|
Post by clusium on Mar 26, 2023 0:17:22 GMT
Perhaps. But, I'm pretty certain that Scandinavian countries still have law enforcement, in order to prevent crime from occurring. Do you think secular means 100% free of crime?Secular means non-religious.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 26, 2023 1:12:52 GMT
there can be no objective morality.
Can anyone explain why subjective morality would be a problem?
It would appear from various records that the world was a very brutal place before modern religion (for example Judaism) began reforming it. The god of the Bible did not "invent" slaughtering infants. People in the brutal past already did that. The god of the Bible invented a way to take it out of human hands.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 26, 2023 3:39:22 GMT
So you’re saying America was never a Christian nation, since our morality does not come even close to being as good as the atheist Scandinavians. From my understanding the USA (I'm Canadian, BTW) has separation between church & state. One is not supposed to interfere with the other, south of the border. You're a Canadian? You might as well be living in Scandinavia.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 26, 2023 3:39:54 GMT
Do you think secular means 100% free of crime? Secular means non-religious. It can also mean atheist.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 26, 2023 4:03:51 GMT
From my understanding the USA (I'm Canadian, BTW) has separation between church & state. One is not supposed to interfere with the other, south of the border. You're a Canadian? You might as well be living in Scandinavia. Prefer the Mediterranean.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 26, 2023 4:04:53 GMT
Secular means non-religious. It can also mean atheist. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 26, 2023 4:21:33 GMT
You're a Canadian? You might as well be living in Scandinavia. Prefer the Mediterranean. Where the Christians never stopped being pagans?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 26, 2023 4:28:41 GMT
Prefer the Mediterranean. Where the Christians never stopped being pagans? Where it is nice, warm, & sunny.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Mar 26, 2023 5:39:24 GMT
Hasn't this been shown to be a paradox with the whole "Is it good because god said so or did god say so because it's good?" question? There was one scholar whose name I can't recall who suggested that god persisted as a result of following good qualities as the answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. God is powerful because god does good.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 26, 2023 5:54:01 GMT
Hasn't this been shown to be a paradox with the whole "Is it good because god said so or did god say so because it's good?" question? There was one scholar whose name I can't recall who suggested that god persisted as a result of following good qualities as the answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. God is powerful because god does good. Humans believing in anthropomorphic God or gods is a recent development in human history and probably came about with the rise of civilization.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 26, 2023 11:36:19 GMT
there can be no objective morality.
Can anyone explain why subjective morality would be a problem? In my opinion it’s incoherent and makes morality pretty meaningless. What would make morality 'pretty meaningless?' Subjective morality? Why?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 26, 2023 11:39:49 GMT
rizdek Forgot to mention, I really don't enjoy long drawn-out set piece battles with heathens. I can feel what's left of my life draining away whenever I get into one of those. You might want to tag Arlon10. He seems to like them. Me, I'm more hit-and-run, like a guerilla. And yet here you are, tagging me with your second post and I hadn't even responded to your first post. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 26, 2023 13:35:42 GMT
rizdek Forgot to mention, I really don't enjoy long drawn-out set piece battles with heathens. I can feel what's left of my life draining away whenever I get into one of those. You might want to tag Arlon10. He seems to like them. Me, I'm more hit-and-run, like a guerilla. And yet here you are, tagging me with your second post and I hadn't even responded to your first post. Thanks Your welcome. That's what friends are for.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 26, 2023 15:10:45 GMT
Is natural law, ie (I assume) depending on natural law to forms one's views of right and wrong, a problem?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 26, 2023 15:30:46 GMT
Is natural law, ie (I assume) depending on natural law to forms one's views of right and wrong, a problem? I don't have a problem with it. It just is. I'm not an expert on natural law, but I fancied that I had heard it referenced enough times to be vaguely familiar with the concept. I thought Wiki might have a page on it, and lo and behold they did. Didn't know if it would answer your question or not, but it's a start, yes?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 26, 2023 16:38:32 GMT
I am probably wrong, but would it not be easy to prove if morality comes from God. You could do a a big experiment. lasting lets say 20-30 years, where you take You take lets say 5000 new born babies, and put 2500 newborns in one location and 2500 newborns in another location, on one location they learn about God, religion and all that stuff, about how morality comes from God. But the other 2500 newborns , they never learn about God or religion. I don`t think such an experiment should happen, because it would be morally wrong to take 5000 babies away from from their parents and use them in an experiment, but i do think this would be a way to find out if you need God/religion to have morality, because if the 2500 newborns who never learned about God or religion have a concept of morality when they are adults, than that would prove that you don`t need God or religion to have morality. But such an experiment would be immoral in itself. This may also be the stupides idea i have had. Its probably the stupides idea i have had. I know what i wrote here is BS If they did such an experiment, all it would get at is the effect of belief in God affected morality, not whether some god actually existed. It might be sufficient that people believe there is a god and that said god is the objective basis of morality and if someone wants to control their behavior, slyly insert one's own 'morality' into their indoctrination and call it God's. Oh, and it would hep if they also made it clear that disregarding God's morality (which was really someone's own morality) would lead to an eternity of torment (mental or physical) with no escape.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 26, 2023 16:42:34 GMT
Is natural law, ie (I assume) depending on natural law to forms one's views of right and wrong, a problem? I don't have a problem with it. It just is. I'm not an expert on natural law, but I fancied that I had heard it referenced enough times to be vaguely familiar with the concept. I thought Wiki might have a page on it, and lo and behold they did. Didn't know if it would answer your question or not, but it's a start, yes? At least someone might be able to give some reasons for what they deem right/wrong instead of simply pointing to ancient scriptures written by primitive goat herders or brow beating someone from a pulpit with unsupported maxims.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 26, 2023 17:02:17 GMT
I don't have a problem with it. It just is. I'm not an expert on natural law, but I fancied that I had heard it referenced enough times to be vaguely familiar with the concept. I thought Wiki might have a page on it, and lo and behold they did. Didn't know if it would answer your question or not, but it's a start, yes? At least someone might be able to give some reasons for what they deem right/wrong instead of simply pointing to ancient scriptures written by primitive goat herders or brow beating someone from a pulpit with unsupported maxims. Primitive goat herders? Brow beating from a pulpit? You have an ax to grind, don't you? If I understand you, this is what you're asking for. You want to throw out a system of morals, but you also want that same system of morals to validate it for you. If that's what you want, you don't get it. Hey everyone, I want to throw out all existing conventions of right/wrong, but first.........I want that system I'm throwing out to say that what I'm doing is "right." It does not work that way. If you want to throw it out, throw it out. Embrace natural law. Is natural law right? Or wrong? It doesn't matter anymore, because you just threw right/wrong out the window. As I said, I'm not expert on the subject of natural law, but from what I know of it, it's neither right nor wrong. It just is.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 26, 2023 18:14:48 GMT
I am probably wrong, but would it not be easy to prove if morality comes from God. You could do a a big experiment. lasting lets say 20-30 years, where you take You take lets say 5000 new born babies, and put 2500 newborns in one location and 2500 newborns in another location, on one location they learn about God, religion and all that stuff, about how morality comes from God. But the other 2500 newborns , they never learn about God or religion. I don`t think such an experiment should happen, because it would be morally wrong to take 5000 babies away from from their parents and use them in an experiment, but i do think this would be a way to find out if you need God/religion to have morality, because if the 2500 newborns who never learned about God or religion have a concept of morality when they are adults, than that would prove that you don`t need God or religion to have morality. But such an experiment would be immoral in itself. This may also be the stupides idea i have had. Its probably the stupides idea i have had. I know what i wrote here is BS If they did such an experiment, all it would get at is the effect of belief in God affected morality, not whether some god actually existed. It might be sufficient that people believe there is a god and that said god is the objective basis of morality and if someone wants to control their behavior, slyly insert one's own 'morality' into their indoctrination and call it God's. Oh, and it would hep if they also made it clear that disregarding God's morality (which was really someone's own morality) would lead to an eternity of torment (mental or physical) with no escape. Yes. that would be the point with the experiment. I thought that was obvious. The experiment would be about whether or not belief in God affected morality, not whether or not God exist. English is my second language, so maybe i explained it poorly in my the post.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 26, 2023 18:28:32 GMT
In my opinion it’s incoherent and makes morality pretty meaningless. What would make morality 'pretty meaningless?' Subjective morality? Why? The whole concept of subjective morality I find contradictory. What’s the purpose of morality if the definition of right and wrong can be changed in any situation based off an individual’s personal feelings, preferences and opinions? Subjectivists have no standard or base to go by, which means they have no right to say something is morally right or wrong. All they got is their opinions and they cannot force them on anyone else.
|
|