Does morality exist without God?

[blarg the 2nd]

By stating that societies create and endorse laws just proves my point that Moral Relativism breeds people who do evil because they believe their morality is right.

no it kind of shows that moral relativism though it may cause things you dont like wiht some pepole can also buld socitys and lead to what yo do like if enuth peoel and power is worcking towerd what you hapen to like

in case you havent notice we do need laws and rules for secerity pepole can do worng as we se it

and entire soctys can do what we consder to be worng

it seems the world gives us evidence that morlaity is only in the minds of pepole and its not the same for evry one

moral objectivists can breed evil as i see it by having pepole thinck acts i cosider evil are inherntly good bleving ther morlty is unversly right

your fear or dislike of moral relativism (not entirly unjsutifed in my opinyon) will not make it untrue

and faiht in objectve morlaity will not nessasarily make the world a better place for you or me depenidng on what form it takes and how we are

 

[Freodin]

...whereas moral absolutists believe their morals are wrong?

Nah.... moral relativists believe their morals are right while they are wrong... in opposite to moral absolutists, who correctly believe there morals are right.

 

[quatona]

No, I'm sure I'm right. God said He "inspired" the writers of the Bible.

We booth agree that objective truth comes from the Highest Authority.

Ok, here is the explanation why you are misattributing the problem when blaming evil on moral subjectivism:

Let´s take four persons.

Two of them (A+B) are moral objectivists (= persons who believe that morality is objective), two of them (C+D) are moral subjectivists (= persons who believe that morality is subjective).

Let´s further - hypothetically - assume that there were indeed an objective morality, and let´s also - hypothetically - assume that this objective morality dictates that rape is a great thing.

Moral objectivist A believes that objective morality condemns rape. Moral objectivist B believes that objective morality approves of rape.

Moral subjectivist C believes that rape is not a good thing. Moral subjectivist D believes that rape is a morally ok.

We conclude that neither - moral objectivism nor moral subjectivism - prevents you from being wrong and promoting a wrong morality. Even if there were an objective morality out there (and that´s a pretty big "if", considering that you have brought nothing to the table to support this assumption) moral subjectivism would not be the issue that creates immoral behaviour. Being mistaken would be the issue.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Ok, here is the explanation why you are misattributing the problem when blaming evil on moral subjectivism:

Let´s take four persons.

Two of them (A+B) are moral objectivists (= persons who believe that morality is objective), two of them (C+D) are moral subjectivists (= persons who believe that morality is subjective).

Let´s further - hypothetically - assume that there were indeed an objective morality, and let´s also - hypothetically - assume that this objective morality dictates that rape is a great thing.

Moral objectivist A believes that objective morality condemns rape. Moral objectivist B believes that objective morality approves of rape.

Moral subjectivist C believes that rape is not a good thing. Moral subjectivist D believes that rape is a morally ok.

We conclude that neither - moral objectivism nor moral subjectivism - prevents you from being wrong and promoting a wrong morality. Even if there were an objective morality out there (and that´s a pretty big "if", considering that you have brought nothing to the table to support this assumption) moral subjectivism would not be the issue that creates immoral behaviour. Being mistaken would be the issue.

I never said that I am "blaming evil on moral subjectivism." I am stating that a moral relativist can do evil things because Moral Relativism states that moral subjectivist base there morality on internal preferences. That everyone's morality is equal. And since everyone's morality is equal then nobody's morality is right and nobody's morality is wrong, even the rapist.

I never stated that because someone believes that morality is objective therefore it is objective. On the contrary, objective morality comes from a moral law giver which is the God of the Bible.

 

[quatona]

I never said that I am "blaming evil on moral subjectivism."

Glad we finally got that settled!
Most certainly you spent pages upon pages telling us how moral subjectivism and moral relativism can enable evil. You were, however, silent about how moral objectivism can enable evil, as well. Maybe you just forgot to mention it...

 

[Belk]

By stating that societies create and endorse laws just proves my point that Moral Relativism breeds people who do evil because they believe their morality is right.

Really? So if everyone believed in moral absolutism no one would do wrong? Is that your claim here?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Glad we finally got that settled!
Most certainly you spent pages upon pages telling us how moral subjectivism and moral relativism can enable evil. You were, however, silent about how moral objectivism can enable evil, as well. Maybe you just forgot to mention it...

Not quite settled. I never said moral subjectivism and moral relativism can enable evil. In the same way that a moral objectivist cannot enable evil. I said that someone that is a Moral Relativist can do evil things because they believe that their morality is made up by personal preferences. Nothing to mention if it's not true.

 

[Belk]

I never said that I am "blaming evil on moral subjectivism." I am stating that a moral relativist can do evil things because Moral Relativism states that moral subjectivist base there morality on internal preferences. That everyone's morality is equal. And since everyone's morality is equal then nobody's morality is right and nobody's morality is wrong, even the rapist.

I never stated that because someone believes that morality is objective therefore it is objective. On the contrary, objective morality comes from a moral law giver which is the God of the Bible.

Where do you get this concept that a moral subjectivist must feel that everyone's morality is equal? Since the validity of a set of morals would in and of itself be a moral call any moral subjectavist would have to make a determination a case by case basis.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Really? So if everyone believed in moral absolutism no one would do wrong? Is that your claim here?

No that's not my claim. I'm just showing that moral truths are objective, and that people who do not believe they are objective are "Moral Relativist".

 

[TomZzyzx]

Where do you get this concept that a moral subjectivist must feel that everyone's morality is equal? Since the validity of a set of morals would in and of itself be a moral call any moral subjectavist would have to make a determination a case by case basis.

Moral Relativism states that no single person's morality is better or more true than anyone else's morality. They carry "equal" weight. Not "equal" in the sense that everyone's morality is the same.

 

[Belk]

No that's not my claim. I'm just showing that moral truths are objective, and that people who do not believe they are objective are "Moral Relativist".

Well, you have failed to show the first one. The second one would seem a false dichotomy.

 

[Belk]

Moral Relativism states that no single person's morality is better or more true than anyone else's morality. They carry "equal" weight. Not "equal" in the sense that everyone's morality is the same.

It does? Where does it state this? And since I do not believe in objective morality and do not believe everyone's moral framework holds equal weight it would seem you either need to rethink the dichotomy of moral objectivist versus moral relativist or admit there is more then one view inside the framework of relativism.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Well, you have failed to show the first one. The second one would seem a false dichotomy.

Have you read all of my posts in this thread? I have shown exactly why moral truths are objective, and that people who believe that moral truths are subjective are in fact Moral Relativist.

 

[TomZzyzx]

It does? Where does it state this? And since I do not believe in objective morality and do not believe everyone's moral framework holds equal weight it would seem you either need to rethink the dichotomy of moral objectivist versus moral relativist or admit there is more then one view inside the framework of relativism.

Where does your morality come from?

 

[Verv]

Depends. Does someone mean darwinism in the concept of social darwinism, which is whole heartedly divorced from genetic fact or does someone mean darwinism simply as a perhaps lazy pop phrase for the process of natural selection? This is important as they lead to very very different places. Though I suspect you already know that.

I mean it solely in the sense of our morals being divulged from a sort of evolution within humanity -- so a lazy pop phrase would be more fitting.

o would it now then why dont you?

I base my view of the world on perceived truth and not the idea of convenience.

just because i don't believe a murder is evil in some universal cosmic sense dosent mean i cant hate one or seek his or her death or finde the acts comited by said murder evil to myself

believing in stand alone commandments on the matter dosent change anything for me

and that's what i don't get about this objective morality

things that can violate it can happen, things that can be good or utterly evil to me, can be a a part of it

how is it objective when it docent apply to so many people perhaps no one or effect anything of itself how dose it exist at all

and if it can why should it be valued above my own sense of right and wrong?

and it would still be subjective whether or not its good or evil whether actions suggested by it should be attempted or avoided

If morality is subjective, as many philosophers contend, there is still a necessity of the society as a whole to have a communal sense of moral rights & wrongs even if there isn't some metaphysical truth behind it.

I think these are questions you have to ask yourself and think about more -- I believe in God, and I believe in the moral teachings of Christ, and I am not really sure what to say to someone who does not believe in the existence of evil.

We'd have to go back to a more fundamental question than this unless you wanted to, say, have a discussion about the structure of morality within humans.

subjective morals seem to be about making judgments

objective morals seems to be about saying judgment are made for you and for every one else you may not know about them or heed them but there still supposed to matter some how

Not entirely. Christ allows for an amount of 'subjectivity.'

This is from Luke 12:

47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

There are different standards and any knowledgable Christian recognizes this.

So a little wrong is no longer wrong? Or it is no longer wrong to do wrong, because of the entirety of the learning experience and because, all in all, you do more right?

Basically, I agree with you. You are correct in what you said. Human value is not based on their morals. Humans do more right than wrong. And this is... good.


But this definitly devaluates the idea of God as the prime good and giver of morals... because in doing wrong - even if he does more right than wrong - he doesn't do better than his creation.

I am glad we see eye to eye on this. You are a non-believer that has a good concept of how things are in our views and for that I thank you.

It is no longer entirely wrong to do wrong as it is part of the learning experience and our existence is meant to be an educational one as much as it is a trial of ourselves.

In our views, it does not devalue God because all Life itself comes from God, and thus we owe everything already to the Almighty.

 

[Jeffersonian]

if we ever achieved any moral notion is because of God. outside of him there is only sin, wickedness and depravity

 

[blarg the 2nd]

I never said that I am "blaming evil on moral subjectivism." I am stating that a moral relativist can do evil things because Moral Relativism states that moral subjectivist base there morality on internal preferences. That everyone's morality is equal. And since everyone's morality is equal then nobody's morality is right and nobody's morality is wrong, even the rapist.

I never stated that because someone believes that morality is objective therefore it is objective. On the contrary, objective morality comes from a moral law giver which is the God of the Bible.

people can do evil because you consider some things evil even if you only consder some things evil becase you believe a god believes some things are evil

 

[blarg the 2nd]

I never said that I am "blaming evil on moral subjectivism." I am stating that a moral relativist can do evil things because Moral Relativism states that moral subjectivist base there morality on internal preferences. That everyone's morality is equal. And since everyone's morality is equal then nobody's morality is right and nobody's morality is wrong, even the rapist.

I never stated that because someone believes that morality is objective therefore it is objective. On the contrary, objective morality comes from a moral law giver which is the God of the Bible.

also any one can do wrong if your a subjectiveist you kind of put your own feeling on the matter above those of others while recognizing the unversed or god is not backing you up

i say theirs nothing objectively wrong with rape for some one who decides rape is worth nay cost and still attempts it

i dont like this how ever the more i dislike i the more evil it is to me

as it is i propose doing slow painful and quite mutilating things to various parts of a rapist anatomy to prevent them form ever harming any one again

evil is not destroyed by being subjective its just not chosen for you by others

thought it may be distressing you need power if you want to enforce your idea of morality

one way to gain this power is to join with others who are like minded on certain topics

again its distressing if you don't have the power to enforce what you see as right

but this happens in real life some time what you consider evil escapes what you consider justice some time what you consider evil not only escapes but thrives and is endorsed by people on mass

it sucks but it seems to be true to me saying whats good for me and evil for me applys to every one else regardless of how they feel seems like a lie

saying good and evil is one universal thing that apply s to every one but dosent need nay one to feel the same way seems like a bigger lie to me

though i guess the reason im not for this lie is i dont believe it will work out for me

seems to work for you you seem happier thinking your god is going to ensure your way works out best in the end

 

[blarg the 2nd]

No that's not my claim. I'm just showing that moral truths are objective, and that people who do not believe they are objective are "Moral Relativist".

well your claiming moral truths are objective

 

[blarg the 2nd]

I mean it solely in the sense of our morals being divulged from a sort of evolution within humanity -- so a lazy pop phrase would be more fitting.



I base my view of the world on perceived truth and not the idea of convenience.



If morality is subjective, as many philosophers contend, there is still a necessity of the society as a whole to have a communal sense of moral rights & wrongs even if there isn't some metaphysical truth behind it.

I think these are questions you have to ask yourself and think about more -- I believe in God, and I believe in the moral teachings of Christ, and I am not really sure what to say to someone who does not believe in the existence of evil.

We'd have to go back to a more fundamental question than this unless you wanted to, say, have a discussion about the structure of morality within humans.



Not entirely. Christ allows for an amount of 'subjectivity.'

This is from Luke 12:




There are different standards and any knowledgable Christian recognizes this.







I am glad we see eye to eye on this. You are a non-believer that has a good concept of how things are in our views and for that I thank you.

It is no longer entirely wrong to do wrong as it is part of the learning experience and our existence is meant to be an educational one as much as it is a trial of ourselves.

In our views, it does not devalue God because all Life itself comes from God, and thus we owe everything already to the Almighty.

i agrea that a society needs to hold rules that override an individuals feelings to function

it just seems to me lots of people are to quick to proclaim there society's rules as growing out of some extra human good it feels like propaganda to me.

and as for owing god if god chose to make me he was doing his own will that is not a debt on my part

if god created things i need to feel happy he also is responsible for my nature that desires such things on some level