Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[ringo747]

I'm saying that we can't determine them, and therefore, they can't exist. How do you think we can determine objective moral values?

The existence of object moral values can be true regardless of whether we think we can determine them or not.

Not at all. Not believing in objective values doesn't rule out subjective moral values, and subjective moral values would indeed be influenced by whether something is socially unacceptable or harmful to humanity.

You can't categorically say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong.

That's not what I said. If the Nazis had taken over the world and convinced everyone that the Holocaust was the right thing to do, there wouldn't be anyone to judge it as morally wrong, so how could objective moral values possibly exist? On some supernatural plane that would have no influence and make absolutely no difference? What is the point?

My point is that regardless of human opinion the acts of the Holocaust are really wrong.

As do I, but that doesn't mean it's anything more our subjective opinions.

No, that would be objective (the clue is in "regardless of human opinion").

I find that rather ironic. It's not making up a purpose or convincing ourselves, but truly finding what we want to achieve and what makes us happy, and how best to live our lives.

You said earlier... "it means that we create our own purpose."

Are you making up purpose or not?

 

[zenf]

The existence of object moral values can be true regardless of whether we think we can determine them or not.

How? In what way can they exist if we don't even know what they are and can't determine them?

You can't categorically say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong.

Neither can you or anyone else, it will always be their subjective opinion regardless of whether they think a higher power agrees with them.

My point is that regardless of human opinion the acts of the Holocaust are really wrong.

Says who? The supposedly objective moral code which can't conceivably be determined or agreed upon?

No, that would be objective (the clue is in "regardless of human opinion").

Ironically, your belief that it's objective is subjective, although I should've pointed out that it's your own human opinion that determines whether you believe it right or wrong.

You said earlier... "it means that we create our own purpose."

Are you making up purpose or not?

'Create' was possibly the wrong word to use, 'find' would've been better but the gist is correct.

 

[ringo747]

How? In what way can they exist if we don't even know what they are and can't determine them?

The physical world around us has an objective reality independent of how we gradually have come to understand it.

If we gradually discover moral values it doesn't mean that they didn't previously exist.

Neither can you or anyone else, it will always be their subjective opinion regardless of whether they think a higher power agrees with them.

So you are seriously telling me if that I thought it was fine to murder your family, that it wouldn't be wrong?

Says who? The supposedly objective moral code which can't conceivably be determined or agreed upon?

With your view of morality we doesn't seem to have any moral obligation to each other at all, except for what the law tells us we can/can't do.

Ironically, your belief that it's objective is subjective, although I should've pointed out that it's your own human opinion that determines whether you believe it right or wrong.

So you would support the view that without God there is no such thing as objective morality?

'Create' was possibly the wrong word to use, 'find' would've been better but the gist is correct.

How do you find something if it doesn't exist?

 

[zenf]

The physical world around us has an objective reality independent of how we gradually have come to understand it.

If we gradually discover moral values it doesn't mean that they didn't previously exist.

An objective reality is not the same as objective moral values. In what form could moral values have previously existed?

So you are seriously telling me if that I thought it was fine to murder your family, that it wouldn't be wrong?

Of course I'd believe it to be morally wrong, but it's still just my subjective opinion.

With your view of morality we doesn't seem to have any moral obligation to each other at all, except for what the law tells us we can/can't do.

Not in the slightest, I still have a sense of right and wrong like everyone else.

So you would support the view that without God there is no such thing as objective morality?

No, I'd say that even with belief in God, there is no such thing as objective moral values.

How do you find something if it doesn't exist?

It's not an object, it's a viewpoint or an ideal and they develop over time.

 

[estebanrey]

ringo747, how can you be sure that any of your morals are objective?

The point you keep missing is EVERYTHING you believe is subjective. Just because you think something is really, really bad and the vast majority of the world agrees with you doesn't mean that is suddenly becomes objective. That's a fallacy called Argumentum ad populum.

Argumentum ad populum (literally, an argument to the people) is the logical fallacy that just because something is popular, it is therefore true. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but their truth is not a function of their popularity.

 

[ringo747]

An objective reality is not the same as objective moral values. In what form could moral values have previously existed?

Objective moral values could have their basis is a transcendent being.

Of course I'd believe it to be morally wrong, but it's still just my subjective opinion.

Hold on here, without objective morality you can't even say what is right or wrong objectively!

In a world of moral relativism anything is permitted. As Nietzsche states, "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist."

Not in the slightest, I still have a sense of right and wrong like everyone else.

Same as above.

No, I'd say that even with belief in God, there is no such thing as objective moral values.

So you don't think objective morality is possible at all?

It's not an object, it's a viewpoint or an ideal and they develop over time.

It develops from what? In the atheistic viewpoint it seems to me that humanity has no purpose and they are just another species among many others with no moral obligations towards one another.

 

[zenf]

Objective moral values could have their basis is a transcendent being.

To me, that seems very unlikely but assuming it's true, what practical use is it? People will form their own morals regardless of whether they think they're endorsed by a transcendent being or not.

Hold on here, without objective morality you can't even say what is right or wrong objectively!

Indeed.

In a world of moral relativism anything is permitted. As Nietzsche states, "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist."

He's not wrong in my opinion but practically, as a society we have to find a consensus of our morality on what is permitted and what isn't.

So you don't think objective morality is possible at all?

Exactly.

It develops from what? In the atheistic viewpoint it seems to me that humanity has no purpose and they are just another species among many others with no moral obligations towards one another.

It develops in the same way that we develop as people, from our upbringing, society, all of the things that make influence us to become the people we are. I don't see why an atheistic viewpoint would mean we have no moral obligations to each other, we're still all here sharing the same planet trying to make it a better place for everyone.

 

[ringo747]

The point you keep missing is EVERYTHING you believe is subjective. Just because you think something is really, really bad and the vast majority of the world agrees with you doesn't mean that is suddenly becomes objective. That's a fallacy called Argumentum ad populum.

I never said that an act becomes objectively wrong due to what anyone thinks! I'm saying that an act is right or wrong in any given situation regardless of what I believe.

In fact the fallacy you mention could well be applied to the situation where a society believes that child abuse is fine. Just because everyone thinks so doesn't make it right.

To me, that seems very unlikely but assuming it's true, what practical use is it? People will form their own morals regardless of whether they think they're endorsed by a transcendent being or not.

Perhaps so that there is a moral law stating what is right or wrong? Regardless of what the practical use is, that doesn't have any bearing on whether it exists or not.

Indeed.

So if you can't say what is right or wrong objectively then you can't say that a murderer is wrong in wiping out your whole family.

He's not wrong in my opinion but practically, as a society we have to find a consensus of our morality on what is permitted and what isn't.

If objective moral values don't exist then you have absolutely no basis to say whether this consensus is even right or wrong. If it is one man against another then there is no basis at all for forcing your beliefs on me or vice versa. Who has the right to tell me what to do if everything is permissible?

Exactly.

I don't meet too many who hold your view. If my memory serves me correctly we have even had atheists in this thread refer to the 'bankruptcy of moral subjectivism'.

It develops in the same way that we develop as people, from our upbringing, society, all of the things that make influence us to become the people we are. I don't see why an atheistic viewpoint would mean we have no moral obligations to each other, we're still all here sharing the same planet trying to make it a better place for everyone.

In the atheistic view who imposes these moral obligations? The sole aim of our species is survival surely.

 

[ShortWarning]

I don't have much to add other than I think Zenf is correct.

Morality is subjective. I could quote almost everything Ringo has written and write 'in your opinion'.

 

[ringo747]

I don't have much to add other than I think Zenf is correct.

Morality is subjective. I could quote almost everything Ringo has written and write 'in your opinion'.

Fine let's assume it is subjective. What is our morality built around? Is an act ok as long as it doesn't harm anyone?

 

[ShortWarning]

Fine let's assume it is subjective. What is our morality built around? Is an act ok as long as it doesn't harm anyone?

It depends on the act - IMO. Mostly though, yes - IMO.

Morals have changed over the last 100/1000/10000 years.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

I don't have much to add other than I think Zenf is correct.

Morality is subjective. I could quote almost everything Ringo has written and write 'in your opinion'.

Morality is not subjective. Moral ambiguity exists where law is misinterpreted as morality. For example, a common held 'moral' - do not steal - falls appart when our would-be-alladin thief is stealing food to live, suddenly a more moral act. Do not steal is not morality, it is an attempt to define morality by law.

 

[ringo747]

It depends on the act - IMO. Mostly though, yes - IMO.

Morals have changed over the last 100/1000/10000 years.

So how would you define what is acceptable or not? You can't use the terms right/wrong/good/bad as they effectively don't exist objectively under the view we are assuming here.

 

[estebanrey]

Fine let's assume it is subjective. What is our morality built around? Is an act ok as long as it doesn't harm anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule

 

[estebanrey]

Morality is not subjective. Moral ambiguity exists where law is misinterpreted as morality. For example, a common held 'moral' - do not steal - falls appart when our would-be-alladin thief is stealing food to live, suddenly a more moral act. Do not steal is not morality, it is an attempt to define morality by law.

What has that got to do with morality being not being subjective?

What you've described shows that morality IS subjective.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

What has that got to do with morality being not being subjective?

What you've described shows that morality IS subjective.

Your inability to understand the concept i have given is not my problem, and i shall not feed you with any further response. Work it out for yourself.

 

[ringo747]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule

As the link states "do unto others"... what about people who self harm? If they self harm and think it is fine then they can do it to other people with no objection.

 

[estebanrey]

Your inability to understand the concept i have given is not my problem, and i shall not feed you with any further response. Work it out for yourself.

I think it's your ignorance to what subjective means that's the problem here.

 

[estebanrey]

As the link states "do unto others"... what about people who self harm? If they self harm and think it is fine then they can do it to other people with no objection.

That doesn't fit the rule though does it.

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself

You should treat people as you wanted to be treated by THEM. It's not "Do unto others as you do to yourself". If it were, I'd go around tossing other men off!

 

[ringo747]

That doesn't fit the rule though does it.

You should treat people as you wanted to be treated by THEM. It's not "Do unto others as you do to yourself". If it were, I'd go around tossing other men off!

Ok, so if you liked murdering Jews, then being murdered yourself by Jews is fine?