Are you honestly suggesting that the only reason you can come up with for rape being wrong is because God says so? God help women if you ever lose your faith...
Will God accept you if you renounce religion?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
Are you honestly suggesting that the only reason you can come up with for rape being wrong is because God says so? God help women if you ever lose your faith...
What RDM is trying to say is that it has no shared creed. It has no structure or defined boundaries or articles of faith...it is essentially an opinion based on the individual beliefs of the person making the claim.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Another issue I think here is the notions of one's morality and one's actions sound like they are being conflated (In jason2 and Ringo747's questions). It is possible to agree that something is immoral whilst still carrying out the action anyway (thus making an objective morality, if it existed, even more inconsequential).
For example lots of people have affairs, but I'd bet very few of them would argue what they did was 'moral'.
The point is, not all of our actions are guided by our morality in any case.
For example lots of people have affairs, but I'd bet very few of them would argue what they did was 'moral'.
The point is, not all of our actions are guided by our morality in any case.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 179
Science proves religions wrong. Take Darwins theory for example
Oh dear!!!
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 179
I'm waiting for them.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
How does religion infere morality?
Isn't the pope a nazi and priests rape boys?
Isn't the pope a nazi and priests rape boys?
Let's see where we got to...
Correct, people deciding what acts to commit has no bearing on whether a moral code exists or not.
This is where I see the biggest problem with moral relativism. Who says harm is wrong? Is harm really wrong?
No I believe that there is an objective standard. How we determine it is a different question.
I do indeed believe that homosexuality is immoral, not because a religious text says so but rather that there are physical, social and biological reasons why it isn't good.
It seems to me that you can't really say what is evil/good though. After all with relativism you don't have an unchanging standard to measure against.
On another note, do you think that you can become a more moral person over time?
Correct, people deciding what acts to commit has no bearing on whether a moral code exists or not.
This is where I see the biggest problem with moral relativism. Who says harm is wrong? Is harm really wrong?
No I believe that there is an objective standard. How we determine it is a different question.
I do indeed believe that homosexuality is immoral, not because a religious text says so but rather that there are physical, social and biological reasons why it isn't good.
It seems to me that you can't really say what is evil/good though. After all with relativism you don't have an unchanging standard to measure against.
On another note, do you think that you can become a more moral person over time?
Last edited:
So no different so far in practice from subjective morality.
The link a few posts above regarding the Veil of Ignorance would be a good place to start. And yes, I would say that harm is really wrong, it makes the world a less happy place. Can you advance a reason as to why harm isn't wrong?
So your objection to homosexuality is actually a subjective one rather than an objective one? You have no actual idea if homosexuality is objectively wrong? So how does your method of working out morality vary in the slightest to subjective morality?
As an aside I struggle to see what the physical, social and biological reasons for homosexuality being immoral are.
But then neither can you, you can only subjectively say what you think God considers objective morality. In practice there seems to be very little difference between a subjective moral position and your objective moral position. You don't actually know what is immoral you have to subjectively work it out, you can choose to ignore if you wish and you seem to be unable to describe why subjectively deciding on a basis of harm doesn't work.
I am also not sure that being able to change is necessarily a bad thing. With an unchanging morality you cannot act on new information.
Yes, people can and do change, if they decide to change to act in a more moral way (regardless of how they determine morality) then they become can become more moral.
Why wouldn't it be objectively bad? I do not want harm inflicted upon me as it hurts either physically or emotionally.
Well, we are making progress! I agree that harm is really wrong too.
You unfortunately can't say the same without admitting that objective morality does exist.
No, it is wrong regardless of the scenario.
Again, this isn't related to whether objective right and wrong exists.
You can't become more moral with moral relativism! How can you measure morality without a standard? That makes no sense at all.
Well, I am astounded. I really am.
You and others have been claiming over the past few pages that there is no such thing as objectively morality and now you are implying there is without even realising. Amazing.
Why not?
And how do you know this? If you are judging it by the social, physical and biological reasons then surely that is subjective? What makes you say it is objectively wrong?
It is very much related to the existence of an objective morality. If your objective morality is unknowable then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist and all your morality is subjective.
Yes you can. As you have already pointed out even with an objective moral standard you can fail to live up to it, the same could be said about a subjective moral standard. So on both cases you can improve your actions to become more moral.
No I haven't. You seem to be very much selectively reading things. I believe (and have stated several times) that it is possible to have an objective morality based on harm done but you reject that as subjective. In truth I am agnostic to the idea of an objective morality, even if it does exist you seem to be unable to quantify it which makes it irrelevant.
I think the problem is that you are too tightly married to your belief that God is the only source of objective morality that you are unable to objectively consider anything else.
No, because they are simply biblical quotation, or paraphrases of them, it takes no account of the critical interpretation or translation of the texts themselves, how they relate both contextually, historically and grammatically. For a very simple and common example, the penultimate reference to Matthew 10:34 is not necessarily referring to physical violence, (in fact according to one school of Hermeneutics there is a mis-translation as evidenced in The Book of Kells that suggests it is not mentioning violence at all) but to division of ideology and is in fact referencing conflict of belief and the challenges the disciples faced rather than advocating physical violence.
Easy to quote a bible passage, a little more challenging to interpret it correctly and rationally however, as I am sure you appreciate, if not now, then in time.
