Mcc1789

  • I have heard a very similar story from someone else. The laws clearly need to be changed, along with the perception of how domestic violence works. However, it should not be assumed the OP was aware of this and neglected that fact. Many people simply are not. So it’s good that you raised awareness of it Dang.

    P. S. I must say that LaViolette’s…[Read more]

  • Simon Paynton: It isn’t clear that he doesn’t, given the amount of change we see in religious morality from the past to now. If God’s actions are also by definition good, that’s completely arbitrary, and not objective. That isn’t the same as “impartial”, though I’d question whether God is that either. Nor is it just “universal”.

  • I do try to understand what they believe. Not everyone will provide us with an explanation of how they think God actually grounds morality. Those who do seem to be saying this stems from God’s character-an attribute of his mind. I don’t agree that this would make morality objective however. It just ultimately boils down to being God’s opinions,…[Read more]

  • _Robert_ and Profile picture of Mcc1789Mcc1789 are now friends 4 months ago

  • Simon Paynton: I understand for them it’s the same thing, but as I’ve explained, I’m not in agreement on that.

    I was attempting to refine my definition, so it’s not simply redundant.

    I don’t think I’m able to argue this any better than before. Perhaps, if you read Carrier or anyone else defending it, their case will be more persuasive.

  • Simon Paynton: Well, it does depend upon what “objective” is, yes, if that’s what you mean by “dancing on the head of a pin”. In some forms of theism, there does not appear to be an objective reality at all. Yes, that may be their definition of objective-I don’t think it aligns with standard usage though. I said Judge Judy could apply an objective…[Read more]

  • Simon Paynton: Sure, but ultimately it comes from God, they think, and thus his mind, not something that’s independent of him.

    As for an example of a moral fact, perhaps “Murder is wrong, no matter what you think of it”.

  • The Bible or Quran is just the medium where it’s recorded, not the course of the morals themselves. Judge Judy could be an example of applying an objective morality, assuming you feel US ethics and laws represent moral facts. I know some theists do think God simply passes on an objective morality, but isn’t the source, which escapes the Euthyphro…[Read more]

  • _Robert_ : Divine command theory is actually a form of ethical subjectivism, because it is still based on a mind-God’s. Even if in effect it could also be universal and absolute. You’re right that a theist can’t really have objective morality using it.

  • Simon Paynton: Divine commands come to mind.

  • _Robert_: Why does it make no sense? If the human race went existed, it might mean no morality. If other creatures like us exist though, who knows? I’m not making a religious argument for morality. I too am an atheist.

    Simon Paynton: Complexity can just mean that it’s complicated, as in what’s moral in a situation isn’t always easy. It doesn’t…[Read more]

  • Objective, as in based on facts, not just opinions-independent of the mind.

    So it’s objective, you agree, though not morality? I don’t see how complexity negates this. It is a fact that flourishing and happiness are human goals. Conflict can and does occur, but need not. I don’t think this fundamentally differs on any level that you mention…[Read more]

  • Chris Russell and Profile picture of Mcc1789Mcc1789 are now friends 4 months ago

  • No, objective is different from universal. In any case, universal to whom?

  • It can be, but doesn’t have to be. Having a mansion also isn’t required.

  • Well, the opposite from what Reg said: something that isn’t just a matter of opinion or culture. In philosophy, “moral realism” is the term used. The idea I favor is that flourishing and happiness are values which all people pursue, with morality based on fulfilling those.

  • Actually, there have been pacifists who felt killing is always wrong (like the Jains of India). Plus there have been other acts also universally condemned by some groups and moral theories. It’s safe to say they’re the minority.

    I’d like to hear some good arguments in favor of/against objective morality. Thus far I’m not seeing it. I do know…[Read more]

  • What the Mormon fellow says isn’t by itself unreasonable. However, it also neglects that in fact religion does venture into the arena of science. In fact, his religion is pretty notorious for claiming it’s holy text has a true account of life among the ancient Americans, though science says otherwise. So yes, science is not the be all end all, but…[Read more]

  • Load More