A Question of Morality (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
But it seems you do know what is moral and what is not, and it seems that god himself installed this feature to all of us.
So tell me if god really did install this feature to all of us human, why isnt it evident to all of us like you say? Why do people act thinking they are morally right according and by doing such they contradict with objective morality.
If it were self evident as you say and it were indeed god given to us, how would you explain cases where people feel morally right, but they are doing against objective morality?
Since you are telling that god gave us knowledge what is moral and what is not, you are saying that there isnt a single case where someone had chosen something without thinking it was moral while it would be immoral considering you objective moral standards?
Maybe the whole problem is that there is no one who has installed this moral code to us and we live with an evolving code rather that the same as was in stone age?
So tell me if god really did install this feature to all of us human, why isnt it evident to all of us like you say? Why do people act thinking they are morally right according and by doing such they contradict with objective morality.
If it were self evident as you say and it were indeed god given to us, how would you explain cases where people feel morally right, but they are doing against objective morality?
Since you are telling that god gave us knowledge what is moral and what is not, you are saying that there isnt a single case where someone had chosen something without thinking it was moral while it would be immoral considering you objective moral standards?
Maybe the whole problem is that there is no one who has installed this moral code to us and we live with an evolving code rather that the same as was in stone age?
Again, you are missing the premise. I did not say God has instilled morality into anyone, I also never stated that without God, we would not be able to lead perfectly moral lives. This is not my argument. My argument is that an objective morality exists, meaning that things are considered 'right' or 'wrong' regardless of what we think.
So even if I thought I was being moral by raping a woman, it does not make my actions moral, that is the premise behind my argument. An absolute, complete, and fundamental truth exists regardless of personal opinion, much less personal taste. Raping a woman is wrong, it does not matter what you believe in, and since this is true. Objective morality exists.
So even if I thought I was being moral by raping a woman, it does not make my actions moral, that is the premise behind my argument. An absolute, complete, and fundamental truth exists regardless of personal opinion, much less personal taste. Raping a woman is wrong, it does not matter what you believe in, and since this is true. Objective morality exists.
But there is no proof of this, since we have established that in some cases we can not know what the the objectively moral choice is.
So in other words, two alternatives:
So what's the difference? All we have is subjectivity anyway.
So in other words, two alternatives:
- There is no objective morality
- There is objective morality, but there is no way to discover it
So what's the difference? All we have is subjectivity anyway.
Let me identify the problem here a little more. Objective morality exists, I can provide you with thousands of cases were an act of transgression, violence, and obscenity is evidently wrong, where no one in their right mind would even dare to say it isn't.
You keep denying this and imply that I only think burning a child alive is immoral because it is only so according to my moral standard which may have been different under different circumstances, time period etc..
This ideology is entirely false. I will give you two reasons.
1) If indeed subjective morality existed, we are in no position to judge rapists, muderers, criminals, and pedophiles. This has very dangerous implications. Laws are changed from country to country and continue to change throughout history. Now, you are suggesting that morality is subjective, thus also interchangable. My point is this, if morality was subjective to different governments etc.. Couldn't any country in the world commit any form of injustice and cruelty to their people without being stopped?
A country may promote slavery, child labor, human traffing. Since the country, mind you a democratic one, is doing no harm to society but are only acting upon their own moral standard. Why should anyone have the authority to stop them?
2) I have asked this questions many times but received no answer. I will ask again. You are arguing that subjective morality is correct but subjective morality suggests that nothing is objectively correct thus the entire premise of your argument fails. You are arguing that subjective morality is 'right' but subjective morality suggests there is no real 'right'.
How can I thus take your argument seriously? It is entirely contradictory in its own essence.
You keep denying this and imply that I only think burning a child alive is immoral because it is only so according to my moral standard which may have been different under different circumstances, time period etc..
This ideology is entirely false. I will give you two reasons.
1) If indeed subjective morality existed, we are in no position to judge rapists, muderers, criminals, and pedophiles. This has very dangerous implications. Laws are changed from country to country and continue to change throughout history. Now, you are suggesting that morality is subjective, thus also interchangable. My point is this, if morality was subjective to different governments etc.. Couldn't any country in the world commit any form of injustice and cruelty to their people without being stopped?
A country may promote slavery, child labor, human traffing. Since the country, mind you a democratic one, is doing no harm to society but are only acting upon their own moral standard. Why should anyone have the authority to stop them?
2) I have asked this questions many times but received no answer. I will ask again. You are arguing that subjective morality is correct but subjective morality suggests that nothing is objectively correct thus the entire premise of your argument fails. You are arguing that subjective morality is 'right' but subjective morality suggests there is no real 'right'.
How can I thus take your argument seriously? It is entirely contradictory in its own essence.
So you are insinuating that North Korea and Myanmar are not morally wrong in their actions. They are just morally different. So what right do any of us have for deeming their actions immoral since it is only so according to our own standard. Let me put it into perspective. One's opinion is subjective? Yes? Thus should we have the right of persecuting this country? If so, why? Because according to your reasoning the only fact that gives us the right in stopping Terrorism is power. Don't you think that's just a little cruel. I mean, we are trying to persecute a government just because they have a different set of ideals.
The world would really make no sense without objective morality. All our acts to stop terrorism are in no ways noble acts to condemn the people who have violated sacred morals, but rather just a totalitarianist method of imposing our own will. The world would thus have no democracy at all.
That last sentence of yours makes no sense. You are basically saying that subjective morality is objectively right but 'objectively right' doesn't even exist.
The world would really make no sense without objective morality. All our acts to stop terrorism are in no ways noble acts to condemn the people who have violated sacred morals, but rather just a totalitarianist method of imposing our own will. The world would thus have no democracy at all.
That last sentence of yours makes no sense. You are basically saying that subjective morality is objectively right but 'objectively right' doesn't even exist.