A Question of Morality (1 Viewer)

[Martin]

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.

None.

Because according to your reasoning the only fact that gives us the right in stopping Terrorism is power.

Not right. Opportunity.

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.

Correct.

The world would thus have no democracy at all.

Incorrect. Democracy is a way to balance the powers of the people in a country. Earlier types of government, like monarchy, were too oppressive to the major part of the population and resulted in revolutions. Democracy is a much more stable system because power is more balanced.

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.

Absolutely not. Stop saying that, I never said that.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Raz]

As far as i see your theory about objective morality is, that it needs god in equation and if god exist there has to be objective morality? Isnt this just one imaginary stuff trying to explain other imaginary stuff?

And who is to say that N.Korea is wrong? The UN, why then?

 

[rounder]

None.

Not right. Opportunity.

Correct.

This is exactly what oppression is all about. We are oppressing these countries because the do not share simmilar views on morality. How immoral can you get?

You agree that is a totalitarianist approach, isn't this exactly what humans have tried so hard to oppose? Aren't the very foundations of human rights the ability to think freely? How can this be possible when you have the superpowers in the world obliterating parts of the world because they have different standards. Not only is this hypocritical, but it is also tragic. I hope you see that.


Absolutely not. Stop saying that, I never said that. [/QUOTE]

That's exactly what you are saying. You are saying that subjective morality is right? yes? but how can subjective morality be right of objective morality does not exist? Your statement is entirely self-contradictory. It would only make sense if you said subjective morality is right only relative to you which would imply objective morality is not incorrect, and if objective morality is not incorrect, subjective morality cannot co-exist. In any way you look at it, your theory is inherently flawed, sorry.

 

[rounder]

As far as i see your theory about objective morality is, that it needs god in equation and if god exist there has to be objective morality? Isnt this just one imaginary stuff trying to explain other imaginary stuff?

And who is to say that N.Korea is wrong? The UN, why then?

Nope, for the 12894947567th time, you have it all wrong. It's not that if God exists, objective morality exists, it's the exact opposite. If objective morality exists then God must exist as a transcendent being that has implemented these objective laws. Clear?

No imaginary stuff here, except for maybe your concept of subjective morality which indeed seems imaginary.

 

[Raz]

Nope, for the 12894947567th time, you have it all wrong. It's not that if God exists, objective morality exists, it's the exact opposite. If objective morality exists then God must exist as a transcendent being that has implemented these objective laws. Clear?

No imaginary stuff here, except for maybe your concept of subjective morality which indeed seems imaginary.

But wait. If we cant test objective morality and we cant know for certain anything about it, so it is exactly like god, imaginary.

If you want something badly enough it deasnt mean it will come true.

 

[Martin]

This is exactly what oppression is all about. We are oppressing these countries because the do not share simmilar views on morality. How immoral can you get?

Because imposing your moral system on another country is less immoral (in our opinion) than letting the Nazis do what they want to do.

You agree that is a totalitarianist approach, isn't this exactly what humans have tried so hard to oppose? Aren't the very foundations of human rights the ability to think freely?

Human rights are based on consensus. And as you can see, there are some states that don't participate in this consensus. In any case, the UN is our best attempt at "world democracy".

How can this be possible when you have the superpowers in the world obliterating parts of the world because they have different standards. Not only is this hypocritical, but it is also tragic. I hope you see that.

That's not really a present concern. The superpowers of the world are obliterating parts of the world for political reasons, not moral ones. Even though they sometimes claim that it's for moral reasons. And yes, it can be tragic.

Absolutely not. Stop saying that, I never said that.

That's exactly what you are saying. You are saying that subjective morality is right?

I never said subjective morality is right. I said morality is a matter of opinion, there is no right.

What the hell is wrong with your reading skills?????

 

[rounder]

So morality if just a matter of opinion, yes? Thus it also be viable for me to believe in an objective moral law, right?

 

[Raz]

Right.

 

[Martin]

So morality if just a matter of opinion, yes? Thus it also be viable for me to believe in an objective moral law, right?

Sure.

 

[Enron]

There is no evidence supporting objective morality. It's purely a faith based pursuit. Basically, unless you have a deep belief in God or God's interaction with mankind, you can't believe in objective morality.

 

[Raz]

There is no evidence supporting objective morality. It's purely a faith based pursuit. Basically, unless you have a deep belief in God or God's interaction with mankind, you can't believe in objective morality.

Thats what im saying, one cannot live without the other, and both cannot be found, just be believed in.

 

[Enron]

Thats what im saying, one cannot live without the other, and both cannot be found, just be believed in.

In the case in which it's being used, the word objective means "from god" and the word subjective means "from man". So in order to accept objective morality you have to deny that man is incapable of independent thought and that anything good man ever did was from direct influence of god.

Basically it's silly to argue either way. As if it really matter where ones morals come from. I consider myself to have solid morals and I've not once had God tell me how to act.

 

[rounder]

Err.. Some atheists do believe in objective morality. http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality

 

[Seven]

Yes, but those are genuinely stupid. The only sort of "objective" morality that could scientifically exist is the one caused by genetics. But this would be "subjective" as well, because it would change over time. Furthermore it would still come from the subject anyway.

 

[Enron]

Err.. Some atheists do believe in objective morality. http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality

So what's your point? I'm not an atheist and I don't believe in the objective morality.

 

[Martin]

Err.. Some atheists do believe in objective morality. http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality

So what? If he's right then he says there is objective morality without god. Doesn't help religion at all.

 

[rounder]

In the case in which it's being used, the word objective means "from god" and the word subjective means "from man". So in order to accept objective morality you have to deny that man is incapable of independent thought and that anything good man ever did was from direct influence of god.

Basically it's silly to argue either way. As if it really matter where ones morals come from. I consider myself to have solid morals and I've not once had God tell me how to act.

It's so sad that some people refuse to read the argument first before arguing against it.

 

[Seven]

So what? If he's right then he says there is objective morality without god. Doesn't help religion at all.

Have you read that article? The objective moral standard this guy is proposing is something very different than the one JR is talking about.

I bet he typed in "atheism objective morality" on Google and randomly selected a link.

EDIT: it's the fifth link

 

[Martin]

Have you read that article? The objective moral standard this guy is proposing is something very different than the one JR is talking about.

I skimmed it, and it's not grounds for objective morality anyway.

 

[Enron]

Err.. Some atheists do believe in objective morality. http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality

You do realize that the fellow steps on his one feet by saying that values are something that must be learned? According to the theory of objective morality these values would be passed down from god, which means that from birth people are morally sound yet we know that isn't the case.