[ExeterHistStudent]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Some people think it's possible to get objective morality without god. It's a debate that's gone on for years. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. If you're just saying good is what god says is good then ... ok? So what? Can you please explain what you're talking about instead of being lazy and just making statements? It'd develop the conversation further.

Without God as a guarantor of morality the notion of objectivity simply cannot be applied.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
how can you have objective morality without god?

It's based on perfect rationality. I can't find who mainly argued for it apart from Kant. You can look for it if you want. But just saying what is good is good because god says it's so holds more problems than you'd probably think. It's a complex issue. You can research it if you want. You might find it interesting.

[Gofre]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
this is quite a common argument.

Lets say, murdering an innocent baby, so you think it depends on personal opinion whether it is wrong or not, its not juts wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks?

It's not that I think it's personal opinion, rather that its a result of social evolution than something we're imbued with. Case in point, there have been numerous ancient societies that routinely performed infanticide. If morality was indeed objective, opinions across the course of history on things as fundamental as the murdering of children would be a lot more uniform than we see.

[When you see it...]

You are arguing:
'Prove that objective good/evil can exist without god'
and
'Prove that objective good/evil can't exist without god'
That is a moot point if god is not real in the first place. What you should be asking is:
'Prove that god exists'
and
'Prove that god doesn't exist'.
There is no evidence that god exists (or at least no experiment that can be done to falsify the existance of god). Therefore, using the scientific method, regardless of good/evil 'problems', god isn't real. Bringing morality into it serves only to overcomplicate the issue.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
this is quite a common argument.

Lets say, murdering an innocent baby, so you think it depends on personal opinion whether it is wrong or not, its not juts wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks?

Yes, actually. It was considered moral by many societies in history that infanticide was permissible. Many cultures sacrificed children to gods, or killed those deemed unfit to live and it was deemed perfectly acceptable by them. All of them agreed it was moral, and they also would all have said it was objectively so. I think morality is a very, very subjective thing, and like Gofre said, a result of a sort of social evolution.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Gofre)
It's not that I think it's personal opinion, rather that its a result of social evolution than something we're imbued with. Case in point, there have been numerous ancient societies that routinely performed infanticide. If morality was indeed objective, opinions across the course of history on things as fundamental as the murdering of children would be a lot more uniform than we see.

so is everyone imbued with it? so if we evolved differently, or we continue to, morality could change, and murdering babies would be fine?

just because a society practices something, doesn't make it right (objective morality is beyond what people or societies think is right), just like nazi germany. well, right about now, generally everyone knows that murdering babies is wrong.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Yes, actually. It was considered moral by many societies in history that infanticide was permissible. Many cultures sacrificed children to gods, or killed those deemed unfit to live and it was deemed perfectly acceptable by them. All of them agreed it was moral, and they also would all have said it was objectively so. I think morality is a very, very subjective thing, and like Gofre said, a result of a sort of social evolution.

just because a society practiced something, does it mean they're right? like nazi germany, don't you just think they're wrong, beyond what we or what they believe?

so, is murdering a baby wrong?

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
just because a society practiced something, does it mean they're right? like nazi germany, don't you just think they're wrong, beyond what we or what they believe?

To those that practiced the Nazi ideology, what they did was perfectly right. In my moral system, I believe it is wrong. There are others who justify what they did, even today.

so, is murdering a baby wrong?

Once again, just because we think it's wrong now doesn't mean it was always wrong.

[Gofre]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
so is everyone imbued with it?

Imbued with morality? No, I do not believe so.

so if we evolved differently, or we continue to, morality could change, and murdering babies would be fine?

In short, yes. If society had not progressed from the times of the babylonians, infanticide may well still be commonplace.

just because a society practices something, doesn't make it right (objective morality is beyond what people or societies think is right), just like nazi germany. well, right about now, generally everyone knows that murdering babies is wrong.

You've moved the goalposts now. Morality isn't an expression of right and wrong, morality is an expression of what we think is right and wrong. You may be right and murder may be objectively wrong, I am saying that because humanity's sense of morality is subjective we have no way of determining this. You've just compounded my argument further with two phrases, "right about now" and "generally everyone". If you agree that morality differs with the times and between different groups, then you are acknowledging its subjectivity.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
just because a society practiced something, does it mean they're right? like nazi germany, don't you just think they're wrong, beyond what we or what they believe?

so, is murdering a baby wrong?

They aren't right. You can't really rationalise doing such a thing. Also with the baby thing. You have to give good a meaningful definition. It doesn't really help putting god into the situation because 1) we don't actually know what that standard is (expect for our own understanding of what is good and bad) and 2) god could theoretically command an action that we think is evil because just because it's god it'd be good. That isn't really helpful.

If god asked you to kill every boy between the ages of 12 - 14 that wears blue, would you still do it? There's no punishment or reward for doing either expect for the fact that you'd be following god's commands if you said yes.

Spoiler:

Show

what would you then do if you also found out he was trolling you and expected to disobey him? Would you still call yourself moral?

[DomPugh]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
done this in philosophy, not a problem at all.

your argument is a fallacy, you're using evil to disprove god, but how can either good or evil exist without god?

My argument isn't a fallacy for it isn't an argument, I have been thinking about it a lot recently due to revision of philosophy and ethics so was just wondering what other people think.

:P

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
To those that practiced the Nazi ideology, what they did was perfectly right. In my moral system, I believe it is wrong. There are others who justify what they did, even today.



Once again, just because we think it's wrong now doesn't mean it was always wrong.

o.k, so you don't think they were just wrong, plain and simple, regardless of what they thought or what you think, it was just wrong.

so, you think killing babies isn't wrong, its just down to your opinion?

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Gofre)
Imbued with morality? No, I do not believe so.



In short, yes. If society had not progressed from the times of the babylonians, infanticide may well still be commonplace.

so, you think its o.k to murder babies, because society says it is, you don't think its just wrong, regardless of what society has to say?

You've moved the goalposts now. Morality isn't an expression of right and wrong, morality is an expression of what we think is right and wrong. You may be right and murder may be objectively wrong, I am saying that because humanity's sense of morality is subjective we have no way of determining this. You've just compounded my argument further with two phrases, "right about now" and "generally everyone". If you agree that morality differs with the times and between different groups, then you are acknowledging its subjectivity.

so, if you or society think its o.k to murder innocent babies, it would be o.k, it wouldn't just be wrong?

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
so, you think its o.k to murder babies, because society says it is, you don't think its just wrong, regardless of what society has to say?

Can you answer my questions please?

Also, how much different is this than saying 'is it ok to murder innocent babies because god says it's ok?' ?

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
They aren't right. You can't really rationalise doing such a thing. Also with the baby thing. You have to give good a meaningful definition. It doesn't really help putting god into the situation because 1) we don't actually know what that standard is (expect for our own understanding of what is good and bad) and 2) god could theoretically command an action that we think is evil because just because it's god it'd be good. That isn't really helpful.

we all ration differently, so would it be fair to leave it to our rationing?

If god asked you to kill every boy between the ages of 12 - 14 that wears blue, would you still do it? There's no punishment or reward for doing either expect for the fact that you'd be following god's commands if you said yes.

Spoiler:

Show

what would you then do if you also found out he was trolling you and expected to disobey him? Would you still call yourself moral?

well, wouldn't that go against the nature of god, arbitrary morality (plato)

[Gofre]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
so, you think its o.k to murder babies, because society says it is, you don't think its just wrong, regardless of what society has to say?




so, if you or society think its o.k to murder innocent babies, it would be o.k, it wouldn't just be wrong?

Christ, what is with theists and this argument?

No, it would not be objectively wrong. There is no all-encompassing moral code that all of humanity is bound by. From the subjective position of morality that most societies adhere to today, it would be wrong.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Can you answer my questions please?

Also, how much different is this than saying 'is it ok to murder innocent babies because god says it's ok?' ?

which is?

so you think its o.k to murder babies?

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by DomPugh)
My argument isn't a fallacy for it isn't an argument, I have been thinking about it a lot recently due to revision of philosophy and ethics so was just wondering what other people think.

:P

i study philosophy also... it is a fallacy, you're using the idea of good and evil to disprove god, when neither of which could exist without God.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
we all ration differently, so would it be fair to leave it to our rationing?

well, wouldn't that go against the nature of god, arbitrary morality (plato)

we all rationalise*

Yes it would be, it's the most complex thing we have for determining morality, what is right or wrong. It's the reason why such debates even happen.

How do you know? Unless you want to attribute what you think is good or bad lol

(Original post by SexyNerd)
which is?

so you think its o.k to murder babies?

You've answered them briefly.

No. Where did I say that? You didn't even answer my question. Stop doing that.

(Original post by SexyNerd)
i study philosophy also... it is a fallacy, you're using the idea of good and evil to disprove god, when neither of which could exist without God.

If you study philosophy you should know that assertions are meaningless too.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Gofre)
Christ, what is with theists and this argument?

No, it would not be objectively wrong. There is no all-encompassing moral code that all of humanity is bound by. From the subjective position of morality that most societies adhere to today, it would be wrong.

so, what the nazi's did was O.k, because their society said it was, what they did wasn't just wrong, regardless of what they thought?

so, it wouldn't be wrong to murder an innocent baby.