i dont understand the theistic chatter about " objective morality "
a typical atheistic definition of morality is for example " moral is that which intends to reduce overall harm"
so a moral action can be true with respect to that goal
but i dont get what that word "objectively true " confirms if you attribute it to theistic morality
the answer its objectively true because it reflects the nature of god seems to be a tautological nonanswer that doesnt add any content to morality
morality seems to lose its meaning in this theistic sense
>sophistry is sophistry
You don't say
>>1383080
Things are objectively true whether you believe them to be true or not.
>>1383095
yeah my questions is what it means to be " true " in the moral sense
on the atheistic perspective its true or good to act in ways that reduce harm for example but i dont see something similar on the theistic side
>>1383080
>a typical atheistic definition of morality is for example " moral is that which intends to reduce overall harm"
>so a moral action can be true with respect to that goal
lol who gets to define what is "harmful?"
>>1383113
There are lots of answers to that.
A random supernatural overlord seems to be the worst one.
>>1383104
You must be joking.
Without God, there is no objective basis for morality. What God says is good is good; what God says is evil is evil.
There's no counterpart on the atheist side; they have no objective basis for morality. They think they do, but there are just as many societies that value thieves and murderers as those who do not.
>>1383113
Harm is objective, this is like saying who gets to define when people are dead, lmao
>>1383157
> What God says is good is good; what God says is evil is evil.
You can change God to Marx or Hitler and got the same result. Just listen to this... guy, he is right about fucking everything, etc. Wow! So objective.
>>1383153
I don't belong to any religion, but you aren't being very charitable to their position.
In Christian/Judaic/Islamic belief God, who is in their works of scripture omni-scient/benevolent/potent, handed down what are meant to be divine laws ordained by such a being.
This criticism seems to be more arguing against religious belief then the moral systems which do work with above set assumptions about reality.
>>1383157
> There's no counterpart on the atheist side
God says nothing to us directly. When was the last time when he was on TV for example? The book on what you relies for God's words could easily be replaced by whatever you want, from D&D rulebook to random copypaste from anon. There exists infinity counterparts, including the other holy texts and a words of self-proclaimed Gods.
>>1383167
> handed down what are meant to be divine laws
This laws aren't objective, because you can just ignore them. Gravity is objective law. Believe it or not, you can't ignore this. Divine law is subjective and you can kill people if you really want that to be done.
>>1383167
>This criticism seems to be more arguing against religious belief then the moral systems which do work with above set assumptions about reality.
I don't see why. Claiming an individual God is responsible for morality makes morality completely arbitrary. This has been well recognised ever since the Euthyphro Dilemma was formulated.
>>1383163
You can think Marx or Hitler is God, sure.
Until you die, and find out how completely insane you were.
>>1383080
Amusingly, the guy in OP's picture is one of the greatest moral relativists of all time.
He thinks it's perfectly fine for the Israelite army to slaughter a tribe's entire population, including the children and elderley, just because it was a "different time" and "everyone was savage, so why not them as well?".
Basically, genocide is a-okay, as long as it took place long ago enough and was ordered by a deity that I personally believe in.
>>1383179
I'm not sure if Gravity is a good example, as there are certain problems and exceptions still within Gravity.
Laws by definition are solely to govern behavior, not flat-out control it.
A person could say 2+2 = 5, but 4 wouldn't come out to stop them. Point being, laws aren't restirctors of being and action, but rather consequences.
>>1383188
I'm not saying it isn't arbitrary, but each system of morals has certain presumptions about reality, and operates accordingly.
However, supposing that it was the case that an individual God said such-and-such about what is to be considered proper behavior, then by being what is considered a flawless entity, who was all knowing, it would seem reasonable to call it objective. Further, Plato's dilemma, also contains a possible solution. Aquinas and Aristotle (kind of for the latter), argued that, a being could only desire good, even if it were evil (in that by virtue of being desired it must be good).
I don't think this is the actual case, but within the parameters set by these assumptions, the claims are sensical, and I think that a different route of criticism is required.
Also, I just like to debate
>>1383221
>Until you die, and find out how completely insane you were.
Exactly.
Dumb Westerners don't recognise they are going to be reincarnated as a slug for eating cows.
>>1383221
> find out how completely insane you were
Or maybe it is you who are insane? And instead of God your afterlife would be judged by a whims of a random guy who died before you... And like yours just happens to be Hitler or Mao. What you would feel in that case? Who would you prefer?
>>1383268
> it would seem reasonable to call it objective
How is it? His opinion is subjective opinion of the all-knowing entity in the end. If it isn't opinion, but some sort of known fact than that fact should exist even without God, therefore objective moral would be possible from an atheistic view.
>>1383268
>However, supposing that it was the case that an individual God said such-and-such about what is to be considered proper behavior, then by being what is considered a flawless entity, who was all knowing, it would seem reasonable to call it objective.
Not really. Because the mechanism for discerning the moral system is Divine Revelation, which is completely arbitrary dependent on who you believe is actually communicating with a Divine Being.
Can you imagine the most extreme biblical literalist supporting stoning to death someone that did some gardening on Saturday?
That's what the bible says happened based on nothing more than "God told Moses to do it".
Why wouldn't they support stoning someone to death for gardening on Saturday now? Because we have made a lot of effort to develop moral and legal systems based on something less arbitrary than a random person claiming "God told me".
They aren't consistent even withing their own terms.
>>1383080
I don't think anybody has actually attempted to answer OP's question yet.
I'm nonreligious but I believe a typical answer may be to use "holiness" as a measure, where holiness reflects the collection of values laid out in a holy book, or otherwise that values that glorify God. Of course this is only an issue if you believe the objective horn of Euthrypo's dilemma.
"That which creates the least suffering is the most moral" is also valid in many religions.
>>1383275
Insane for believing God?
Another insane post from you.
>>1383301
Only God is holy.
Only God is an objective basis for morality.
Stop fighting the obvious truths in life.
>>1383221
You can think YHWH is God, sure.
Until you die, and find out how completely insane you were. What if Allah is the real God? You don't know.
>>1383306
I know it's a meme to say this, but that is literally not an argument.
"It's obviously true" provides us with no useful information, tell us WHY it's true.
>>1383303
The lack of your answer clearly show that you are scared of the possibility of Hitler judging you. Like most other people who just are scared of the truth.
>>1383306
Yes, stop fighting God, and say the Shahada
>>1383306
You made one small mistake. There re many Gods and everyone of them is more Holy than another. When there are thousands objective basises, none basis is objective.
>>1383306
What the fuck dude I'm trying to help you since you can apparently only repeat empty tautologies. Work with me here.
>>1383080
You're conflating (at least) two issues that are quite different:
1. The existence of God
2. Metaethical questions about the objectivity or lack thereof of morals.
If there is an omnipotent God, He can simply decree anything to be good or evil, and be objectively right because morality is under His power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo
>>1383158
>harm is objective
tell me then, is u.s. foreign policy harmful?
is abortion harmful?
is mass immigration harmful?
and please prove your answers rofl
>>1383080
>typical atheistic definition of morality is for example " moral is that which intends to reduce overall harm"
what makes that definition atheistic?
>>1384818
We doesn't know. Objective doesn't means known.
>>1384998
>*you don't know
there are plenty of people who "know" those things are harmful/not harmful which brings me back to my original point about who gets to decide what is harmful
>>1385028
Some of that people are mistaken. Doesn't means that everyone is right just because they *claim* so.
>>1383080
Honestly, I think the real answer is that although atheists and theists both talk about "morality", the word itself doesn't add anything at all. And every moral system that is clearly defined is "objective", including ultilitarian.
The word "morality" is a spook, and even Christians believe this if you really think about it. They're acting out of self-interest. And so are atheists, because they do good things that make them feel good.
>>1385040
right but in practice who gets to decide what is harmful?
