Does morality exist without God?

[blarg the 2nd]

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.

god could easly construct an avatar for itself or perfeclty simulate the experience in her minde or just will a force to act on her in the same way a rapist would

and your the one treating slaves and painting as the same because you have made every mined god crates its property to do with as it likes based on gods power alone

 

[blarg the 2nd]

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.

um if a though pops into your head it may be new to you man but you may be the one creating it

your discovery may be no more then your own opinion

 

[blarg the 2nd]

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.

if you would be so kind as to prove a god created people that would be swell

still not seeing any objective morality just the willful bullying of a petty god

and some one who has no problem with keeping and abusing slaves as long as you make them yourself

seems evil to me

 

[Texan40]

god could easly construct an avatar for itself or perfeclty simulate the experience in her minde or just will a force to act on her in the same way a rapist would

and your the one treating slaves and painting as the same because you have made every mined god crates its property to do with as it likes based on gods power alone

It seems that your knowledge of the attributes of God as set forth in scripture is sparse. We can love, where God is love. We can act righteously where God is righteousness. Creation is a testament to who God is for us to explore and discover Him.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

anything that's objectively bad is bad but just about anything can be objectively good if you call it so. or if you believe a god has the right to call it so

ya i hate what my species is capable of some time i realy do

 

[blarg the 2nd]

It seems that your knowledge of the attributes of God as set forth in scripture is sparse. We can love, where God is love. We can act righteously where God is righteousness. Creation is a testament to who God is for us to explore and discover Him.

it seems that a book you must take on faith is not knowledge at all about how things may actually be

sound like to some people on hear good and evil is what god tells them why not the same for love and righteousness

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you don't believe in God's objective morality then you believe in a subjective morality.

Not true. There are other possibilities. For instance, there are various forms of virtue ethics, including Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics, none of which are subjective in the sense you mean.

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.

Murder isn't an object. It's an act. Where are you getting these definitions from?

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.

Count me as an advocate of objective ethical truths. For me, the standard of ethical judgment has an objective reality, and is not merely a matter of whim. And I'm an atheist.

Moral objectivism states that moral rules are true regardless of whether anyone believes it.

Yes.

Moral objectivist believe that moral rules are self evident, the same way that math and logic is self evident.

No, this isn't a requirement.

We don't invent morality, we discover it.

Yes.

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.

I believe we have that because of the nature of human life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[blarg the 2nd]

you kind of have to discover any moral rules for yourself by thinking about things since morality is in your head if its subjective

 

[Freodin]

There is a little problem with your view, Tom.

"Murder" is already defined as "wrong". It is "unjustified", "unrightfull" killing.

So there is no disagreement here. Subjectivists also believe that "murder" is wrong.

The question must be for the justification of killing. And here you have already said that the justification depends on the subject.

Of course you might proclaim an objective moral of killings that defines for every single possible case whether killing is justified or not. But that moral is not based on the Bible any more.

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.

You said that before, but you evaded the question that followed it.

How do you discover it? How is it self-evident?

How did the Jews discover that they should kill homosexuals... and how did they discover that they should have stopped?

 

[Freodin]

I believe we have that because of the nature of human life.

Shoes!

I still hope that it will become an internet meme, like Poe's Law... but I fear that shoes are simply not sexy enough.

 

[TomZzyzx]

There is a little problem with your view, Tom.

"Murder" is already defined as "wrong". It is "unjustified", "unrightfull" killing.

So there is no disagreement here. Subjectivists also believe that "murder" is wrong.

The question must be for the justification of killing. And here you have already said that the justification depends on the subject.

Of course you might proclaim an objective moral of killings that defines for every single possible case whether killing is justified or not. But that moral is not based on the Bible any more.

You said that before, but you evaded the question that followed it.

How do you discover it? How is it self-evident?

How did the Jews discover that they should kill homosexuals... and how did they discover that they should have stopped?

Yes I can see you have a problem with my view, since you don't seem to understand it. Murder is defined as wrong to a moral objectivist, not every moral subjectivist agrees that murder is wrong. The justification for killing has nothing to do with murder. The bible defines murder as the unjustified taking of a human life. The Christian discovers most objective morality through God's word, the Bible. Fortunately most Atheist discover God's objective morality by realizing that objective truths are self evident. The Jews discovered their morality from God. We see that in the old Testament. I'm no Jewish so I don't know why and when they stopped killing homosexuals, you'll have to ask them.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Yes on your first question, no on the second.

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

I'll just scratch out the words "objective morality" there in your sentence and replace them with "theological dictatorship."...don't mind me..

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Murder is defined as wrong to a moral objectivist, not every moral subjectivist agrees that murder is wrong.

Murder is a legal term. A moral objectivist and a moral subjectivist might actually agree on a huge variety of situations in which people can justify the killing of another. The more scenarios you come up with the greater the probability that a situation is presented in which they disagree. And....drum roll please...THIS APPLIES IF WE USE TWO OBJECTIVISTS AND TWO SUBJECTIVISTS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THOSE.

The only difference between most subjective moralist and objective moralists is what they see the origin of morals to be. Generally subjective moralists do not say morality is bound up in an external agency. Objectivists generally do.

Both have subjective morals regardless.

 

[TomZzyzx]

I'll just scratch out the words "objective morality" there in your sentence and replace them with "theological dictatorship."...don't mind me..

You can do what ever you want. It doesn't make my statement wrong.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

You can do what ever you want. It doesn't make my statement wrong.

Oh I agree. Personally I don't think you understand the differences between moral law by axiom vs moral law by divine dictatorship quite well enough yet to even engage in the conversation.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Murder is a legal term. A moral objectivist and a moral subjectivist might actually agree on a huge variety of situations in which people can justify the killing of another. The more scenarios you come up with the greater the probability that a situation is presented in which they disagree. And....drum roll please...THIS APPLIES IF WE USE TWO OBJECTIVISTS AND TWO SUBJECTIVISTS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THOSE.

The only difference between most subjective moralist and objective moralists is what they see the origin of morals to be. Generally subjective moralists do not say morality is bound up in an external agency. Objectivists generally do.

Both have subjective morals regardless.

We're not talking about the legality of murder. We are talking about the morality of murder. And again, I'm talking about the biblical definition of murder, not killing.

I agree that the difference between subjective moralist and objective moralist is where they believe their morals come from. But they both do not have subjective morals. The objective moralist does not get his morals from his (subjective) understanding of what his morally should be. They get their morally from God's objective moral truths.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Oh I agree. Personally I don't think you understand the differences between moral law by axiom vs moral law by divine dictatorship quite well enough yet to even engage in the conversation.

I know that you don't realize that "moral law by axiom" is from the God of the bible.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

We're not talking about the legality of murder. We are talking about the morality of murder. And again, I'm talking about the biblical definition of murder, not killing.

I agree that the difference between subjective moralist and objective moralist is where they believe their morals come from. But they both do not have subjective morals. The objective moralist does not get his morals from his (subjective) understanding of what his morally should be. They get their morally from God's objective moral truths.

and for Tommy killing is never murder when its would not go along with his world view

he wants any case where he believes his god has killed or will kill as justified and so not murder because its his god doing it

he has discovered moral truths in his mined and discovered there from a god and since he believes he can not be wrong about this

every one who disagrees must simply be wrong

nothing subjective about this at all no sir

 

[quatona]

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.

So theistic moral objectivists believe that their subjective morals come from God and are therefore objective? Now, how does their subjective opinion constitute objectivity?
The difference between you and a moral subjectivist is that you claim that the morals of your preference are objective.
Saying "my opinion is objective" doesn´t bypass your subjectivity.

 

[quatona]

I agree that the difference between subjective moralist and objective moralist is where they believe their morals come from. But they both do not have subjective morals. The objective moralist does not get his morals from his (subjective) understanding of what his morally should be. They get their morally from God's objective moral truths.

At least that´s what they believe and claim.