Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There are things that are universally accepted as immoral or moral. For instance, murder is considered universally considered immoral.
Not really. There are common themes in morality but having an evolutionary explanation would account for common themes with no need for an "Objective" morality. In point of fact what we see is that human morals fall into broad generalizations that are very complex and not overly logical. Take the trolly problem for example.
Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So morality is not universal or objective. Morality is only what is right for you or right for me but there is no actual truth in morality?
How do you determine if morality has truth? Is truth determined subjectively?
I completely disagree. The only hope of ever finding an objective standard in morality is through naturalism because the only place we find objectivity is in naturalism. In religion, all we have is relativistic morality where preference for one religion over another is the only criteria for what is and is not moral.
The only way I can see for ever arriving at an objective morality is through reason and logic as it applies to the natural world. You can not arrive at an objective morality simply by saying, "Well, I prefer this religion, so that must be true."
Why not? Good and evil is related to the sense of empathy, reason, and logic that evolved in our species. How is that not naturalistic?
I think there are some overarching principles that we use as a foundation, but, as I think Hitchslap has said, there are situations in which we apply those principles differentially...
To use a fairly coarse example, yes, we have an over-riding principle that states that it is wrong to kill other humans.
However, there are situations in which this principle gives way to other considerations.....war, capital punishment, euthanasia, self-defence...are all examples of where the principle gives ground to an even more compelling one........and that is that we make a judgement as to where the greatest harm to the community and our fellow man lies.....
This is how our moral code has developed
Yep. In the real world, we all follow situational morals. I'm not sure why it's so hard for theists to understand this.
Why does morality need to be objective?
Also, man made scientific theories are objective. You can still have an objective system even if it is produced by humans.
How do you determine if morality has truth? Is truth determined subjectively?
Please demonstrate how murder is objectively immoral.
That's not exactly correct. Murder is just another way of saying "immoral killing". It is true that there is a concept of immoral killing in each culture, but there is no universal agreement of what is and isn't murder. What constitutes an immoral killing changes from one society to the next.
Not quite that straightforward, murder is what we call a homicide we consider immoral.
Religion yes, God no.
You tell me, it is your claim. How in a naturalistic worldview does good and evil exist?
Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
Using the definition I used. Is that a universal principle?
How?
Which gods do or do not exist is also subjective.
Good is what improves society and reduces suffering. Evil makes society worse and causes suffering. Only through application of our natural ability to reason and use empathy can we hope to figure this out. Blindly following a set of rules written in a religious text is no way to do it, at least in my eyes.
Scientific theories are supported or falsified based on empirical facts, not subjective opinions. That is what makes it objective.
Scientific theories are supported or falsified based on
empirical facts, yes, but that does not mean it is objective.
Scientific theories are opinions based on evidence.
Evidence can be misleading or misinterpreted which means that it is subjective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?