Can morality be objective without God?

we did this thread already
morality is mostly subjective even with a god
 
Not a single reply acknowledging the existence of secular ethics as the answer to this question. The closest we got to it was @The best and greatest's post about morality being predicated upon argument from authority (a 101-level induction fallacy). Say what you will about deontological ethics or might-makes-right ethics - They're at least more internally consistent than the whims attributed to the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (itself modeled after the contemporary authority of a sultan or pasha to be appeased or provoked).

Is it a matter of Kiwi Farms posters being generally uneducated, or those who took a Philosophy 1 class knowing better than to take the bait; because you can't teach a man anything he thinks he already knows?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The best and greatest
You don't need a magical being telling you something being wrong or right for it to be.

Ethics is an underlying quality of the universe, an universe in which sentient beings with the ability to suffer and enjoy, having interests, exist.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: Picnic_Boy
Marc said:
Not a single reply acknowledging the existence of secular ethics as the answer to this question. The closest we got to it was @The best and greatest's post about morality being predicated upon argument from authority (a 101-level induction fallacy). Say what you will about deontological ethics or might-makes-right ethics - They're at least more internally consistent than the whims attributed to the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (itself modeled after the contemporary authority of a sultan or pasha to be appeased or provoked).

Is it a matter of Kiwi Farms posters being generally uneducated, or those who took a Philosophy 1 class knowing better than to take the bait; because you can't teach a man anything he thinks he already knows?
Click to expand...
Just to clarify: I'm not saying you can't have morals without authority. (If I did then I misspoke apologies) Only that those morals will never be 'objective'. Honestly why does morality need to be 'objective' anyway? Its like searching for 'the real' meaning of life.
When people ask for an 'objective morality' what are they really asking for?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Meat Target
The best and greatest said:
Just to clarify: I'm not saying you can't have morals without authority[...]Only that those morals will never be 'objective'.
Click to expand...

I understood; was agreeing with you, and additionally qualified your point as being a principle anyone else presumably interested in the topic could expect to encounter in a Logic 101 course dealing with distinguishing between deductive and inductive arguments, and engaging with them in accordance with Aristotelian or Boolean logic - which is otherwise conspicuously absent in these discussions.

The best and greatest said:
When people ask for an 'objective morality' what are they really asking for?
Click to expand...

Someone else to do their thinking for them, so they can have a pseudo-profound "answer" to pull out of their ass to invoke as a weapon at the first sign of being forced to consider something different. One can consider themselves objective or moral - But to consider themselves to be both means they can't be doing either very well.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Tablet County and The best and greatest
Marc said:
I understood; was agreeing with you, and additionally qualified your point as being a principle anyone else presumably interested in the topic could expect to encounter in a Logic 101 course dealing with distinguishing between deductive and inductive arguments, and engaging with them in accordance with Aristotelian or Boolean logic - which is otherwise conspicuously absent in these discussions.



Someone else to do their thinking for them, so they can have a pseudo-profound "answer" to pull out of their ass to invoke as a weapon at the first sign of being forced to consider something different. One can consider themselves objective or moral - But to consider themselves to be both means they can't be doing either very well.
Click to expand...
God created secular morality
 
Canard said:
It can not be objective with god.
Click to expand...
So then why is suffering so logically inconsistent if there is supposedly a rational God behind it? Why make some people have a life of nothing but suffering when they are moral, but others who are wicked to their fellow men can endure little hardship? Having a supposedly loving entity promote suffering amongst humanity is ontologically horrifying, instead of it than just having it being a consequence of one’s own choices, or it existing because…it just does.
 
No. What made Hitler wrong aside from "I personally don't like this" if not for God? Anything you come up with is either subjective or at best utilitarian, which is still subjective but at least has a goal that usually appeals to a majority. But goals aren't morals, if having an annual human sacrifice meant the rest of us could live in a utopian paradise, then that'd be fine from the utilitarian perspective, but it still wouldn't be morally right to murder an innocent person just because it helps everyone else.

Tldr; no.
 
It's all subjective. All religion does is mark a flagstone that people can use as common ground and congregate around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back