What do people ground their ethics in without God? How do they justify it?

Also, if God spoke to you OP and told you to kill a bunch of people, would it be morally correct for you to do so?
If not, why? If God is the absolute moral authority, then anything he claims to be moral is moral. Just a thought experiment.

Even religious people have ethical stances that go deeper than their religious teachings. Because morals are something that each individual uniquely has. They can be shaped by religion just like they are shaped by experiences, culture, biology, family, etc.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Lightsaber Dildo, Hweeks, Scolopendra Dramatica and 5 others
Brightstar777 said:
you are not God chosen anymore and you should change your name too because it is wrong, you are our weakest soldier
Click to expand...
You're brown, aren't you? No wonder you can't even imagine postconventional morality.

Tell me, how would you have felt if you didn't eat breakfast yesterday?
 
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Lightsaber Dildo, Scolopendra Dramatica, Mechanical Pencil and 1 other person
Secular ethics all derive from the Right to Coom. Once you have accepted there is no such thing as "higher purpose" or "ultimate meaning," let alone an afterlife or eternal union with the Divine or reincarnation or whatever, only the eventual annihilation of everything, then the most important thing in your life is to experience as much pleasure as possible. If it pleases you to have kids with your wife, go ahead. If it pleases you to ejaculate in a cross-dressing man's anus and then buy a baby from a woman so you can LARP your fetish in front of others, then go ahead. The important thing is that no law or social convention gets in your way.

From the Right to Coom flows all other morality and law in secular liberalism. We have a variety of laws and conventions to ensure women can chase orgasmic highs without inhibitions or economic consequences. We have free AIDS drugs so fags can coom all they want and not die from it. We have speech codes to ensure nobody makes fags or troons feel bad about their paraphilias. "Free speech" has been circumscribed to refer mainly to porn (because coom) while apparently not covering your right to not bake a fag celebration cake (because coom). We spend enormous sums to rush narcan to junkies because they have a right to get high as many times as possible (which is just a form of coomerism).

The Right to Coom also leads to open borders. Since young men and women have zero duty or moral pressure to sustain society with progeny, we open our borders to barbarian hordes to try and sustain our wealth (just another form of coomerism) and our welfare systems (which exist to mitigate the consequences of coom). The only real alternative is to knock the Right to Coom off its pedestal, but that's impossible in a secular, liberal order.

The main alternative to the Right to Coom is secular authoritarianism, like Communism or fascism, where there are no rights (because who really cares if some irrelevant worm coomed enough in his short life?).
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: seri0us, CeleryBread, Lightsaber Dildo and 7 others
WHO is God OP? The God of Abraham, the Greeks, the Romans?

Gods are just reflections of a people's beliefs and mannerisms, their vitality and will condensed into a symbol, figures who represent the many aspects of their lives and how these aspects were to be approached, how they relate, etc. You think roman gods engaged with each other in stories for funsies? Or were they the perspective of the people's outlook on life and representative of morality that was then pushed to the next generation?
National Socialists, who I dismiss greatly in many facets, ironically came the closest to highlighting how a culture, government, and community's success was an intrinsic result of the people who embody it, not vice versa.

The Egyptian Gods reflect their society's notions of rules, justice and order- fear that the Gods could flood, bring famine, disease, etc aligned with a system that put the Pharoah upfront with the greatest authority. Their gods, like their pharaoh, were benevolent but could not be accepted passively, rather honored and praised for their role.

The Roman Gods reflected their people's strength, glory and persistence while the Christian God's reflects that of outcasts, timidness, passiveness and anonymity until it was adopted by Europe into a belief system of virtue, great will, discovery and expansion in contrast to the original apostles' vision. Christianity is now a monster of an institution with how much land, resources and manpower is tied to the Catholic church alone, and this is overlooking the political role they once had. Keep in mind Christianity was one of dozens of end-of-the-world jewish cults who presented themselves as a resolution to the roman problem. Many jews rejected Jesus understandably because the Messiah was supposed to be strong, military figure like david that was to beat out the foreign conqueror (whether babylon, rome, etc), and not some humiliated, weak carpenter who got strung up on a stick somewhere.

Islam expanded due to many Arabs enjoying Muhammad's convenient lenience towards robbing travelers and traders and even pagan rock worship. It also reflects the Arab's almost autistic obsession with sex and violence which is interwoven into the Quran and many hadiths. The Aztecs and Mayans sacrificed their enemies not just to honor their Gods, but to calm the ruling elite's bloodlust and humiliate their subordinate states.

Etc, etc, Please define me which God (or Gods), you are talking about, because they play a role in the morality that is presented.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Whatevermancer, mrfresh, gagabobo1997 and 3 others
Some bait-like thread made to perhaps provoke a discussion written by an obvious shitposter. And people fall for it easily.
Psycho Wright said:
WHO is God OP?
Click to expand...
Clearly OP is referring to the Abrahamic deity which has its specific definiton of divinity and he'll obviously exclude/ignore any other definiton outside of the Abrahamic framework. One can point it out but given the previous replies he'll just keep sperging.
 
The Blue Morpho said:
But sophistic reason can be employed to justify them as well. In a time of great need, eating your dead companion is the difference between life and death. In times of scarcity, less children means higher chances of the others surviving. Does that make these acts moral in these circumstances, or is there a deeper morality that transcends reason that makes acts always good or bad? This is the Kantian view, although I personally prefer virtue ethics to Kant.
Click to expand...
I think Kant is retarded. Horrendous acts possibly being justified in extreme circumstances doesn't mean that these horrendous acts are suddenly okay in every situation.

I think all moral systems are rooted in some form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism gets too much of a bad reputation, but not all utilitarian systems are the same. Sure, you have poorly thought-out utilitarianism like the kind being criticized by that short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas or the Utility Monster thought experiment, but to disregard the entire concept because of these critiques is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Brightstar777
Lowlife Adventures said:
I think Kant is retarded. Horrendous acts possibly being justified in extreme circumstances doesn't mean that these horrendous acts are suddenly okay in every situation.
Click to expand...
Would you ever engage in cannibalism? I wouldn't, regardless of the circumstances. This is the difference between relativistic philosophies and an actual moral system. One is an pronouncement of right and wrong, and another is a wishy-washy facsimile of the former that can permit anything with enough rationalization. At the end of the day, that's what a moral system is and must be. It says "this is bad because its bad, and you shall not do it." Not, "this is bad because it gives you brain prions and erodes your sense of humanity." If eating people didn't give you prions, would it be good? Or is eating another person always bad?

What makes a moral system work is people believe in it, even when they break its rules. Carve-outs weaken the strength of a moral system. Cannibalism cannot be that bad if its sometimes ok to do it. This applies to many more taboos than cannibalism.

Lowlife Adventures said:
I think all moral systems are rooted in some form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism gets too much of a bad reputation, but not all utilitarian systems are the same.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate. What makes your utilitarianism different from the more vulgar forms of utilitarianism that people typically critique?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Brightstar777
Anybody with basic theory of mind is capable of arriving at the conclusion of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” whether they’re religious or not. You can have a conscience without having a religion. Normal people feel bad if they do bad things to people because they have empathy. It’s not that complicated bro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whatevermancer and Scolopendra Dramatica
Kingfisher9000 said:
Anybody with basic theory of mind is capable of arriving at the conclusion of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” whether they’re religious or not. You can have a conscience without having a religion. Normal people feel bad if they do bad things to people because they have empathy. It’s not that complicated bro.
Click to expand...
Why can't i do bad things to you or take advantage of you then? and who are those normal people you are talking about, those who do evil and call it good or those who do not harm others out of weakness and they call it being good.
 
  • Autistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Hweeks and Scolopendra Dramatica
Brightstar777 said:
Why can't i do bad things to you or take advantage of you then? and who are those normal people you are talking about, those who do evil and call it good or those who do not harm others out of weakness and they call it being good.
Click to expand...
Obviously you could do bad things to me, if you chose to. My ethics don’t have any bearing on your actions. Why would they? I would simply attempt to prevent you from doing so, as my ethics don’t prohibit me from protecting myself. What does any of this have to do with your initial premise though?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whatevermancer
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back