Functioning of human life revolves around decisions of right and wrong. We are constantly making decision but if there is no right and wrong whats the purpose of making decision at all.
If right and wrong (Morality) exist that means the Standard to differentiate right and wrong exist ultimately.
Now, the problem creeps in, where does this “standard” come from?
Either objective or subjective morality needs a backbone for its standard.
Without Divine Authority:
If one accepts objective morality how will they claim objective truth, where will it depend on and according to what?
If one accepts subjective morality they have no right to condemn or punish rapists, serial killers, pdf, etc as there are many psychopaths who felt an obligation to do what they did and in their own subjective morality they justified themselves.
And even so where does the moral compass of these psychopaths depend on?
If both criminals and innocent people failed to give a reasonable backbone of moral compass
Logically they would have the same level of reasoning regarding subjective morality.
Therefore, if there’s no proper objective foundation of morality the so called morality is standing on a floating illusion.
Then, as human life revolves around morality, people are living in an illusion.
I appreciate your thoughtful arguments on the nature of morality. However, I noticed a few logical fallacies that might need addressing. Firstly, the assumption that human life revolves solely around morality is an overgeneralization. While morality is indeed important, human life also involves emotions, relationships, and survival instincts. Reducing life solely to moral decisions overlooks these other crucial aspects.
Secondly, the argument that objective morality requires divine authority presents a false dilemma. By suggesting only two options; divine authority or no objective morality. It ignores other potential sources of objective morality, such as secular ethical theories like Sam Harris proposed in his book Moral Landscape, and Buddhist moral theory based on natural laws like Karma. There are various ways to conceptualize objective morality without necessarily invoking divine authority.
Thirdly, the claim that subjective morality cannot condemn actions misrepresents subjective morality, is straw manning. Subjective morality can still offer frameworks for judging actions based on societal norms and individual values. It doesn’t mean that harmful actions cannot be condemned or punished within a subjective moral framework. For instance, one might act based on their conscience or instincts; I believe it is the conscience that gives rise to remorse. Everyone, apart from psychopaths, experiences remorse and positive emotions such as empathy, compassion, and love.
I hope this helps clarify some points. Looking forward to your thoughts!
It bodes badly that you start with a claim that is demonstrably untrue.
I care about the consequences of my actions, both for myself and for others, maybe you don’t?
Morality appears to be subjective, but by all means demonstrate something that is objectively moral or immoral? ONly everytime I ask, theist always fail to offer any, or they offer a subjective belief they hold.
What divine authority? Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible? If you can’t then any moral assertions based on it are a purely subjective belief.
I will accept it, when someone demonstrates sufficient objective evidence it exists. Even then I would not be bound by it, as I have, or perceive at least, some autonomy of choice.
I accept morality is subjective, and I condemn raoe, so you are again demonstrably wrong.
I don’t believe the basis for morality is objective, so tell me please, which principle of logic did I violate and why?
I don’t illusion means what you think it means? Also why do you get to decide what is a “proper foundation for morality”? That is for each person to decide, your unevidenced subjective belief in a deity doesn’t entitle you to dictate without any objective evidence, what you think this foundation should be.
Where does this belief that morality can only come from God originate?
I keep seeing this again and again and again on this forum for years . . . and everywhere else.
I have to ask: Did my arguments about Portuguese man-o-war jellyfish mean anything? Are my arguments fallacious? I would hope that someone here would call me out if I was spewing garbage.
I feel like I’m running on a treadmill and expecting to go somewhere.
Which God? Question is another topic. For now i am presenting the fragility of morality without God this would be a secondary towards this topic but yeah we’ll get to that
No it’s not, you don’t get to lay down a string of claims based on an extant deity, then dodge your burden of proof for that deity, otherwise all claims pertaining to it are moot.
All you have presented are a string of unevidenced assertions, and again you can’t present any argument that requires an extant deity, then refuse to accurately define that deity and objectively evidence it exists.
I don’t believe you, as this is always what visiting apologists do, your first hurdle is to demonstrate any deity exists, or is even possible, without that your argument is meaningless. When you have done this, then we will address your secondary assumptions, that objective morality is possible / exists, and that this deity has communicated objective morality, and how you claim to know this.
Exactly, he can’t claim that morality without a deity is an illusion, then dodge defining and properly evidencing that deity, he might as well be telling us red is a nicer colour than blue.
Well, it seems that what is considered objective morality varies widely based to the god/s and its/their rules. Additionally, many of those sets of rules (morality) are profoundly fragile despite the assertion that they came from god(s). So, no, that question is not for another topic. It is completely germane to this one.
Both your original post and this one are total and utter garbage.
Oh wait, I devoted an entire thread and an extensive downloadable document, to the task of dismantling farcical and cretinous mythology fanboy fantasies on this topic such as yours.
But of course, the problem you have, even without that extensive demolition of your canards, is that mythology fanboys like you have never produced even an atom of evidence to support the assertion that your cartoon magic man actually exists.
Worse still, the mythology you treat as fact contains ridiculous assertions that have been utterly destroyed by real world data. Such as the farcical assertion that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks, which was flushed down the toilet by a 19th century monk, when he taught us how genetics actually operates, and launched modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.
Don’t waste mine or anyone else’s time here, until you’ve examined that document I provided in full, and learned some facts.
Well you have to demonstrate that there is something other then what conforms to nature… otherwise it is not fragile, but rather, inevitable.
Otherwise you are simply saying morality from a naturalistic perspective makes no sense, so it must be bestowed upon us by something else that makes no sense.
An entity of sorts that is not proven, verifiable, etc…
Oh, boy! THIS should be FUN! Okay, so as others have already stated, “Which god?” is NOT secondary to this discussion. Therefore, let’s proceed to determining which god you prefer to use in order to give this discussion some traction. Please, allow me to make a few suggestions:
Loki - Granted, he IS a well known prankster whose “moral compass” could be considered slightly “skewed”. Nobody would argue that. But, hey, what better god to use in discussing Objective Morality?
Dionysus - PARTY TIME! Any god that likes wine can’t be all bad, right? So when it comes down to Objective Morality, why not have some fun as we go along?
Freyja - Love, beauty, sex, war, gold… Oh, MY! How could you possibly NOT have an Objective Morality discussion about what this lovely goddess represents? Plus, she has kitty cats. Bonus!
Yehweh - Bet you are wishing I had left this god off the list, huh? After all, it IS rather difficult to obtain any wholesome moral standards from such a narcissistic, genocidal, misogynistic, insecure, egotistical megalomaniac. Nevertheless, I just want to be fair.
Okay, okay… I KNOW there are several THOUSAND other gods out there, but let’s not get things too muddled. These four choices should be sufficient for now. And if none of these are to your liking, then please feel free to suggest another god for your “Objective Morality” discussion. If you cannot think of any others, just let me know. I’d be more than happy to help with more choices.
I am questioning where does your moral code come from
Where is it based upon
And why is it valid
If theres no backbone its an illusion perhaps you could give me a reason other than God
Im searching for it if you could give me im all ears
Your first point
I didn’t say human life is solely revolving around morality what im saying is theres no functioning of normal human without involving decisions which we made from morality consciousness
Second point
Im not saying moral theory doesnt exist without divine theory of course it exist like you’ve pointed out
what im saying is any moral theory has no backbone or definite standard
Third point
Yeah of course subjective morality could offer framework, my point is why would it be valid beyond you. We could give a framework for it but at the end of the day its still a subjective stance. It would be no more valid than a serial killer subjective stance if there is no Objective truth.
Therefore you could condemn serial killers, psychopaths, etc. from your own subjective framework you created or accepted but you couldn’t condemn them from a truth stance telling them what they’re doing is wrong as their stance is also subjective
After all both of you have the same level of your own subjective morality
