Where do you get your morality?

[Warren Clark]

YouTube - ‪Morality 1: Good without gods‬‏

The video above perfectly describes why religion or a belief in a god is not needed for objective morality.

 

[Storm]

Haven't watched the vid yet, but I can't agree that morality is objective.

Even with a God, it's only objective with proof. Since proof is a fool's game in that context....

 

[Warren Clark]

Haven't watched the vid yet, but I can't agree that morality is objective.

Even with a God, it's only objective with proof. Since proof is a fool's game in that context....

In the sense of intention to do harm -- malice.

 

[Storm]

In the sense of intention to do harm -- malice.

Yes, I understand that. I'm saying it's not objective.

 

[Warren Clark]

Yes, I understand that. I'm saying it's not objective.

Well, if you are regaurding psycopaths that have no emotions and others that dont experience guilt or empathy... I guess that would just be psycho. lmao

 

[Storm]

Well, if you are regaurding psycopaths that have no emotions and others that dont experience guilt or empathy... I guess that would just be psycho. lmao

Emotions are not objective.

 

[painted wolf]

How does one objectively determine "Harm"?

If there is "harm" to both parties, how does one objectively determine who was "harmed most"?

What if the person causing the "harm" did so without malicious intent? How do you objectively determine intent?

Morality is subjective.... mine is built on a framework of cultural reference, personal reflection and long debates with people of other and similar viewpoints.

wa:do

 

[ellenjanuary]

Subjective. But it can be formulated into an equation valid across all subjective realities.

 

[RomCat]

From the Church and from my human nature.

 

[Warren Clark]

Emotions are not objective.

But everyone experiences guilt and empathy, which is the source of our morals.
I guess I am speaking in a general society sense.
As in a community won't allow someone to steal, murder, or rape any of their neighbors or themselves.

 

[Warren Clark]

How does one objectively determine "Harm"?

If there is "harm" to both parties, how does one objectively determine who was "harmed most"?

What if the person causing the "harm" did so without malicious intent? How do you objectively determine intent?

Morality is subjective.... mine is built on a framework of cultural reference, personal reflection and long debates with people of other and similar viewpoints.

wa:do

However, the community/society would still look out for the safety of the patron.
If there was no malicious intent then of course it wouldn't be seen as morally wrong according to society. That is why ever country has the same basic moral framework.

 

[michel]

YouTube - ‪Morality 1: Good without gods‬‏

The video above perfectly describes why religion or a belief in a god is not needed for objective morality.

I haven't watched the video either - but I have no doubt whatsoever that a good moral code can be followed by someone who is not relying on religion to formulate morality.

To suggest otherwise would be to accuse every non theist of being unable to be moral - which would be preposterous and impossible to contemplate.

 

[PolyHedral]

From logic.

 

[painted wolf]

However, the community/society would still look out for the safety of the patron.

But each community will have a different view of what is best. How do you reconcile those subjective differences?

If there was no malicious intent then of course it wouldn't be seen as morally wrong according to society. That is why ever country has the same basic moral framework.

So it's morally OK to kill someone if you didn't do it maliciously?

wa:do

 

[PolyHedral]

So it's morally OK to kill someone if you didn't do it maliciously?

wa:do

Isn't this generally called euthanasia?

 

[painted wolf]

But everyone experiences guilt and empathy, which is the source of our morals.

No, not everyone does. That is the clinical definition of psychopathy.

I guess I am speaking in a general society sense.

Then you ignore a great amount of human history. Every culture has been able to convince itself that some other group was unworthy of basic humanity. That is how we justify wars, poverty and so on.
We have a biologically limited ability to empathize with the rest of our species, it's known as Dunbar's number.

As in a community won't allow someone to steal, murder, or rape any of their neighbors or themselves.

Again yyou ignore most of human experience. Rape in particular is a very commonly accepted behavior, especially marital rape.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Isn't this generally called euthanasia?

That is one example.... accidental manslaughter, collateral damage are a few others.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Where do you get your morality?

A combination of societal (western) ethics, personal experience, and logical reasoning.

 

[Oneatatime]

Parents, peers, culture, self-reflection, trial & error in a lot of cases and discussion.

 

[Leisurely Duchess]

The argument that a conscious god is the source of objective morality falls flat at face value. If it is truly objective, then it cannot be contingent upon a mind, it would necessarily be subjective to that mind.

For objective morality to exist, it must exist independent of everything, like the laws of logic.

Furthermore, any theist that wants to argue about the existence of objective morality is setting themselves up for failure, because at that point, any action their god makes or has made in the past is comparable to any action a human may take.

For example, in the world of moral objectivism, if it is moral for YHWH to kill an innocent to pay for the crimes of another person, then it is also moral for a human to do the same. If it is moral for YHWH to cause the deaths of children for being bullies, then it is moral for humans to do the same. And so forth.

Effectively, there is no such thing as moral objectivism in theism. Not when there are one set of rules for a god and a different set of rules for humans.