Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
No, I am saying that his argument is fundamentally the same as yours:"God wills it; therefore it is right". The only difference is in the content, which varies according to your religious opinion.
Upvote
0
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.
Are you saying the Muslim has a good argument? LOL ROFL
He can say what he wants, I assure you, men like Osama Bin Laden who funded such terrorist acts would be seen as being wrong and evil regardless of their arguments about God's commands.
He was wrong. Period.
And I know you agree, even though you may not admit it on this forum.
No, I am saying that his argument is fundamentally the same as yours:"God wills it; therefore it is right". The only difference is in the content, which varies according to your religious opinion.
If EVERYONE were moral subjectivists there would be no law to enforce. Thank goodness most people in the world actually believe hitting people in the face just because the way they look is wrong regardless of the opinion of the one doing the hitting.
I can arbitrate on them real easy. I can say it is objectively wrong to fly planes into building so you can kill the maximum number of people who do not share your religious beliefs.
The subjectivist cant say that.
Even assuming the existence of a god, and that he 'wills' certain moral obligations, we have no means of discerning what they are. No apologist, anywhere, ever, has outlined a workable epistemology of 'revelation'. In the and, we'd be left figuring morailty out on our own, whether he existed or not.
'God-based morality' is a moral philosophy without an epistemology. It is therefor worthless.
The guys who flew the planes into the twin towers said their God objectively told them to do that, and they would be honoured in heaven as Martyrs.
This is what happens when you have a moral system based on authoritarianism, faith and blind obedience, rather than one built on logic, reason, empathy and evidence.
The guys who flew the planes into the twin towers said their God objectively told them to do that, and they would be honoured in heaven as Martyrs.
This is what happens when you have a moral system based on authoritarianism, faith and blind obedience, rather than one built on logic, reason, empathy and evidence.
And you are attacking ontology with epistemology...
That is a no no...
This is fundamental undergrad philosophy. It simply does not follow that since we cannot know (x) that therefore (x) necessarily does not exist.
Objective facts are true and exist independently of our knowledge of them. For example, scientists discovered through various observations of evidence that the earth was more of a round shape. It simply does not follow that there was no objective truth about the earths shape prior to this discovery. The OBJECTIVE TRUTH OF THE EARTHS SHAPE was true before we discovered it was round.
Likewise, objective moral values and duties can exist even if we do not know where they come from or how to apprehend them.
This is an argument for the existence of objective moral values and duties, not an argument against it.
Why is it wrong in every society to unjustifiably kill people? Because it is just like saying 2+2=5 is wrong in every society. It is an objective fact. It is not based on people's subjective opinion.
If i were to say it is my subjective opinion that 2+2=5, you would say I was wrong. I would be wrong even if i thought i was right or even if my society said it was 5.
Likewise, if i say it is good to rape helpless women so i can have pleasure, you would say I was wrong, even if it was my opinion i was right.
Duh!
Even if is referring to an objective reality. This is elementary.
Exactly. Societies whose moral laws are based on unchanging objective moral values and duties.
To prove this, every criminal court in every society in the world will judge the unjustifiable taking of a person's life as objectively wrong. Its called murder.
THAT MEANS THAT IT IS WRONG EVEN IF THE MURDERER THINKS IT IS RIGHT.
What is so hard to understand?
Your usage of the word objective in that context is not even necessary. Nor would any Muslim say that. All they would say is at most, God told me to do it.
I agree. Islamic terrorists are objectively wrong. They are wrong even if they think God told them to do it.
And you are attacking ontology with epistemology...
It simply does not follow that since we cannot know (x) that therefore (x) necessarily does not exist.
Objective facts are true and exist independently of our knowledge of them.
Likewise, objective moral values and duties can exist even if we do not know where they come from or how to apprehend them.
Are you joking? Martyrs are specifically stated to receive extra rewards in heaven. There is nothing holier or more righteous than being a martyr in Islam.
Not only would the hijackers say their actions were based on an objective morality, but suicide bombers, and many other muslims would say that as well.
The problem is, their "objective" morality clashes with your "objective" morality. And neither one of you have any evidence whatsoever it's objective in the first place.
Which is your subjective opinion.
I know.Moral subjectivists are people.
You still aren´t telling me what I can´t do.People want justice to be granted to them in courts of law when they have been wronged. For example, if you had a daughter who was the apple of your eye and your very heart, and this daughter of yours was brutally raped and beaten and left paralyzed for the rest of her life, you as a person, would want justice.
But if everyone thought like a moral subjectivist does (which you no doubt think is the only viable view because, as you say, there are no objective moral facts, which by the way is something you cannot prove because you cannot prove the non-existence of something, but I digress) then you would not be granted justice for no one could arbitrate between the rapist and you and your daughter.
1. Yes, and this shows me that you don´t even read my posts. I have brought laws up a few posts earlier.In fact, if everyone were a moral subjectivist like you, the man would not have even been arrested and brought to trial. There would be no police to arrest him. For law enforcement exists to enforce laws. Maybe you have heard of laws before?
Yes, they are made by humans. How is it impossible for humans to make rules and laws without there being an objective morality?They are things you break and are punished for...you know like rape, murder etc. etc.
Why not?But in your fantasy world where everyone determines for themselves what is, then the very idea or concept of law enforcement would not exist.
Yes, sure. Except that there needn´t be an explicit or implicit "objectively" added to this "right/wrong".For law enforcement carries with it inherently the idea of what is right behavior and wrong behavior. Of what ought to be done or thought and what ought not to be done or thought.
No "objective" basis (not even the concept of such) is needed for humans to create laws, rules, agreements and to enforce them, in the first place.Police exist to make sure people conduct their lives accordingly. But in your fantasy world, there would be no objective basis for determining what laws should be enforced.
The idea of "objectively" right/wrong behaviour wouldn´t exist.In fact, the idea of right and wrong behavior would be non-existent.
You would have to discuss their ideas with them.You would only have men's unbridled lusts and passions and preferences and desires. This is the world that Dostoyevksy and Nietzsche envisioned without an objective basis for morality.
So there´d be nothing that I could not do as a moral subjectivst.If there is no objective basis for morality, everything is permitted.
That may be an interesting question but it is not relevant for the point you have been asked to substantiate.We should judge an ethical system by the character it produces in its adherents. What kind of man would a man be who had no one or nothing to hold him accountable except his own will?
Does it make sense to make an absolute moral argument for the non existence of absolute morals?
So... which view do you proclaim is true?
Again, posting an example which provokes strong feelings and opinions is hardly a good argument for the objective truth of morality outside human opinion. When are you going to get around to the objective evidence for this alleged objective morality?If you have to be convinced, or need someone to prove to you that sexually molesting a woman for pleasure at the expense of her dignity, honor, emotional and physical welfare and respect is wrong independent of people's opinions, then you either:
They are wrong even if they think God told them to do it.
I don't remember proclaiming any of them as true. Why do you ask?
I still don't see any actual evidence for objective morality here. Did you copy and paste the wrong passage from reasonablefaith.org?
Again, posting an example which provokes strong feelings and opinions is hardly a good argument for the objective truth of morality outside human opinion. When are you going to get around to the objective evidence for this alleged objective morality?
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?