This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The Euthyphro Dilemma
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Oh, so hurting someone while trying to get what you want is objectively wrong?
im my oppionion yes
Then you believe in objective morality.
(Now I just realized you're not the original person that earlier statement was direct to, so I don't actually know what you think).
But if you do believe in objective morality, then can there be any other source than God?
Post by
444915
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Sandos
I'm not primarily an atheist for disbelief in God. My reasons are because all of the maleficence it brings into this world. Hatred and discrimination towards homosexual people, clashing between two religions, and what I find worst: indoctrination of new generations with outdated, old-fashioned and extremely close-minded information (although the last one applies mostly to very orthodox families). If you decide to believe in God, so be it. What I find horrible is
teaching
your child to
believe
in something.
Another aspect that really bothers me is the way religion is still way too integrated in our modern community, especially politics. It's mind boggling that people that run a (part of a) country may take religious aspects in consideration when taking decisions (prime example being homosexuality).
That said, I'll go ontopic now.
Why I do not believe in God:
God loves everyone. Therefor we have poverty, diseases, hatred etcetera. But not just the bad things; science has given us so many alternatives to God, that I wonder why He would allow these discoveries to be made. These scientific results have shown us that there are countless amounts of galaxies, with countless amounts of planets. So who made these planets? Countless amounts of Gods? Millennia after millennia mankind has been slaughtering others, taking control over others and exploiting others. If God truly would exist he would strike down on those people, to maintain a flourishing, beautiful world. Now, some may say He lets all this happen for a reason. Should this be true, I have one question: why the hell would you believe in such a cruel God?
What I find so beautiful about buddhism is their denial of the existence of a God. They pray to general causes - not to a certain 'God'. They get their fulfillment out of themselves. Not because they're living to the rules of a centuries-old book. Bible quoting is *so* lame.
Post by
TheMediator
I think you're taking the whole objective/subjective thing the wrong way. Its not objective because it comes from one person, something is an objective moral if there can only be one interpretation of it (which sort of runs counter to a lot of the morals in the Bible - Thou shalt not kill for example, some interpret it in the literal sense that you can never kill, some people believe you can't kill without cause, etc.)
And to the other thing, about morals coming from God - plenty of animals have moral codes that they hold, like wolves, that if they break that code then the other wolves will kill them. I don't know if God sent a moral code down to those animals on a stone either that they had to obey - but since I don't think animals can read anyways, I have a hard time believing it was God instructing them. So they simply generated their moral system in a way that would be the best for their pack as a whole. If you don't believe that animals existed before humans, then I don't care to discuss this with you.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think you're taking the whole objective/subjective thing the wrong way. Its not objective because it comes from one person, something is an objective moral if there can only be one interpretation of it (which sort of runs counter to a lot of the morals in the Bible - Thou shalt not kill for example, some interpret it in the literal sense that you can never kill, some people believe you can't kill without cause, etc.)
No you're the one who's got it wrong. All objective means is that the standards for judging the act lie outside of the person, whereas subjective means they lie within the person. That both a Great Dane and a Dalmatian are dogs is an objective truth, because there is some principle of "dogness" outside the person. Similarly, we say particular actions x and y are bad (even though they might be completely unrelated acts) because there is some universal principle of "badness."
Post by
TheMediator
Yes, you can't interpret the Great Dane and the Dalmatian to be anything but dogs. If three different judges are ruling on me, they're outside myself yet what they're deciding is subjective, otherwise they would all interpret it the exact same way.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes, you can't interpret the Great Dane and the Dalmatian to be anything but dogs. If three different judges are ruling on me, they're outside myself yet what they're deciding is subjective, otherwise they would all interpret it the exact same way.
You're assuming judges are the ones who define objective morality. What they decide is subjective unless it's determined
via
objective morality.
Just like I can refuse to call Dalmatians dogs, I can also refuse to call action x bad, even though they both correspond to an objective reality. This denial can either be caused by ignorance (not know
what
a dog is, or
what
a moral act is) or just plain obstinacy. Either way, if the judge rules something disjunctive with objective morality, his ruling becomes subjective.
Post by
TheMediator
Yes, you can't interpret the Great Dane and the Dalmatian to be anything but dogs. If three different judges are ruling on me, they're outside myself yet what they're deciding is subjective, otherwise they would all interpret it the exact same way.
You're assuming judges are the ones who define objective morality. What they decide is subjective unless it's determined
via
objective morality.
All objective means is that the standards for judging the act lie outside of the person, whereas subjective means they lie within the person.
The judges aren't deciding based on my moral code, so according to you, they are objectively judging me. You just said this. Make up your mind.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The judges aren't deciding based on my moral code, so according to you, they are objectively judging me. You just said this. Make up your mind.
What? I never said you're the only source of subjective morality, every single person is. You say x, I say y, the judge says z. All of those are subjective unless they conform to the universal standard.
For instance you say dalmatians are dogs, I say they are cats, and the other guy says they don't exist. You're statement is objective because it conforms to objective reality. The other two don't, and are thus subjective (which in this case also happen to be objectively wrong).
Maybe this is clearer:
All objective means is that the standards for judging the act lie outside of the person (the judger), whereas subjective means they lie within the person (the judger).
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.