God says that Moses is justified in killing homosexuals because it is an abomination.

Yes, I know that, and I said as much in my post.

So who is "justified" (that is, morally right) to kill homosexuals? Moses? All Jews? All Jews, even today?

I see that you didn't answer these questions in my last post. I wonder why that is?

 

[blarg the 2nd]

No, it's objective. Homosexuality is a sin in the Old Testament and is a sin in the New Testament. The objective moral wrong, homosexuality, is still the same.

um its not wrong for me why is it wrong for peole who folow that book?

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Moral objectivist believe that moral rules are self evident, the same way that math and logic are self evident. We don't invent morality, we discover it like we discover math and logic.

um it seems self evident to me that morality is difrent between pepole based on indivdul values that alows for simaler vlaues and morals between pepole maybe even identical vlaues and morals but is not unversal if any one feels difrently baout something or things

it also seems self evident to me that if any one disagres on what is self evident then bleving something is self evident will not always mean its true or evident to difrent pepole

 

[blarg the 2nd]

There is only one biblical cannon that Christians hold. There might be different interpretations of that cannon, but that doesn't mean there are different cannons. So what if different moral standards are held, that doesn't mean they are both right. If the book of Romans says that homosexuality is an abomination then who do you think is right and who is wrong? This does not disprove objective right and wrong.

maybe the book is wrong guess i cant say that the book is bad or evil and should not be liested to by any one but it could contain misinfrmation and be wrong in a factul sesne

 

[blarg the 2nd]

In Exodus 20:13 the sixth commandment says "you shall not murder" not you shall not kill. The bible defines murder as "the unjustified taking of a human life" and killing as "the justified taking of a human life". God says that Moses is justified in killing homosexuals because it is an abomination.

so you cna make any form of killing not mudr by having a compatble law for yourslef

 

[blarg the 2nd]

You mean that the means justify the ends? Not so.

Peace

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

unless someone says they do

 

[blarg the 2nd]

or uless some one declares the means the right thing to do as well

you could say for example killing unblevers is good even if killing is always bad becase the good achived by killing the unblevers is always greater then leting them live

or you could say its good to kill unblevers and its good to have evry one bleve and its alwys best to kill unbleivers so evry one will bleive then your not justfying anythng your leting one good carry you to another good

 

[ivebeenshown]

There is only one biblical cannon that Christians hold. There might be different interpretations of that cannon, but that doesn't mean there are different cannons. So what if different moral standards are held, that doesn't mean they are both right. If the book of Romans says that homosexuality is an abomination then who do you think is right and who is wrong? This does not disprove objective right and wrong.

Sir, I will have you know that the Catholic Church has held its canon throughout the ages, which was confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397AD. This canon differs from the canon the majority of Protestant churches which were founded within or after the 16th century -- their canon contains less books than that which was historically considered to be canonical by the Church.

I am not trying to disprove or prove objective right or wrong with my current statements. I am telling you what I find lacking in your statements.

 

[quatona]

The best case for moral subjectivity is when two moral objectivists of different views meet. (Actually, it gets even better when they start a relentless Holy War against each other).

 

[Texan40]

Absolute morality can only come from our Creator. All things earthly and human are value-based and therefore subjective.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The best case for moral subjectivity is when two moral objectivists of different views meet. (Actually, it gets even better when they start a relentless Holy War against each other).

That any two people might agree or disagree on whether or not something is moral or immoral does not have any bearing on whether that something is objectively moral or not.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

That any two people might agree or disagree on whether or not something is moral or immoral does not have any bearing on whether that something is objectively moral or not.

I've personally always found the idea of people believing in objective morality to be a bit silly. Morals are by their nature, subjective. The consequences of actions on the other hand tend to carry with them far more objectivity.

 

[quatona]

That any two people might agree or disagree on whether or not something is moral or immoral does not have any bearing on whether that something is objectively moral or not.

Agreed, but unfortunately you missed my point.

 

[quatona]

That any two people might agree or disagree on whether or not something is moral or immoral does not have any bearing on whether that something is objectively moral or not.

No disagreement there but:
What would render a certain morality "objective" (in your opinion )?

 

[ivebeenshown]

I've personally always found the idea of people believing in objective morality to be a bit silly. Morals are by their nature, subjective. The consequences of actions on the other hand tend to carry with them far more objectivity.

Whether or not something is 'just', 'unjust', 'right', 'wrong', 'good', or 'evil' stands true regardless of what any one person may think about it. People may define morality any way they like, but that in itself does not make morality to be what they believe it to be.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No disagreement there but:
What would render a certain morality "objective" (in your opinion )?

In my beliefs, that would be a being which possesses the authority to declare any given thing right or wrong. If there were no such being, then I would believe that nothing is truly 'right' or 'wrong' and that people only assign such terms to whatever it is that they happen to like or dislike.

 

[quatona]

In my beliefs, that would be a being which possesses the authority to declare any given thing right or wrong.

How would such a being acquire this authority? And who would have the authority to declare those criteria "objective"?
Are we talking "might makes right"?

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Absolute morality can only come from our Creator. All things earthly and human are value-based and therefore subjective.

if your god cant be nay other way if it has to make the rest of the unvrse a certin way and that inlcude all pele being the same then that sounds true

otherwise a gods views are as subjectve as any one elses and it stoped being unversel when the 1st minde of difrent vlaues came into being

 

[quatona]

If there were no such being, then I would believe that nothing is truly 'right' or 'wrong' and that people only assign such terms to whatever it is that they happen to like or dislike.

Well, as long as we have no "objective" criteria to tell whose beliefs are "objectively wrong or right" I guess that´s the situation as reality presents it to us - no matter whether there is an "objective morality" or not.