Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is there Objective Morality?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="partinobodycular" data-source="post: 76302561" data-attributes="member: 435281"><p>Of course it doesn't, which simply demonstrates that the simple fact that something is necessary to achieve a specific outcome doesn't make it moral. Heck, communicating in clear sentences is vital to having a productive discussion too, but you're not arguing that being inarticulate is therefore immoral.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Somehow you fail to see how the above argument makes morality relative. You consider honesty to be moral, because it's necessary for seeking the truth, which is necessary for humans to function together. So it's only in relation to that end goal that honesty is moral.</p><p></p><p>Rape is only immoral because it inhibits humans from functioning together. Murder is only immoral because it inhibits humans from functioning together. This means that morality isn't objective. Things aren't immoral in and of themselves, they're immoral specifically because they inhibit humans from functioning together.</p><p></p><p>Funny, that's exactly what an evolutionist would argue, that morals are simply those qualities that evolution would select for because they allow humans to function together. Hence there's no need for God, at least as far as the existence of morality is concerned. Morality is simply a product of evolution and nothing more.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="partinobodycular, post: 76302561, member: 435281"] Of course it doesn't, which simply demonstrates that the simple fact that something is necessary to achieve a specific outcome doesn't make it moral. Heck, communicating in clear sentences is vital to having a productive discussion too, but you're not arguing that being inarticulate is therefore immoral. Somehow you fail to see how the above argument makes morality relative. You consider honesty to be moral, because it's necessary for seeking the truth, which is necessary for humans to function together. So it's only in relation to that end goal that honesty is moral. Rape is only immoral because it inhibits humans from functioning together. Murder is only immoral because it inhibits humans from functioning together. This means that morality isn't objective. Things aren't immoral in and of themselves, they're immoral specifically because they inhibit humans from functioning together. Funny, that's exactly what an evolutionist would argue, that morals are simply those qualities that evolution would select for because they allow humans to function together. Hence there's no need for God, at least as far as the existence of morality is concerned. Morality is simply a product of evolution and nothing more. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is there Objective Morality?
Top
Bottom