28 Oct '18 14:26>1 edit
@rwingett
Are you absolutely sure about this?
Of course they're wrong, at least in my subjective opinion.
Are you absolutely sure about this?
Of course they're wrong, at least in my subjective opinion.
@rwingett saidDo you believe your morals should be followed by others because they are right?
The society that most closely aligns with what I believe.
@dj2becker saidThey should be followed by others because I think they are subjectively right. They cannot be objectively right, as there is no such thing.
Do you believe your morals should be followed by others because they are right?
@rwingett saidIf your morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?
They should be followed by others because I think they are subjectively right. They cannot be objectively right, as there is no such thing.
We can keep going around in circles like this for as long as it amuses you.
@dj2becker saidMy morals do not exist in a vacuum. There is broad agreement on most of them. It is only on a few narrow topics that there is really any disagreement at all. On those items, they should be followed by others because it is my firm belief that if they were, the outcomes would be beneficial to society.
If your morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?
@rwingett saidIf they are right and should be followed by everyone solely on the basis that you believe they are right, why wouldn't the beliefs of a rapist be right based solely on the basis that they believe them and be followed by everyone?
They should be followed by others because I think they are subjectively right. They cannot be objectively right, as there is no such thing.
We can keep going around in circles like this for as long as it amuses you.
@dj2becker saidIf you can convince enough people that rape is right, then I guess your views will prevail. I doubt you'll succeed, though.
If they are right and should be followed by everyone solely on the basis that you believe they are right, why wouldn't the beliefs of a rapist be right based solely on the basis that they believe them and be followed by everyone?
What do you think?
@sonship saidLet's be quite clear, I didn't ask.
@rwingettWhat do you think?
What do I think?
I think that even though I don't well understand the Moral Argument for the Existence of God, it seems to be right. And the path you are going down demonstrates that to me again.
No ultimate transcendent standard of rightness leads to loss a weak basis for human ethics. It boils down to someone's pers ...[text shortened]... ballet in outer space.
I have other thoughts, since you asked.
That's all the time I have now.
@dj2becker saidYou may as well ask "which football fans support the correct team?"
which society has the right moral system when they contradict each other?
@sonship saidAssuming "a ballet in outer space", is a bad thing, then, I welcome you being preoccupied with a god or gods - if it means you will end up conducting yourself in a morally sound way.
Morality without God becomes like a ballet in outer space.
@dj2becker saidThe premises and conclusion given are:
The moral argument for the existence of God is the argument that God is necessary for objective moral values or duties to exist. Since objective moral values and duties do exist, God must also exist. The argument is not claiming that people who don't believe in God cannot do kind things or that atheists are generally morally worse people that religious people are. The argum ...[text shortened]... a real standard of good does exist to make "doing good" possible.
https://carm.org/moral-argument
@rwingett saidIf society determines what is right and wrong, then it is deriving morals from itself. Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists, why then would you reject the rationale that God derives morals from himself and thereby declares what is right and wrong?
My morals do not exist in a vacuum. There is broad agreement on most of them. It is only on a few narrow topics that there is really any disagreement at all. On those items, they should be followed by others because it is my firm belief that if they were, the outcomes would be beneficial to society.
@dj2becker saidBecause I see no evidence that god exists. And since human morality obviously changes over time, we would have to conclude that your hypothetical god either has no influence on that morality, or that his own morality is likewise changeable.
If society determines what is right and wrong, then it is deriving morals from itself. Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists, why then would you reject the rationale that God derives morals from himself and thereby declares what is right and wrong?