/lit/ - Literature

>>10276707
I don't think you know what objective morality means. How can one have objective morality?

B-but, if belief in god is based on faith, and not the objective certainty of his existence, then any moral code derived from the written word of said god, is as subjective as the belief itself.
What am i getting wrong desu.

This is a brilliantly nonsensical question. 9/10

>>10276722
One can only have objective morality, if their is a God. Because, in that paradime God would be the arbiter of rightness. Otherwise, the best you can do is utility arguments which rely on an all-knowing arbiter that will never escape his own prejudices and subjectivity.

>>10276757
What if my cat, who isn't God, is the arbiter of rightness?

>>10276707
By having any set of non-contradictory principles that govern moral behaviour.

>>10276761
The point is that to be the arbiter of rightness is to be God, ya dummy.

>>10276729
Exactly. Discerning Gods word is the task de impossible. Thats the real conundrum as Nietzsche points out. However, that fact withstanding: If God exists, then there is objective morality. If not, their cant be.

The best you can do is a conditional affirmation. Ultimately, belief in God is just a choice.

I actually have my own answer to this first conundrum though, and it goes as follows: if one believes in God, then there is a moral code to the universe. Since, evolution is an innate drive, the preservation of life is morally correct. Granted an is is not an ought--solely, however, in combination with belief in God, the is can become an ought.

>>10276707
>Can you have objective morality without believing in God?
Goddammit, I'm too drunk for this. No, but that's only if the God you use as a rule is the objective god, which is also impossible to prove.

Nothing's more obnoxious than those people that say shit like "if god isn't real, then why do we have self control?" Fuck you.

First off, you have to consider these things:
1: we're social creatures
2: being nice to strangers means they're less likely to kill us
3:if we're nice to enough people then they will protect us if we're attacked by an outside force.

Yeah, the fine tunings might be different from culture to culture, but it all boils down to the same shit. Just apply "why was this useful to homo erectus, and you'll find the answer."

tl;dr: morality = being nice = survival.

>>10276769
No it isn't. "God" has all sorts of other attributes that don't solely revolve around that.

>>10276777
You are a fuckin idiot, but the trips have me reeling? My conviction, perhaps, is leading to my downfall? Could this lowly pleb really be right? Is my whole world an even bigger lie than previously thought?
Do any of these questions have answers?

TRIPS
TRIPS
TRIPS

Anon, since you clearly have all the answers can we read some Kierkegaard and chill? ;)

>>10276801
Good argument. Totally proved me wrong in those 63 words.

>>10276776
Right. You definitely cant prove an objective God. Though, since it is just a choice with no proof either way, one leads toward the productive social contract and one path leads towards chaos or tyranny. I am using a utility argument at the end of the day, for belief in God and hence morals, which is not great, since I hate when people use a utility argument for morals--as you just did, though, Ultimately utility arguments cannot endure. Might will make right, is that philosophies logical conclusion. At least Im using the utility argument higher in the logical chain where its place actually belongs. Utility to construct a moral framework has no justification. It cannot explain why we should valie life in the first place

>>10276810
You are helpless m8. Keep it moving to another board. This big boy conversation is beyond your feeble minds understanding. You have misunderstood from the jump. Cat, lol

>>10276707
as God or gods are creations of men, why would it be objective? There are different religions with different codes of ethics...

>>10276822
I'm not the one arguing from unfounded prepositions in grade-school grammar.

>>10276765
You say that stefan, ((upb)), yet, what can be the justification to value life in the first place?

>>10276832
Oh, so whats your argument then?

>>10276841
>>10276777

>>10276845
True, but how is that relevant? Im saying he does x to prove my point, and you are saying he does x, y and z. Which I probably agree with you on, dependi g where you take this next

>>10276817
>Ultimately utility arguments cannot endure.
But they do. If you considered utility arguments as "a functional reason why something exists" then that's not even an argument. It's just the way it is. It's like saying you don't believe the sky is really blue. We're animals, with hardwired compulsions built in over millions, if not billions of years.

Religion is basically just putting those inherent laws to paper in a way that doesn't make us seem like animals. But we are just animals.

I don't begrudge people their religion. I'm happy for religious people and I've tried my hand at it myself- but I'm also not deluding myself.

Whatever you believe, religion, atheism, or whatever, the ultimate goal is survival. And, frankly, reducing each "law" down to it's purpose makes it's painfully clear.

Take any law presented to you by religion or otherwise and reduce it down to how it benefits you (or whoever made the law) and it's undeniable.

Don't kill? = If you kill you're drawing the aggression of others toward yourself
Don't eat shellfish? = Shellfish was difficult to safely store and therefore, eating it could result in sickness.
Don't worship idols? = Worshiping that which the local whoever didn't approve of took power away from that local whoever and made him easier to overthrow.

Get it? It's all logic. It all has a function. It's not something spiritually fulfilling. That doesn't mean it's not useful.

>>10276854
Belief in a Christian God has no bearing on whether or not there is an objective morality. Your opinion that God is the arbiter of rightness, is a subjective one.

hobbes apriori blah blah golden rule

you get the picture

>>10276856
Heres where you are wrong though m8: there have been countless examples of people abusing power through out mankinds history. Its actually more the rule than the exception, without God in the picture there is no reason why this is morally wrong. Might makes right. There is no inherent reason we should value other peoples lives.

As for the history of morals, as you more or less put it, religion--God--was needed to justify this utility and give it a back bone. Without God it all falls apart. It might still be logically coherent, but it has no consequence outside of law.

>>10276863
It is not though, if God exists, then there is right and wrong. It is a conditional affirmation. Also, I never said Christian God.

>>10276887
Unless everything that happens is right.

>>10276879
>without God in the picture there is no reason why this is morally wrong.

>without god, I don't feel guilt

yeah, only if you're a psychopath. I honestly don't know how this is an argument. Are you implying people who believe in religion can't do awful things?

Suck a fat one. You're not making sense. God is not the constant. Not even by a long shot.

People do awful things. That's just how people are. Morality boils down survival rules, and there's a goddamn venn diagram of "whats good for my survival" and "what does religion want me to do"

God doesn't change that. Sorry.

>>10276887
You don't seem to understand the difference between belief in God and God's actual existence. Also, given that "God" would simply be one other opinion, his idea of morality is also a subjective one, so it's irrelevant. You're like a peasant saying that The King exists and therefore there's an objective morality because The King says so. Just because someone's bigger and more powerful than you doesn't mean their opinion is more correct than yours. Your entire mode of thinking is stymied in (inaccurate, stereotypes of) medieval thought.

>>10276904
You only think someone who kills is a psychopath, because youve been conditioned you pseud. Sheep at its finest right here. I am not implying people who are religious cant be bad. Im saying only the religious have the possibility of having an objective conception of good and bad. Go home reddit

>>10276907
God is the creator of not only us, but the universe. His judgement would be final. I see what you are trying to do their, but its not applicable, unless you are using a different definiyion of God. Not as the all-mighty

>>10276929
>God is the creator of not only us, but the universe
So?
>His judgement would be final.
I disagree. Which proves you wrong.
>Not as the all-mighty
I don't give a fuck how big the bully is, doesn't make him right.

>>10276929
a shirt for you anon.

>>10276937
Lol, go back to your freshman seminar m8. Youve been outclassed

>>10276940
Why tho?

>>10276948
Again, great argument there.

>>10276949
Last reply Ima give you:

His judgement would be final
>I disagree which proves you wrong
>I dont...bully...whatever

This is your argument. Everyone here knows how retarded you are. Good luck reddit-fag.

>>10276921
Look, kid I get. You're religious, right? If you're even a little bit wrong, then your whole religion falls apart.

But that's not an argument
>Im saying only the religious have the possibility of having an objective conception of good and bad.
In what version of reality does this make any sense?
If there's no objective moral law, then how do religions present an objective moral law? How the fuck would they know? It's all fucking make believe. It's all building on simple, cold functionality, dressed up to appeal to people who are scared to confront the idea that we're all dumb animals that are going to fuck and then die.

Whether you're religious or not isn't an issue. It doesn't matter. But no, there isn't a "right answer" and there isn't an objective moral law because there is no "right answer".

Fucking deal with it.

Morality is not equatable with religion.

I don't know who said it and I don't care, but here's a quote you should take to heart:
"If the only reason you don't hurt strangers is because of religion, then thats a you problem."

Normal people, no matter how shitty people are, do not feel a strange compulsion to attack people. Yeah, we get mad and sometimes we fantasize about picking up a chair and flinging it through the front window of a cafe when something goes wrong on a bad day- BUT people don't not do it because of religion. God is not the reason why people have inhibitions.

People don't throttle strangers in the mall because not only would we be arrested, but people we have social relationships with would no longer want to have these relationships with us. God is not a factor.

In fact if the only reason you DO do something good, is because "God would want me to," then you're not actually a good person.

>>10276977
You are so hopeless its incredible. You are out of your league m8.

>b4 you say, nice argument

Everything youve said here has been answered above.

>>10276993
You do realize that green texting a legitimate reply first doesn't actually negate the fact that you're the one unable to give a coherent response, right?

>>10276970
You're really not very bright. Maybe you should lurk a bit longer before trying to engage in arguments.

>>10277004
>>10277010
Topkek

>>10276707
You can't have objective morality either way, see: Euthyphro dilemma

>>10277091
If God is the all-mighty, then goodness is his creations. Not the other way around. Not Platos best work desu

>>10276707
>have objective morality
>have
If morality is objective, and thus dictated by a higher power, then you can't "have" it. Just because you reject a God's morality doesn't mean that you can have your own subjective morality. It also doesn't mean that you will be punished for rejecting God's law, assuming that you understand why and you are doing so for the right reasons. Ignorance of cosmic truth probably won't help though.

>>10277117
Just because someone creates a thing doesn't mean it can't be used in different ways by other people. Your argument is just that "God made it and God is good therefore God is the arbiter of good" which is circular and about as mental gymnastic as the worst possible SJW bullshit

even if god existed, morality would still be subjective because a party being more intelligent and powerful than you still has its own interests that are different from yours, intelligence is irrelevant. morality is by definition subjective.

>>10277133
Not if God is all-mighty though. What your saying only applies to the Pantheon, or some other hierarchy

>>10277133
Unless moral law can be defined in a similar manner as natural and mathematical law, which would remove the "interest" part of the argument.

>>10277133
What if... Everything that happens is right? And the only wrong is what we decide is wrong? What if death is not bad and is merely apart of the process of some bigger game.

>>10277139
>Not if God is all-mighty though.
>I don't give a fuck how big the bully is, doesn't make him right.
Your mind is blinkered as fuck.

>>10277146
but it couldn't be because in the end it's just feels-based. a rock does not know morality. morals stem from human psychology and their ethics can ultimately be reduced to emotions. if you follow the trail backward enough into someone's rationale, you will eventually hit "because I care about this thing for no rational reason, evolution just made my brain have compassion" or whatever emotion shaped their morals. for example, why does somebody believe murder is bad or "immoral"? in the end, it is because they believe this it is better for society to abhor murder. so why do they care about what is good for society? because their emotions implore them to feel compassion for other human beings and want team human to do well. but this is emotional and irrational, it's just a programmed evolutionary tick that you cannot prove "correct" with math.

>>10277139
why not?

>>10277150
i dunno lol

Since the name of God is I AM it doesn't really matter whether I AM the source of objective morality or I AM not the source of objective morality

>>10276707
Dominos bread twists are my god

>>10277129
Not quite m8. God made everything, therefore, God is the arbiter of good. Cut a step out. Not circular, sound logic if you accept the conditional premises

>>10277150
What if...first grade logician in da HOUSE!!

>>10277203
Second grade actually. That's two grades above you my dude

>>10277171
To your first point, fair enough. Though, I would say it would come back to God

>>10277198
>God made everything, therefore, God is the arbiter of good
No. That is a false presupposition. I can make something out of clay, that does not make me the arbiter of good clay. If I made something out of nothing. that would not make me the arbiter of something.

>>10277171
I'm not saying that morality is mathematic, I'm sayi my that if there is an omnipotent god, then the moral law dictated by said god will be as structured as the law we can theorize in the sciences- not measured in the same way,but however.

>>10277232
it would still be subjective though. whatever that god described in his moral law, the mere logical possibility of a disagreement with that moral means that it must be subjective. if there's some edgy teenage kid who thinks "nuh uh, everything sucks! anti-natalism now" then he has his own subjective morality that is different from god's subjective morality. god's is not more "correct" simply because it is more informed, moral preference ultimately boils down to personal preference/emotion as I posted here >>10277171

>>10277225
Your shit analogy should also include clay itself and everything in exiatence. If God exists and created everything, then morality would be well within Thees domain.

>>10276765
Coherentism isn't objective
>>10276776
Wrong. Try again STEMsperg
>>10276856
You are deluding yourself. Try again STEMsperg

>>10276977
>In fact if the only reason you DO do something good, is because "God would want me to," then you're not actually a good person.
becuz i sed so hur le science
Conventionalism isn't objective you absolute retard

>>10277250
>If I made something out of nothing. that would not make me the arbiter of that something.
>Hey guys I made a helpless being that I get to torture to death, it feels excruciating pain and existential angst but it's ok because I made it from nothing!

>>10277133
Wrong again. An infinite being beyond and within existence would be an objective being.

>>10277251
Finally someone here thats get it!

>>10277248
When someone refuses to eat and survive, they are attempting to break our physical laws regarding metabolism and hunger which have been set and enforced by the universe. We set, as a society or through religion, moral law which is enforced either through jail or in religion's case through divine punishment (in this life, the next life, or the afterlife.) Assuming that one particular religion or spiritual path was correct in their beliefs surrounding moral law, then objective morality would exist.

>>10277325
>Assuming that one particular religion or spiritual path was correct in their beliefs surrounding moral law, then objective morality would exist.

Exaxtly. This isnt hard guys.

>>10277146
but that definition would be independent of God's existence: take, for example, Kant's deduction of the kingdom of ends. if God created the universe with objective morality, it must be logically deducible.

>>10276729
Hence why we don't all follow the same objective morality.
What even is you point here?

>>10276776
Why is living inherently moral?

>>10277325
>they are attempting to break our physical laws regarding metabolism and hunger which have been set and enforced by the universe.
what are these laws of hunger of which you speak, would you show me where has the universe written these down?

ive got a big cock! lol!

>>10277412
If one doesn't have some form of sustenance, they will die. If they don't believe that gravity restricts them, and they try to fly while they jump off a building, they will die. This is a part of physics and mathematics and make a up the physical law of our universe as physical beings. Moral law may be structured the same way, assuming that there is an omnipotent force which dictates that. Or maybe moral law is something that can be resisted in a way which will lead to freedom.

Pic from a previous thread on this

>>10276707
>morality
>mfw

>>10277744
Right, point 4 is the only way to have objective morality, but I disagree its arbitrary--as he asserts. We have no idea why God does what he does, which also makes an objective morality difficult to know; however, the introduction of God into the equation combined with what is, remedies the is/ought dilemna.

>>10277816
>We have no idea why God does what he does
Its literally arbitrary unless its something that binds God in which case that being wouldn't be God. There is no restraint on Gods actions.

>>10277828
Literally no one advocates unrestricted omnipotence in 2017.

>>10276707
Can you have morality when believing in God?
If it's "God's will" how much would you let happen?
Are you capable of an ethical decision based on choice rather than conforming to your creed?

Nope, religious people discard their own morality, to follow that of their religion, they don't have morality, they have faith that the morality spoon-fed to them is "better" than what they would come up by themselves

yes. Read the Analects.

>>10276707
Yes
Law

>>10276707
Morality is subjective and universal. You literally cannot refute this, but you can try

>>10277183
woman detected

>>10276707
Even if you knew for certain that God exists, which isn't possible to know, alligning your morality with God's wishes still would not be provably objectively correct.

>>10276707
As a Christian, I wouldn’t even argue that there is such a thing as “objective morals.” As an ancient text, the Bible condoned a lot of behaviors and institutions we consider horrifying, like slavery and genocidal settler colonialism.

On the other hand, saying there is no such thing as an objective morality is not the same as saying that there is objectively no such things as morals. All societies struggle with itself to define what is good and moral and just, and even then there is no consensus. Within a society or civilization, there will always be diving lines between races and classes and the sexes as to what constitutes moral behavior. That’s normal.

>>10278954
How so?

>>10278921
God, would be the subjective being that created us, however, everything he created would be the objective world and morals to us

>>10278881
You are clueless. Get woker anon. Pseudamentary levels right now

>>10276776
Morality has nothing to do with being "nice" to each other. People who are nice to other people get taken advantage of all the damn time.

>>10276729
You forgot that beliefs based on faith can be objective if and only if they agree with me.

>>10276757

>paradime

>>10276707
You can't, but the problem is that believing in God doesn't get you an objective morality either.
If you don't believe in God, your moral principles would likely be based on something like the golden rule: "treat others how you want to be treated" or "anything that brings unnecessary harm or suffering is bad". This works to an extent because most people generally agree on basic morals: don't murder, don't steal, etc. The problem is that there's always going to be room for disagreement because what counts as "unnecessary suffering" is always going to be arbitrary.
The problem is that believing in a god is no less arbitrary. Instead of basing morality on what minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness, all you're doing is living by the principle of "God decides what's good or evil, regardless of whether those rules improve or diminish well being". And the obvious problem with that is that there are hundreds of different religions with hundreds of different interpretations of God and morality. Even if you're going to say that the Christian God is the one true God, your interpretation of morals are going to depend on whether you think the Bible should be taken 100% literally or not.
Sorry about the wall of text and sloppy writing. I hope some of what I wrote is coherent, English is not my first language. I'd love to hear any thoughts on what I said above. I was raised Christian and am now agnostic, so I'm not super biased either way and am open to hearing other opinions.

>>10280238
without God the world is meaningless, unless I guess you create your own value? Still skeptical about this, yet regaurdless, there is at least no objective meaning or morality. The golden rule would cease to be a rule after a few generations. Chaos/tyranny would ensue

As for belief in God, you are wrong, morality would just be based on Gods subjective choices, however, those choices would be the whole objective world to us, so objective for our purposes. In this paradigm life can be valuable, because God would have given us life, and we get better well-being. No objective morals without God.

Choosing which faith is the obvious problem, but I do think science is actually helping--slowly--remedy this dilemna, because if you believe in God, then an is can be an ought and we can start to learn how to be. For example, we have the innate drive--via evolution--to live, so life must be a value, and so on. Though, I do concede that not all of what is, can be an ought. Still working this bit out in my mind desu

>>10276707
Go to bed, Peterson.

>>10280894
You mean Nietzsche. Jp just popularized this idea

>>10280921
I meant that Peterson should stop doing research on 4chan.

>>10280890
>without God the world is meaningless
Imagine being this cucked in the head.

Buddhism

>>10280958
Make an argument m8. I concede one might be able to make ones own meaning, though, without God where would the meaning come from?

>>10280968
Is fuckin retarded! And the buddha was a dead beat dad!

I'll explain, let's just first define our terms.

Meaning: The purpose of a construction. The meaning of say a hammer is to hammer, determined by it's construction.
Now we deductively know the meaning of life, the meaning of life is to act out the purpose of our construction.
What does this mean for morals? Let's define good and evil first.

Good: What one ought to do.
Evil: What one ought not to do.
Now that we know objectively what we ought to do ( fullfil our meaning due to our construction) we can then determine if something is good or evil based on how it relates to our objective meaning.

>>10280987

>>10280973
great circular reasoning bro

>>10280238
God is omnipotent and omniscient

If the has a morality it is true, simply because it is. We might not be able to follow/know it precisely, but that does not mean its not there.

>>10280999
To just say, what ought be done is good, is topkek of the day. What ought be done? Meaning is just an is=ought. Oh, cool. It isnt like Hume totally disproved that whole line of reasoning. To all of us who actually read philosophy books you look pathetic and arent fooling anyone except other plebs I promise you. Nice trips tho, really went all out on that shitposty b8

Darwin already put this issue to rest. No need for supernatural explanations.

Why assume there is a meaning to life at all?

Everything you see right now is just the logical conclusion to whatever chemical conditions were present in the early universe; the human mind, and its incessant need to find meaning in things is a consequence of our biology.
Society is further abstracted from, but still explainable as a natural process - social behavior is a winning adaptation.

People need society, and religions, and philosophies to give them meaning, or else they go nuts - it's just the way our brains work.

Morality provides a structure for societies, and society is a very good for mental health and overall survival, so it's pretty chill.

The bible (or any holy book) isn't the word of God, it's just an instruction manual made by people, for themselves to follow. I'm not saying the Bible or whatever isn't worth following though, religion can provide a fairly healthy structure with which to live one's life.

Life is really just about finding shit to do, the more productive the better, because fuck it, might as well lol

>>10279071
This is unironically the only right answer (ironically)

>>10279057
They're not taken advantage of by people who are nice all the time, which is the point

>>10276817
>>>10276776
>Might will make right, is that philosophies logical conclusion
Nice unfounded statement

>Utility to construct a moral framework has no justification. It cannot explain why we should valie life in the first place
Except it's pretty clear why you should value the lives of others when considering utility

>>10277251
>if I say thing is wrong, that make it wrong
Not any of the people you replied to, but wew

>>10277403
He didn't say that it was

>>10277861
>restricted
>omnipotence
Really made me think

>>10281124
Calls my argument unfounded, literally next sentence is unfounded statement

>except its pretty clear why you should value the lives of others.

Nice, because its self evident, fallacy. No its not you dumb-dumb, you arent making an argument

In regaurds to your attempt at rebuttal, might is right is the logical conclusion of no God because there are no intrinsic morals, because there is no arbitrator to dictate--objectively--what is good and bad. So if morality is subject to the subjective individual, then morality becomes a whim and will either turn into chaos--because without an over-arching moral framework abuse and its implications would propel further chaos, until the society devolved--or a tyrant would take over.

Op here, this thread is turning into shit. Wtf

>>10281197
If you think about for literally a second, the utility you gain from people's lives leads you to value people's lives. I wasn't saying it was self evident, it just requires rudimentary logic

You don't know what words mean, intrinsic morality is entirely possible without God, if anything the morality of God is the enemy of intrinsic morality. And there's nothing special about intrinsic morality anyway.

>morality is subjective
>then morality becomes a whim
Nice logical leap

>>10276707
>believing in God is the only thing that stops me from killing people
Ok.

>>10281216
Op here
This is now a/cringe thread/

Who can top this guy^?

I'm a utilitarian

>>10277744
>Even if a God existed, that wouldn't overcome the IS-OUGHT problem
It would, because God can infuse the being of his creations with meaning, value, and purpose. Man isn't a lump of flesh but an image of God.

>>10281264
Exactly, some of these kids have no fuckin idea

>>10281265
>Christianity taught us to see the eye of the lord looking down upon us. Such forms of knowledge project an image of reality, at the expense of reality itself. They talk figures and icons and signs, but fail to perceive forces and flows.

>>10281265
I agree, the only problem is not every is=an ought, and if it did, then that brings up a whole bunch of other problems

>>10281277
>>but fail to perceive forces and flows.
>what are the energies of God
>what is theosis

>>10281284
Don't conflate theosis with becoming-image, anon.

>>10276707
you can't have an objective anything

>>10281649
Is that objectively true?

>>10276824
METAPHYSICAL
FEDORA
ACTIVATE

Nothing is either right or wrong, it just is

>>10281655
obviously not you big dummy

>>10281679
This right here is whats wrong with the 21st century. FUCK CENTERISTS!! FUCK NEW AGE FAGS WHO THINK THEY ARE WOKE!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>10281707
Well that's just like, your opinion man

>>10281714
Its such a pseudo-intellectual statement. Someone needs to Wash your fuckin mouth out with soap

>>10281726
he's right tho

>>10281726
>Its such a pseudo-intellectual statement

but y tho

>>10281736
>>10281742
He clearly doesnt believe it himself. As dont you. Its a giant cop-out to seem smart. Its a statement that effectively means nothing

>>10281757
>He clearly doesnt believe it himself.

What makes you think this? I do believe it

>>10281757
The way he phrased it was a meme you dip

>>10276761
*kills your cat*
What now bitch

>>10281765
I just stabbed your mom in the throat 5X, and shes slowly bleeding out. I look over to you, "it just is anon. Dont be sad, that would be proving you wrong"

>>10281006
I agree, but how exactly dies that affect day to day life? Even if there *is* objective reality, it's completely useless to us if we don't know what exactly those morals are. So what are we supposed to do? Just guess? Make up our own "objective" morals and insist that they're true by God's standard?

>>10280890
Interesting, especially your theory at the end about values being revealed through science. My issue with the whole thing is still this: Just because there's no objective meaning without God doesn't mean that there's a God. It's possible that there is simply no objective meaning, we're all just evolved apes, and any truth claims that religion makes are just as subjective as any other meaning and value system you can create for yourself. Although I do think there's a great benefit both on a personal level and for society as a whole in having an absolute universal value system. The problem is when people don't agree on what exactly those values should be and you end up with things like Scientology and radical Islam. For example, I think everyone would be much happier and the world would be a much better place if everyone believed in and tried to live by Buddhist principles. But that has no bearing on whether or not those principles are actually objectively "true" in any cosmic sense.

this whole arguement falls apart where you need god for morality because people tortured and murdered countless lives in the very name of god.

>>10282171

Math is fake bullshit because some people get it wrong.

>>10282125
Right, belief in God is a choice with no one knowing either way. 50/50, which world would you rather live in.

But a pro-tip biddhism is retarded. You seem cool, so I dont want to be an asshole, but its just as baseless as any other religion. Also, the Buddha was a dead beat dad. Also, fuck detachment

>>10282125
The only problem with my ethical framework is: even if there is a God, you cannot derive an ought from an is. Looking more and more like Nietzsche and Stirner were/are correctamundo

>>10282252
>even if there is a God, you cannot derive an ought from an is
God can create a being such that its "is" contains an "ought"; i.e. he can create a being such that its being is that it ought to do x.

>>10276707
It's pretty dumb how people think that God could provide objective morality. Just because someone very powerful says "this is the moral law" doesn't make that law objective.

But the search for objective morality is pretty dumb anyways. It's arises out of ths fetishation of the objective world. However, the objective world is a place which lacks value, since everything subjective has been stripped off of it. Value only exists in the experience of subjects. Looking for objective morality is like looking for a five-sided square.

Now, maybe morality could be objective if we all have a faculty of moral judgment that produces the same results for everyone, but that seems pretty doubtful.

>>10282465
He could, but Im saying in this reality there are too many is's that are contradictory for morality to be objective and coherent. At least to our human brains

>>10282538
If only there were some sort of revelatory documents which humans could use in interpreting these things.

>>10282551
>
>
>
Nicee.
But im as skeptical as the next

>>10282559
Well, that's how it goes. Faith is a gift.

>>10276707
Yes. In fact, if god exists, there CANNOT be objective morality.

>>10281867
I would be sad that my mother is dead, sure.
However that does not mean that the act of stabbing her to death was "wrong".

>>10282900
So no court rooms either anon?

>>10276707
>ctrl+F
>Rawls
>0 results
debunk this, Christfags

>>10282994
Just because an act is neither right nor wrong doesn't mean that it shouldn't be punished
Murder, arson, fraud, any crimes (I believe) are not right or wrong, however they do impact people or businesses or society etc negatively

>>10283034
>
>
>
Mental gymnastics m8.

>>10276771
Get the head out of your ass.

>>10283095
How so?

>>10276707
I have biocentric morality and I'm nearly 100% sure life exists. That's far from objective, though and difficult to adjust.

We discussed something like objective morality in university for a while and tried to argue with the worth of all that exists just because it exists but it didn't work for me.

>>10276707
Morality, in it's definition, is subjective. To elaborate: There are no absolute rules set to morality we need to adhere to, hence it becomes subjective.

So you're asking the wrong question, bud.

>>10282513
It does though, Saying God is just "someone very powerful" is putting it very mildly. If he literally created everything then our reality itself is in accordance with his rules. The very concept of God rules out him being wrong in any case.

>>10283547
But how could reality "accord with his rules"?

Reality is composed of stuff which can only be described by giving facts. Reality can't be normative. How would that work? It seems like we are just going to keep going back to "well, God said so".