too bad moral relativism (represented in this video as subjective morality) or even cultural relativism doesn't work. First thing laws cannot work on subjective morality, and (I know this is going to be extreme) but if you pull the cultural relativism card well then the Nazis can be rationalized that they did nothing wrong. I'm not saying religion objective morality is right but objective morality is the only kind of morality that people can live together with.
@CorkyJester umm no. What nazi's did was wrong in our point of view but was morally justified in their point of view. Nazi's would've lived fine together if they had taken over and won the war.
another example, 9 - 11. terrorism or a heroic act? depends on which side of the fence you are on...
Morality changes as society changes... abolishing slavery, equal rights among races, equal rights to women, these are all very recent development in morality...
@hawkister you're forgetting the power of authority. Read Milton Meyer's "They Thought They Were Free" about the mindset of low ranking rank and file Nazi members. They were caught up on power. They weren't all enthusiastic about the holocaust. Also, some earlier civilisations had better rights than the more militarised hierarchical ones that replaced them. and as for 9-11 being heroic? You might say it took courage &insanity to be suicidal, but heroic? Heroism is risking all to save something.
@jimbobeire those suicide bombers risked their lives to save islam... in the point of view of some, it was a heroic act.
Hmm you mean our set of morals depends on the way our mindset is at the time? How shocking, sounds like subjective morality to me.
There isn't this universally "right way" to do anything. If morality was objective, meaning no matter who you are, in any point in time, you are aware of what "morally right" is, why do we have such diversity in ethics and law.
@hawkister How were they saving Islam? Were the buildings, or their workers, or the passengers a threat to Islam? In law there can be objective AND subjective test to actions in the same piece of law. Sat through a few trials connected to the war, where this was discussed at great length.
@jimbobeire because USA is a predominantly christian nation and if you don't believe in the right god the right way, you are a terrible person. killing of such people is an heroic act and it'll will get you 72 virgins. obviously, bluntly put. But you get the point. it all depends on where your perspectives lie.
In Iraq people are being hunted down and killed for being or accused of being homosexual. I think that's terrible. But in their perspective, we are terrible people letting them live.
@CorkyJester By Objective morality, Nazis did nothing wrong in killing the Jews. After all the Catholic papacy has justified killing Jews in the past, so it must still be ok now right?
This person (Jeff) is known for robbing the elderly. He hasn't been caught by the police yet. Please call him and tell him what a prick he is. He lives in Linden, Virginia 540-931-2695.
Exodus 31:15 is a Jewish law, it doesn't apply to Gentiles, John 16:11 says Satan is the god of this world (makes more sense) and Romans Chapter 14 says morality is subjective.
Some atheists argue that an example of objective morality, unchanging at its core, is the "selfish gene" evolved to be a hard coded "good" in all people from birth even if they end up doing bad things due to stuff happening to them in life (...although this does not account for situations if they have some genetic abnormality, but that is the minority anyway).
It all depends on how one defines morality. I tend to favor a more Kantian form of Ethics. I recognize that there are no objective values period. However, I tend to favor morality being defined in terms of rationality. If something is logically contradictory (or irrational) then it is morally impermissible. If it is consistent, then it is permissible. The irrational is the bad, and the rational is the good.
Objective morality isn't only religious... just remember Kant's philosophy. Subjective morality is necessarily very relative. Reason is objective. So if we are looking for the truth, using reason, I'd argue that subjective morality is not true because it is not universal and fundamental since it is not objective and it doesn't apply to everyone at every time in every context. It is also irrational because it has to do with emotion (empathy and such) instead of reason which is objective.
Stop voting up reply comments, you idiots. Now we have search through 20 pages of comments just to find the original post they replied to. Plus, it's pretty pointless to vote up a reply comment when you dont even know what the original post says.
@TheWaynelds It's called contextual reading. I really don't think it's even a tiny bit difficult to discern what the previous post was about. If you really want to find the root comment right click see all comments, then push control f and search. A fucking third grader could figure this out. I always find it odd when people such as yourself feel compelled to call others idiots.
@titans091052 Yeah but not everyone knows about the ctrl+f thing. And i only called the people who vote up reply comments, idiots since theyre just thumbing it up for the hell of it and have no idea what the original post says. You cant see why people like myself call others idiots? Well i cant see why people such as yourself need to chime in on others affairs when someone already told me how to find it. I guess you're looking for an arguement?
@TheWaynelds "I guess you're looking for an arguement?" said the person who called random strangers idiots. People who don't know how to use simple control functions are either over 40 or *ahem* below average intelligence. I know what the previous comments were about without looking at them. Again, learn to read context; it isn't difficult. You're the only one seeming to have a problem...you're the slowest common denominator.
@TaharkahX Gene Roddenberry said it best in 'The God Thing':
''If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He's got so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a supreme being.'
@TaharkahX No, you are pathetic if you don't appreciate love or your own existence. Do you SERIOUSLY think God should have hung out in darkness for eternity and never did anything with his life?
@WebVManReturns why not? he's all powerful isn't he? He could have made himself feel entertained with no stimuli. Just sit there in the abyss but in his head, be superbly entertained
p.s. what you just said: God was bored -> created humans.
He did a lot of playing around too.
Hey Abraham, kill your only son.
Lets jumble up their language so they can't understand each other to build a tower THAT CAN REACH THE HEAVENS. like... are you serious?
The only way to objectively look at this would be to say that both parties are acting morally relative to themselves. And if each perogative is "just" then removing that perogative (as is wanted by both parties) is "unjust" (neither wants to have their perogatives taken away). Hence it is immoral relative to one party to have the other party, say, kill them. The same is true vice versa. That's objective morality. Its derived from human or animal nature.
If morality is subjective, then we are all correct to act the way we do (regardless). Everyones morality is therefore "right". Whats objectively "right" for you is objectively "right" for me and thus when used logically in conversation between people, proves a contradiction. An example is two people fighting for the "right" to own land. If both parties say the land is "their land" then who is right? ...Cont.
@vidfreak56 Society dictates what`s right and what`s wrong. I believe there was nothing wrong with slavery in biblical times. Otherwise, why would slavery be regulated in the bible ?
@ndzoko "right" and "wrong" are social yes, but that's not what I am referring to. Society as a collective is no more "right" and "just" than one person is for the same reason. The group merely just overpowers the one and therefore only gets to say they are "right". In order to look at "right and wrong" you have to judge actions from both moral actors, not just one or the groups. R+W now become a matter of relativity to either side, as both sides often have a moral reason for acting.
@ndzoko And I agree that slavery was indeed implied in the bible. It was also condoned in the US constitution. Its a major example that following a written document can and will lead to contradiction and are thus imperfect (depending on how you look at them - many think slavery was meant to be even now). Apologists (both bib and const) can handle this because they blindly follow "scripture" instead of thinking for themselves.
I had this same conversation with my sister yesterday. It's hard being a teen atheist in a fundamentalist Christian household. The argument ended when, after defeating every argument my sister had about why God is vital for man to have morality, she began yelling her assertions at me until my mom in the other room had heard enough and stepped in. I got grounded for what I was saying, and had to sit through an hour long lecture from my mother about how Jesus was our Christ, Lord and savior. FML
@JMUDoc It's oddly enough, not even the only depiction of incest in the bible.
I personally think the one about the two daughters sleeping with their drunk father because "no other man in the land was worthy of bearing them descendants" pretty fucking creepy.
Morality comes from evolution. What is right is to strive for evolutionary success for your DNA. Have lots of kids and promote social goods that will help those around you who will support you.
Morality comes from evolution. What is right is to strive for evolutionary success for your DNA. Have lots of kids and promote social goods that will help those around you who will support you.
@13stevejohnson That is a completly acenine way of thinking, people disagree with eachother about morals even to this day, your idea of something good might be seen as a horrible evil thing to someone else ie wearing brown after saint patrick's day or using technology because it is pure evil. Does that make you an evil twisted being, no it doesnt it means you have a different opinion than others you are no more right and wrong to any future society than the previous.
@Inclousid so what about the holocaust? what about rwanda? how do you form and enforce justice when ever opinion counts? this doesnt happen in science...
@megabeaver23 i think moral arguments can be subjected to reason and science just like many other arguments. ie what is our nature? what is well being? how does one live in a world of zero sum? etc... all these questions are complicated... doesnt mean some are not better than others..
Way to strawman mosaic law which was written to specific people (israel) at a specific time before the fall of the second temple. For a specific reason to bring about the coming of the messiah so he could save the world. Anyone who violated the law was endangering the entire world possibly preventing the coming of Christ and so they were put to death immediately. You kill people who try to destroy the world. The prophets gave specific instructions as to who when and why the laws applied ...
Actually, that's false. Primarily sabbath was celebrated as the last day of the week, when God was supposed to rest after creating the world (according to jewish (and hence also christian) tradition, Saturday is the last day of the week, Sunday being the first). Christians now celebrate Sunday as the day of resurrection. It's common knowledge, dude, I don't know if you're trolling, but if you're not - please don't speak shit in public.
@erti655 It was Saturday originally, and the Polish word for Saturday sounds like "sabatth" Possibly changed when the Christian Church was doing it's brand marketing and differentiating itself - "ignore those other folk, Pork is fine, and Sunday is the Sabbath!"
Will someone just reveal themselves as the second coming of Jesus already so he can nullify the ridiculous portions of the New Testament so everyone can finally accept that it was written in a completely different time and culture?
It is true we have a new covenant with Jesus Christ that nulls the harsh condemnations of the old testament because Jesus brang us peace love and forgiveness, the culture and time had no affect on the change in covenants God and his love for us through Jesus changed that!
@elizalovebug19 Why was God such an asshole before? Why did anyone have to die for humanity to be forgiven? Why is God still an asshole for letting so much evil occur? Why are you so stupid?
@CitizenOfEuphoria While I dont agree with any religion, nor do I claim to know if god exists or doesnt exist, you have to realize that even if he does, the bible is a man made document and is, as such, subject to our corrupting influence. Thus a vengeful god who punishes people dont do "as the book says."
As for why evil exists? Free will. I doubt if a god exists he punishes people for surviving, and I'd suspect our judgement here is more about INTENTION than deed, so killing
@CitizenOfEuphoria *so killing someone who is about to murder your wife? Not evil. Killing someones wife because she wont sleep with you? evil. Stealing an apple because you're starving? not evil. Stealing $100M out of greed? evil. Its all about WHY we do things, not WHAT we do exactly. At least, that would be my theory on any true god. And I dont doubt the christian god could be THIS type of god, its just that that book is so corrupted from mans influence.
@Taakuyaa Theists are VERY dishonest when they talk about this. For example, it is not always wrong everywhere to destroy my personal belongings. Under what circumstances? For example, I wouldn't necessarily consider an 18 month child morally culpable for ripping the pages in one of my books. Though I might not like it, the child has no concept of morality nor does he have the ability to reflect on his actions and understand them in any moral terms. That implies different standards.
@Taakuyaa The child, is quite simply, not capable of being considered a moral agent. Morality, it seems to me, can only be applied to beings who are capable of being moral agents, i.e., reflect upon their actions, understand concepts such as "right" and "wrong", etc. and theists typically ignore these facts when they don't think it helps their arguments (or they just honestly forget?).
@Taakuyaa Helping someone in need for goodness sake, evil: if you believe that they are in that state of need because in their "former life" they have sinned (I think Hinduism? don't quote me D:) the same deed, and the same reasons behind the deed, is seen as both evil and good. morality is arbitrary, its what the society at that time feels as a general consensus. But even this doesn't mean that everybody there will agree with one another. Absolute morality of any kind is just absurd.
@hawkister Lol no, morality is not subjective as long as you dont believe in hokey religions and pseudoscientific ideas like reincarnation. I've had morals classes where people argued this point sadly. Society does not dictate what is right and wrong, only what is "acceptable" by their standards. Murder is murder, theft is theft. While there can be "reasons" for doing it that justify it, the act is still wrong, no matter if "god" deems it "okay" or not. morality is not subjective.
@CitizenOfEuphoria - The god of this world is Satan (John 16:11 etc) and if God is infinite Justice and infinite Mercy wouldn't they cancel each other out? The only way to have both is through the Cross, think about it.
@MrEasynote3296 God doesn't want to get rid of the Devil but has the power to? He's malevolent, you pseudo-intellectual moron. Remember God's bet with the Devil on Job's faith? Or when God ordered Moses to murder thousands of Canaanites? Or when God singlehandedly killed the first-born children of the Egyptians? Or when God flooded the Earth and killed almost every human? If the Devil is the god of Earth, then how is God still able to carry out such senseless destruction? Whoops, contradictions.
@elizalovebug19 "the culture and time had no affect on the change in covenants "
Really? So you think it's just a coincidence that large parts of the Mosaic law is basically a copy of the code of Hammurabi then? No cultural mechanisms were involved at all?
Also, doesn't the New Testament tell women to shut up when men are discussing things that matter? Don't you know your place?
As an Atheist, I can make absolute certainties as well, but it's not my job to tell Christians that they're wrong, no matter what they believe. Evolution is a fact. The age of earth is a fact. People don't live to 900 years...fact. Snakes don't talk...fact. I could go on and on.
I have a tough time with the Christians absolute certainty. I.e. It doesn't matter if you believe in God, because he created you and will still judge you. Even though there is zero evidence, and you don't believe it, Jesus is your only salvation. No No No, God didn't create the universe or me. Jesus is Not my salvation. Christians, keep it to yourself.
lol funny ending. i gotta say I'm christian and my mom is just like that guy (left). she says "well I'm sure God is lenient" in regard to us not going to church every sunday. and I disagree, I'm like the guy on the left before he "changes" sides. I think that if it's in the Bible it is true, so BAM i should be put to death.
While this video makes a good point, it fails to mention the Achilles Heel of subjective morality. If morality is subjective then who is to say what Hitler did was wrong? Who is to say anything is wrong at all, if morality is subjective? Subjective morality just doesn't work.
So is morality objective or subjective? Answer: both. Some parts of morality are subjective, and some are objective.
The reason Christians focus on objective morals is because it leaves Atheists with a bit of a conundrum.
So theoretically, if society decided slavery of black people was ok again, then it magically would be? When black people were slaves in America pre-1860 it was ok? What if society decided that black people can't vote anymore?
Tell me, if poor treatment of a race is ok, why did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. push so hard for equality in the 60s? Society at the time said it was ok to discriminate, yet we say MLK was right in what he wanted and asked for.
@vader421138 No they should not, society obviously does decide what is moral as it has done so throughout human history. This does not mean that societal norms cannot be changed nor that they should not be. Societal morals are influenced by a plethora of factos, for example gay rights issues stem almost exclusively from religious sources. Slavery existed for so long because black people were not seen as "people", this stigma remained for some time causing continued racism and lingers today.
part 2- Humanity has evolved to care about other members of the species, exclusions from this are justified in the mind by an "us and them" mentality which is realistically irrelavant in todays world given how we now know all people to be almost identical. Our relative wealth and security also afford us the opportunity to be kinder to others as in earlier times this would not have been possible, the poor could not be supported then and therefore were not, different tribes were mistrusted etc
So you are going from a majority standpoint? The majority decides what is or is not moral? One slight issue with this stance is what motivation is there for me to be moral? The good of humanity? I should do good or else be punished? What if I don't get caught doing wrong?
And with society deciding what is and is not moral, you run into the problem of societies such as the Nazis who persecuted Jews. That is what society decided. They weren't wrong in what they did?
@vader421138 The Nazi example is seriously old, the gassing of Jews was not endorsed by German society but by a small portion of it which had control. The maltreatment of Jews, at least the extent of it was not really known, indeed there were field marshalls who did not discover the extent until around 1944. On top of this the consensus that Hitler was unanimously supported is untrue.
What incentive is there for you to be moral? Your own morality. If you dont get caught you cant be
punished, that is obvious, this is not fair but inevitable. The idea that fairness has any role to play in what "is" though is wishful thinking. In pretty much every religion as long as a person "accepts god in their heart" before their demise they can go to heaven regardless of crimes committed whilst people who have done good all their lives face oblivion. How would you punish people that are not caught?????
Yes it is an old argument. While you make a good point that the whole of German society did not support Hitler, the discrimination that lead up to the holocaust was pretty well known, I think, by the German people.
So the incentive to be moral is one's own morality. Ted Bundy is an example of one who I think claimed to have no conscience. If one can escape one's conscience, then that is the only bar to freedom from moral laws?
And I would disagree. These needs we feel in our lives are generally because there is some fulfillment that actually exists. Hunger is a need. It would be silly to feel this need so strongly if there was no such thing as food. The desire to be loved has a fulfillment within relationships and community. Perhaps the desire for justice is more than just a fantasy.
And I also disagree that every religion lets one get to heaven as long as they accept God in their hearts. Karma is the main doctrine of Hinduism and Buddhism. You pay for your crimes with Karma. In Islam it is all within the will of Allah whether or not one is saved (one can never be sure). You die and hope that when you meet Allah your good deeds outweigh your bad. Judaism tries to justify themselves with the law and obeying it perfectly.
Which means the main religion that says such is Christianity. The doctrine is called Grace, and what it means is that, despite what all other religions believed, one cannot earn heaven based upon one's own actions. It is taught that God, knowing this, provided a way for us to be saved (that's the good news). No matter how good or bad you are, God loves you anyways and took that punishment of our crimes upon Himself.
By that doctrine, someone did pay: Jesus. He offers salvation to those that follow Him. It is more than just verbally assenting to a belief system: God is the judge of the universe, He will judge the heart rightly. True repentance will be forgiven. Faking it will be shown to be what it is. Does that give you a better understanding?
PS I would love to keep answering any questions you have, however the character limit can be oppressive. Perhaps messaging would be better?
@vader421138 Nah its ok, the reality is that would love to believe in an afterlife, being raised in a christian household I sought justification for faith and found none. I understand the teachings of christianity- at least the normal ones- and accept that generally they are for the better. That I wish to believe is not however a reason to believe.
@vader421138 I just havent seen any evidence in favour of the argument that boils down to goes anything more than, we dont know and therefore god. Nor do I think it logical to take a "gamble" on a particular religion to avoid a potential hell given the infinite possibilities of judgement criterion that could be employed by a deity. Even if there was undoubtedly a god it would still make no sense to follow a particular religion which has no more evidence in favour of it than another.
I have always disliked Pascal's Wager in the use for converting people to a belief. I feel like it focuses on moving towards fear as a motivation when I would prefer to move someone towards truth. Have you ever read CS Lewis' book Mere Christianity?
And if there was undoubtedly a god, you're right: It would make no sense to follow one or another without looking at evidences and beliefs and overall coherence within those beliefs. If you're interested in reading on the subject, I would recommend Ravi Zacharias' book Jesus Among Other Gods.
@vader421138 i kinda see your point, if the germans had won the war then the crimes commited and the genoside would be considered "a necesary evil" by the winers. it is still a matter of perspective, i dunno why people always uses Hitler and the nazis as an example of "evil"... bit i think hiroshima and nagasaki bombing are way better examples why? well that was a "necesary evil" that saved the lives of thousands of american soldiers, right?
If you haven't yet, do some research on what concentration camps were like. Read some of Viktor Frankl or Elie Wiesel. It is an example used often because if was recent and it is starkly obvious that what the Nazis did was wrong.
You're right, they would try to justify it as a necessary evil. So why does anyone say it is wrong to imprison and torture another if it is just their perspective?
I don't ethically agree with the bombings of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, btw.
@vader421138 Morality to a extent is subjective, however basic morality as we know and what we base our "moral laws" around is simply just empathy. We are equipped as social beings to be able to work and trust one another, without empathy we would not understand how to earn another's trust, with empathy we understand morality as "Do to others as you'd like to have done to you" which is why sociopaths have "no morals" so to speak, because they do not feel empathy.
@vader421138 Empathy has been linked to a certain neuron in our brain which is referred to as the "mirror neuron" it is believed that evolution provided us with this due to our need to adapt in societies and survive with one another. This is why the line of morality can get a bit hazy when in large groups (Group mentality), if everyone else is doing it, is it so wrong? That is what makes the brain support people such as Hitler, we empathize with the larger group around us too often.
The problem with going to science with these questions is that science, while it does a great job of explaining how sometimes, cannot ultimately tell us why.
Why do I believe things are still wrong even when everyone else is doing it?
@vader421138 Because as I explained even though morality can get a bit hazy because of group mentality, the basic empathy still exits, when we see a person in pain we still feel uncomfortable because our brain is sending out signals that make us feel as if we're in that situation. People can't stand to look at someone being tortured because it feels like it's mentally happening to them as well. A sociopath will find someone getting tortured fascinating or neutral on the other hand.
@vader421138 However we as a species always look toward others for guidance of how we should be, therefore if a huge group of people are supporting something inhumane, even knowing that it is wrong, we might start to believe it may be right or some form of lesser evil that needs to be done (The Jews for example in Hitler's case were made to appear like the evil ones to Germans). Many moral men have been turned into monsters in war for example, our morals are according to what we see and feel.
If it is completely a social outworking involving groups, would it be wrong for a society to ban, kill, or outcast gay people since they don't contribute to furthering the genetic survival of the human race? As long as we dehumanize them, destroy any empathy for them, then it should be ok, right? Empathy is our only barrier?
@vader421138 Also no that would not be right, just like slavery was not right. Even with our empathy as our barrier, it doesn't make it right, we know that we would not like to be in that position so what gives us the right to put anyone else in that position? All it will do is cause tension and chaos and riots and it is not logical in any sense
You say our morals are according to what we see and feel. What if I don't see or feel the pain of the discriminated gay community? To me the situation would therefore be morally neutral, right? But you say it isn't. You say it would still be wrong, just like slavery. Why? Slavery was based on the thought that black people were less than human. Many didn't have moral qualms about it (some did, though). Herd mentality said it was ok. Why was it wrong?
We wouldn't want to be harvested and eaten, but we do so with cows. Are you a vegetarian? Is there a difference between humans and animals?
P.S. This discussion is getting rather lengthy. I would be willing to continue it by the inbox system if you'd prefer that to discussion here. The character limit can be frustrating.
@vader421138 "We wouldn't want to be harvested and eaten, but we do so with cows. Are you a vegetarian? Is there a difference between humans and animals?"
We also would rather not starve ourselves of precious and vital nutrients to sustain our health and growth. In our current, large society, breeding and herding livestock is practically a necessity to feed our large population. Simple plants won't do, and meat has readily sources of protein and fats for nutrition available in such food.
@vader421138 Cont.) Eating humans would be cannibalism. Obviously, if you learned that a fellow man/woman would actually do that, then you would be less likely to trust them for in fear of being a possible course on their dinner menu. A lack of trust is very harmful in terms of societies—which are built upon cooperation. To ensure this cooperation, we instill objective morals based on society's consensus to uphold certain values. Often these values are decided by the consequences of our actions.
@vader421138 Cont.) We consider that if we want to live together in as much peace as possible then we must lay down principles in which people must follow for the benefit of cooperating on this planet rather than turn to a much more unforgiving and difficult approach of competition between each other.
It's human interaction that is the source of our morals.
@vader421138 Cont.) To truly answer your question though: we, humans, simply value food over life for the majority of the time in terms of animals. We do not gain attachment to them and we understand that we must consume things in order to survive. It's one of our basic behaviors as humans: staying alive. Exceptions can be made when dealing with emotional attachments, but ultimately, we recognize livestock too beneficial as a food source than another creature to be emotionally attached to.
But some tribes in some countries are cannibalistic. To say it is natural not to eat other humans denies what is happening on some islands. What they are doing isn't wrong? It's just not the most efficient way of relating to other people and cooperating? You sound like you're taking a pragmatic approach to this whole thing.
@vader421138 "But some tribes in some countries are cannibalistic. To say it is natural not to eat other humans denies what is happening on some islands."
I never said that it wasn't natural, now did? Tell me though—who would you be willing to trust more off from face value? A man who wasn't a cannibal or the same man who wasn't?
How advance are these tribes in terms of technology? What percentage of them die from disease? What other tribes do they cooperate with, and just how strong is this
@vader421138 "What they are doing isn't wrong? It's just not the most efficient way of relating to other people and cooperating? You sound like you're taking a pragmatic approach to this whole thing."
It's wrong in our society's eyes. It's wrong to many individuals because that is what we were taught while growing up. To some, however, it isn't.
Take an example: a serial killer. We have moral standards that look down upon (if not outright prohibit) the killing of another human (unless under
@vader421138 Cont.) reasonable circumstances). However, such individuals commit these acts. Why is that? Are they truly evil? Or perhaps they have different/missing/faulty thought processes that prevent the connection between others? Perhaps they may even take pleasure out of their acts. What constitutes them as evil, immoral beings? Do you believe that there is more to a society's consensus that determines right and wrong?
From what I understand, our morals are simply compromises that we make
@vader421138 COnt.) between ourselves to further our survival. After all, we would all like to live, not don't we? We have more to gain from cooperating and bonding together than to be at each other's throat, correct? These are prime reasons. We only supplement them further by teaching these at a to children so they would automatically recognize them as wrong.
Perhaps this is a pragmatic approach. I fail to see what exactly is so horrible about it though. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
I am not trying to deny your point that society does indeed work better with these laws in place. I agree, they do work better in these circumstances. What I was asking was if anything is inherently right or wrong that is apart from society. Basically, are there any objective morals, any at all. I think you are answering no, but I may be jumping the gun on that conclusion.
@vader421138 "What I was asking was if anything is inherently right or wrong that is apart from society. Basically, are there any objective morals, any at all. I think you are answering no, but I may be jumping the gun on that conclusion."
Your assumption is correct. Morality, in reality, is subjective. That is my position. However, I fail to see how this makes morality any less significant—if not better—than objective morality. Perhaps your next few comments will enlighten me.
I am mostly asking these questions to figure out where you stand on these issues. I'm not trying to attempt to create a viable basis of morality off of these hypothetical questions, lol.
And yes, it sounds to me like a very pragmatic approach. The trouble with pragmatism is that it doesn't work in the long run. It is concerned about the most good for the most people, but in many countries minorities are given special privileges and protections from the majority.
@vader421138 "The trouble with pragmatism is that it doesn't work in the long run. It is concerned about the most good for the most people, but in many countries minorities are given special privileges and protections from the majority."
There's no denying that such things do happen; I do agree with you. However, in the case of, say, the United States—our Constitution is designed to allow law from democracy, but it has checks and balances to strike down laws that are deemed to violate
@vader421138 Cont.) basic rights. These rights were agreed upon and by living here with our society you are bound to respect and follow the rights and laws unless you re-located out of the country.
Rights come from a value judgement we have placed, based on our understanding of empathy. It is a social contract you make with others by living in the society.
Also, if I read you correctly, what you're saying is there is no difference between humans and animals. It is merely the emotional attachment that is the reason for not killing animals. Therefore, is it also just the emotional attachment keeping us from killing other humans? Would it be ok if I didn't feel bad? Sure, it might not be pragmatic and beneficial to society, but would it be inherently wrong or not?
@vader421138 "Also, if I read you correctly, what you're saying is there is no difference between humans and animals. It is merely the emotional attachment that is the reason for not killing animals. Therefore, is it also just the emotional attachment keeping us from killing other humans?"
Merely? Emotion plays a huge role in our behavior and actions, don't you agree? Why do you automatically dismiss it as insignificant? Surely if we didn't have emotion then we would be some sort of sociopath
@vader421138 Cont.) and just how healthy of a society made up of such people be? It is not easy to take away human emotion (as you seem to imply that it is a thin sheet of paper that prevents us from doing violent acts) nor is it to completely destroy bonds made from, say, an offspring to a parent. We see these kinds of relationships all the time in the animal kingdom. Even he fierce, unforgiving crocodile (whom are "natural killers") take care of their young.
@vader421138 "Would it be ok if I didn't feel bad? Sure, it might not be pragmatic and beneficial to society, but would it be inherently wrong or not?"
You would be a sociopath. Do you believe that people choose to be such people by choice? Truly if you were to attempt to kill me or someone I cared about, I would attempt kill you first—after all, why should I care about your life when you obviously do not care about mine (or others)? You would be more of a danger to me and the society I live in
I probably worded the sociopath question poorly, but I think you got my point.
To propose a counterpoint: The morality of other cultures isn't so different from us as you seem to think. Example: Sure a culture may disagree on whether or not one can have one spouse or several, but they all agree that you can't just have any person that you like.
@vader421138 "If morals were societal at heart, then what right have we to compare our morality to any other nations'? Wouldn't that be pointless? We approach it with a better than/worse than view. Doesn't this imply there is an objective better or worse?"
You're forgetting that much of our morality comes from an understanding of empathy. We do compare our society with others mainly based on this emotion. Whether we do have this "right" or not depends on which reasons you want to compare it to.
@vader421138 Cont.) If you wanted to compare based on objectivity of say, gay marriage for instance, then there will be no consensus between the two. If you decided to compare it on an empathy basis, however, then gay marriage would win (this example roughly follows with killing as well). Saying that something is not objectively wrong is not the same as saying it is morally permissible.
Ironically, in the case of America, the phrase "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" is not a phrase that comes from empathy but a phrase that comes from the Christian world-view.
Based on our understanding of empathy, we shouldn't kill animals either then. Are you a vegetarian?
I don't believe morality and empathy are the same thing. Morality is not an instinct; empathy is. I will send you a message detailing why. Character limit and all
@vader421138 "Ironically, in the case of America, the phrase "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" is not a phrase that comes from empathy but a phrase that comes from the Christian world-view."
Ironically, no. You are leaving out the rest of the sentence: " that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." No where is that a Christian perspective—at most it is merely a
@vader421138 Cont.) **at most it is deism—not theism (as what Christianity is). In fact, many of the founding fathers were deists and despised Christianity.
¡Alien!
MrJedabak 17 hours ago
hahaha thumbs up
antichyrst123 1 day ago
too bad moral relativism (represented in this video as subjective morality) or even cultural relativism doesn't work. First thing laws cannot work on subjective morality, and (I know this is going to be extreme) but if you pull the cultural relativism card well then the Nazis can be rationalized that they did nothing wrong. I'm not saying religion objective morality is right but objective morality is the only kind of morality that people can live together with.
CorkyJester 2 days ago
@CorkyJester umm no. What nazi's did was wrong in our point of view but was morally justified in their point of view. Nazi's would've lived fine together if they had taken over and won the war.
another example, 9 - 11. terrorism or a heroic act? depends on which side of the fence you are on...
Morality changes as society changes... abolishing slavery, equal rights among races, equal rights to women, these are all very recent development in morality...
hawkister 2 days ago
@hawkister you're forgetting the power of authority. Read Milton Meyer's "They Thought They Were Free" about the mindset of low ranking rank and file Nazi members. They were caught up on power. They weren't all enthusiastic about the holocaust. Also, some earlier civilisations had better rights than the more militarised hierarchical ones that replaced them. and as for 9-11 being heroic? You might say it took courage &insanity to be suicidal, but heroic? Heroism is risking all to save something.
jimbobeire 2 days ago
@jimbobeire those suicide bombers risked their lives to save islam... in the point of view of some, it was a heroic act.
Hmm you mean our set of morals depends on the way our mindset is at the time? How shocking, sounds like subjective morality to me.
There isn't this universally "right way" to do anything. If morality was objective, meaning no matter who you are, in any point in time, you are aware of what "morally right" is, why do we have such diversity in ethics and law.
hawkister 1 day ago
@hawkister How were they saving Islam? Were the buildings, or their workers, or the passengers a threat to Islam? In law there can be objective AND subjective test to actions in the same piece of law. Sat through a few trials connected to the war, where this was discussed at great length.
jimbobeire 1 day ago
@jimbobeire because USA is a predominantly christian nation and if you don't believe in the right god the right way, you are a terrible person. killing of such people is an heroic act and it'll will get you 72 virgins. obviously, bluntly put. But you get the point. it all depends on where your perspectives lie.
In Iraq people are being hunted down and killed for being or accused of being homosexual. I think that's terrible. But in their perspective, we are terrible people letting them live.
hawkister 12 hours ago
@CorkyJester By Objective morality, Nazis did nothing wrong in killing the Jews. After all the Catholic papacy has justified killing Jews in the past, so it must still be ok now right?
neverfearchrisishere 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This person (Jeff) is known for robbing the elderly. He hasn't been caught by the police yet. Please call him and tell him what a prick he is. He lives in Linden, Virginia 540-931-2695.
beeasy23ify 3 days ago
Exodus 31:15 is a Jewish law, it doesn't apply to Gentiles, John 16:11 says Satan is the god of this world (makes more sense) and Romans Chapter 14 says morality is subjective.
MrEasynote3296 4 days ago
Brilliant. And the alien was like a cherry on the top.
urcritic 1 week ago
Some atheists argue that an example of objective morality, unchanging at its core, is the "selfish gene" evolved to be a hard coded "good" in all people from birth even if they end up doing bad things due to stuff happening to them in life (...although this does not account for situations if they have some genetic abnormality, but that is the minority anyway).
TableWolfMusic 1 week ago
VAT A TVIST
Bisondoof 1 week ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
if a scientific theory such as the big bang theory is false, that does not mean intelligent design is true.
if theory A is false that doesnt mean theory B is right. if theory A is false that means that theory A IS false
sigge951 1 week ago
It all depends on how one defines morality. I tend to favor a more Kantian form of Ethics. I recognize that there are no objective values period. However, I tend to favor morality being defined in terms of rationality. If something is logically contradictory (or irrational) then it is morally impermissible. If it is consistent, then it is permissible. The irrational is the bad, and the rational is the good.
cbl2988 2 weeks ago
Objective morality isn't only religious... just remember Kant's philosophy. Subjective morality is necessarily very relative. Reason is objective. So if we are looking for the truth, using reason, I'd argue that subjective morality is not true because it is not universal and fundamental since it is not objective and it doesn't apply to everyone at every time in every context. It is also irrational because it has to do with emotion (empathy and such) instead of reason which is objective.
karlehamel 2 weeks ago
Alien ex machina
SevenRiderAirForce 2 weeks ago
@SevenRiderAirForce Check the Book of Ripley for more info :P
aptspire 2 weeks ago
Xenomorphs...JUSTICARS OF MORALITY!!
Chayraz2 2 weeks ago
and then ALIEN
darkblood626 2 weeks ago
The alien was quite EPIC, even without your perfectly valid argument for using it :)
adityamenon90 2 weeks ago
Last 8 seconds epic...
harbingeful 2 weeks ago
Stop voting up reply comments, you idiots. Now we have search through 20 pages of comments just to find the original post they replied to. Plus, it's pretty pointless to vote up a reply comment when you dont even know what the original post says.
TheWaynelds 2 weeks ago
@TheWaynelds 1) Click 'see all' at the top of the comments section.
2) Hit ctrl + f.
3) Type the name of the person you're looking for.
Easy.
pcgamer010 2 weeks ago
@TheWaynelds It's called contextual reading. I really don't think it's even a tiny bit difficult to discern what the previous post was about. If you really want to find the root comment right click see all comments, then push control f and search. A fucking third grader could figure this out. I always find it odd when people such as yourself feel compelled to call others idiots.
titans091052 2 weeks ago
@titans091052 Yeah but not everyone knows about the ctrl+f thing. And i only called the people who vote up reply comments, idiots since theyre just thumbing it up for the hell of it and have no idea what the original post says. You cant see why people like myself call others idiots? Well i cant see why people such as yourself need to chime in on others affairs when someone already told me how to find it. I guess you're looking for an arguement?
TheWaynelds 2 weeks ago
@TheWaynelds "I guess you're looking for an arguement?" said the person who called random strangers idiots. People who don't know how to use simple control functions are either over 40 or *ahem* below average intelligence. I know what the previous comments were about without looking at them. Again, learn to read context; it isn't difficult. You're the only one seeming to have a problem...you're the slowest common denominator.
titans091052 2 weeks ago
The God of the Bible is like a knocked up teenage girl. I CREATED THIS BECAUSE I WANT SOMEBODY TO LOOOOOOOVE MEEEEEEE!" Pathetic.
TaharkahX 2 weeks ago 7
@TaharkahX Gene Roddenberry said it best in 'The God Thing':
''If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He's got so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a supreme being.'
Spiderpope 2 weeks ago
@TaharkahX No, you are pathetic if you don't appreciate love or your own existence. Do you SERIOUSLY think God should have hung out in darkness for eternity and never did anything with his life?
WebVManReturns 1 day ago
@WebVManReturns why not? he's all powerful isn't he? He could have made himself feel entertained with no stimuli. Just sit there in the abyss but in his head, be superbly entertained
p.s. what you just said: God was bored -> created humans.
He did a lot of playing around too.
Hey Abraham, kill your only son.
Lets jumble up their language so they can't understand each other to build a tower THAT CAN REACH THE HEAVENS. like... are you serious?
hawkister 1 day ago
@TaharkahX
its funny cause god did knock up a teenage girl and god created humans to have somebody love him. According to the bible anyways. Lol.
hawkister 1 day ago
Why was the old god angry ? well I guess the birth of a sun kinda calmed him down huh ?
savcob 2 weeks ago
The only way to objectively look at this would be to say that both parties are acting morally relative to themselves. And if each perogative is "just" then removing that perogative (as is wanted by both parties) is "unjust" (neither wants to have their perogatives taken away). Hence it is immoral relative to one party to have the other party, say, kill them. The same is true vice versa. That's objective morality. Its derived from human or animal nature.
vidfreak56 2 weeks ago
If morality is subjective, then we are all correct to act the way we do (regardless). Everyones morality is therefore "right". Whats objectively "right" for you is objectively "right" for me and thus when used logically in conversation between people, proves a contradiction. An example is two people fighting for the "right" to own land. If both parties say the land is "their land" then who is right? ...Cont.
vidfreak56 2 weeks ago
@vidfreak56 Society dictates what`s right and what`s wrong. I believe there was nothing wrong with slavery in biblical times. Otherwise, why would slavery be regulated in the bible ?
ndzoko 2 weeks ago
@ndzoko "right" and "wrong" are social yes, but that's not what I am referring to. Society as a collective is no more "right" and "just" than one person is for the same reason. The group merely just overpowers the one and therefore only gets to say they are "right". In order to look at "right and wrong" you have to judge actions from both moral actors, not just one or the groups. R+W now become a matter of relativity to either side, as both sides often have a moral reason for acting.
vidfreak56 2 weeks ago
@ndzoko And I agree that slavery was indeed implied in the bible. It was also condoned in the US constitution. Its a major example that following a written document can and will lead to contradiction and are thus imperfect (depending on how you look at them - many think slavery was meant to be even now). Apologists (both bib and const) can handle this because they blindly follow "scripture" instead of thinking for themselves.
vidfreak56 2 weeks ago
I had this same conversation with my sister yesterday. It's hard being a teen atheist in a fundamentalist Christian household. The argument ended when, after defeating every argument my sister had about why God is vital for man to have morality, she began yelling her assertions at me until my mom in the other room had heard enough and stepped in. I got grounded for what I was saying, and had to sit through an hour long lecture from my mother about how Jesus was our Christ, Lord and savior. FML
LacedBluntz 3 weeks ago
@LacedBluntz lol shit at my place. there's no changing their minds. Just let them believe in fairy tales
comedeyzone 1 week ago
I found this video funny, good job ;)
Batteri000 3 weeks ago
Brilliant!!!! Love it!
Butchersniper 3 weeks ago
This is perfect! xD
FM897 3 weeks ago
Cain and Abel had relations with their mother (or sister), so incest wasn't wrong then. It is now. There's your unchanging god. Now, STFU.
JMUDoc 3 weeks ago
@JMUDoc It's oddly enough, not even the only depiction of incest in the bible.
I personally think the one about the two daughters sleeping with their drunk father because "no other man in the land was worthy of bearing them descendants" pretty fucking creepy.
Actually, the entire damn book is creepy as fuck.
Ebvardh 3 weeks ago
Lol. Watched an alien movie just 1 hour ago :D
MuRReC 3 weeks ago
yes we can, not!
beeto45 3 weeks ago
Stupid atheists. I believe in the New Testament. Stop trying to get us to stone each other for your amusement.
jtshibbyy 3 weeks ago
@jtshibbyy but how else are we to control the Christina population if we don't get you to stone each other?
Voltaire152 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is objective.
Morality comes from evolution. What is right is to strive for evolutionary success for your DNA. Have lots of kids and promote social goods that will help those around you who will support you.
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
It is objective.
Morality comes from evolution. What is right is to strive for evolutionary success for your DNA. Have lots of kids and promote social goods that will help those around you who will support you.
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
Haha
yousuxalot 3 weeks ago
hahaha funniest thing ever!
Killuminatyi 4 weeks ago
Im an atheist, and i would say they were still wrong back then...
to be a moral relativist would be to ignore justice during nuremberg or to allow slavery
13stevejohnson 4 weeks ago
@13stevejohnson That is a completly acenine way of thinking, people disagree with eachother about morals even to this day, your idea of something good might be seen as a horrible evil thing to someone else ie wearing brown after saint patrick's day or using technology because it is pure evil. Does that make you an evil twisted being, no it doesnt it means you have a different opinion than others you are no more right and wrong to any future society than the previous.
megabeaver23 3 weeks ago
@megabeaver23 So should we be allowed to enslave blacks?
13stevejohnson 3 weeks ago
@13stevejohnson Only if they are from a neighboring territory.
Inclousid 3 weeks ago
@Inclousid so what about the holocaust? what about rwanda? how do you form and enforce justice when ever opinion counts? this doesnt happen in science...
13stevejohnson 3 weeks ago
@13stevejohnson I was being facetious bud. The bible says you can only take slaves if they are from neighboring territories.
Inclousid 3 weeks ago
@Inclousid oh, lol. gotcha.
13stevejohnson 3 weeks ago
@megabeaver23 i think moral arguments can be subjected to reason and science just like many other arguments. ie what is our nature? what is well being? how does one live in a world of zero sum? etc... all these questions are complicated... doesnt mean some are not better than others..
13stevejohnson 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Way to strawman mosaic law which was written to specific people (israel) at a specific time before the fall of the second temple. For a specific reason to bring about the coming of the messiah so he could save the world. Anyone who violated the law was endangering the entire world possibly preventing the coming of Christ and so they were put to death immediately. You kill people who try to destroy the world. The prophets gave specific instructions as to who when and why the laws applied ...
ShawnSwander 4 weeks ago
Super LOLOLOL. That was Awesome, A+++++++
rufuguru 4 weeks ago
lol, why was Alien there?!
CrazyT2507 4 weeks ago
is Sabbath Saturday or Sunday. i get confused
erti655 4 weeks ago
@erti655 Originally it's Saturday, but the christians changed it to Sunday because it was more convenient for them.
mycatsnameishoudini 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheEathor 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mycatsnameishoudini
Actually, that's false. Primarily sabbath was celebrated as the last day of the week, when God was supposed to rest after creating the world (according to jewish (and hence also christian) tradition, Saturday is the last day of the week, Sunday being the first). Christians now celebrate Sunday as the day of resurrection. It's common knowledge, dude, I don't know if you're trolling, but if you're not - please don't speak shit in public.
TheEathor 3 weeks ago
@erti655 Both, from sun down to sun down, so Sat night to Sun night.
Waywardpaladin 4 weeks ago
@erti655 It was Saturday originally, and the Polish word for Saturday sounds like "sabatth" Possibly changed when the Christian Church was doing it's brand marketing and differentiating itself - "ignore those other folk, Pork is fine, and Sunday is the Sabbath!"
jimbobeire 1 day ago
I side with the subjective guy.
Also, LOL @ the random alien!
SuperFlameRing 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperFlameRing "I side with the subjective guy."
Which one? The left one (the guy who stole the word "subjective") or the right one (the one who had the word "subjective" stolen from him)? ;-D
tqpix 4 weeks ago
Will someone just reveal themselves as the second coming of Jesus already so he can nullify the ridiculous portions of the New Testament so everyone can finally accept that it was written in a completely different time and culture?
Burn1314 4 weeks ago
It is true we have a new covenant with Jesus Christ that nulls the harsh condemnations of the old testament because Jesus brang us peace love and forgiveness, the culture and time had no affect on the change in covenants God and his love for us through Jesus changed that!
elizalovebug19 1 month ago
@elizalovebug19 Why was God such an asshole before? Why did anyone have to die for humanity to be forgiven? Why is God still an asshole for letting so much evil occur? Why are you so stupid?
CitizenOfEuphoria 4 weeks ago 83
@CitizenOfEuphoria
When you say God is wrong for allowing evil, you also assume such a thing as good exists, right?
vader421138 4 weeks ago
@CitizenOfEuphoria While I dont agree with any religion, nor do I claim to know if god exists or doesnt exist, you have to realize that even if he does, the bible is a man made document and is, as such, subject to our corrupting influence. Thus a vengeful god who punishes people dont do "as the book says."
As for why evil exists? Free will. I doubt if a god exists he punishes people for surviving, and I'd suspect our judgement here is more about INTENTION than deed, so killing
Taakuyaa 2 weeks ago
@CitizenOfEuphoria *so killing someone who is about to murder your wife? Not evil. Killing someones wife because she wont sleep with you? evil. Stealing an apple because you're starving? not evil. Stealing $100M out of greed? evil. Its all about WHY we do things, not WHAT we do exactly. At least, that would be my theory on any true god. And I dont doubt the christian god could be THIS type of god, its just that that book is so corrupted from mans influence.
Taakuyaa 2 weeks ago
@Taakuyaa Theists are VERY dishonest when they talk about this. For example, it is not always wrong everywhere to destroy my personal belongings. Under what circumstances? For example, I wouldn't necessarily consider an 18 month child morally culpable for ripping the pages in one of my books. Though I might not like it, the child has no concept of morality nor does he have the ability to reflect on his actions and understand them in any moral terms. That implies different standards.
cbl2988 2 weeks ago
@Taakuyaa The child, is quite simply, not capable of being considered a moral agent. Morality, it seems to me, can only be applied to beings who are capable of being moral agents, i.e., reflect upon their actions, understand concepts such as "right" and "wrong", etc. and theists typically ignore these facts when they don't think it helps their arguments (or they just honestly forget?).
cbl2988 2 weeks ago
@Taakuyaa Helping someone in need for goodness sake, evil: if you believe that they are in that state of need because in their "former life" they have sinned (I think Hinduism? don't quote me D:) the same deed, and the same reasons behind the deed, is seen as both evil and good. morality is arbitrary, its what the society at that time feels as a general consensus. But even this doesn't mean that everybody there will agree with one another. Absolute morality of any kind is just absurd.
hawkister 1 week ago
Comment removed
Taakuyaa 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hawkister Lol no, morality is not subjective as long as you dont believe in hokey religions and pseudoscientific ideas like reincarnation. I've had morals classes where people argued this point sadly. Society does not dictate what is right and wrong, only what is "acceptable" by their standards. Murder is murder, theft is theft. While there can be "reasons" for doing it that justify it, the act is still wrong, no matter if "god" deems it "okay" or not. morality is not subjective.
Taakuyaa 1 week ago
@CitizenOfEuphoria Simple. God = Ego
BaxterXenon 1 week ago
@CitizenOfEuphoria - The god of this world is Satan (John 16:11 etc) and if God is infinite Justice and infinite Mercy wouldn't they cancel each other out? The only way to have both is through the Cross, think about it.
MrEasynote3296 4 days ago
@MrEasynote3296 God doesn't want to get rid of the Devil but has the power to? He's malevolent, you pseudo-intellectual moron. Remember God's bet with the Devil on Job's faith? Or when God ordered Moses to murder thousands of Canaanites? Or when God singlehandedly killed the first-born children of the Egyptians? Or when God flooded the Earth and killed almost every human? If the Devil is the god of Earth, then how is God still able to carry out such senseless destruction? Whoops, contradictions.
CitizenOfEuphoria 3 days ago
@CitizenOfEuphoria - You ever killed ants?
Not because you could but because they got in your way?
We're much smaller and we don't bite we do much worse.
MrEasynote3296 3 days ago
@elizalovebug19 "the culture and time had no affect on the change in covenants "
Really? So you think it's just a coincidence that large parts of the Mosaic law is basically a copy of the code of Hammurabi then? No cultural mechanisms were involved at all?
Also, doesn't the New Testament tell women to shut up when men are discussing things that matter? Don't you know your place?
Gnomefro 4 weeks ago 50
@elizalovebug19 The word "brang" does not exist, it is "brought".
darkarrow7101 3 weeks ago
What about Abraham fucking his wive's handmaids and King David and all his fucking concubines and wives!
Not a sin yesterday, but a sin today?
Sounds subjective to me, goddammit!
Shit...
WildManChrisVEVO 1 month ago
This video confuses "objective" with "absolute".
31Uriel 1 month ago
@31Uriel Well, objective morality ought to be absolute, right? And absolute morality would hopefully be objective. What's the difference then?
mycatsnameishoudini 1 month ago
@mycatsnameishoudini
absolute: indipendent of opinion and time and space and culture and human,.....
objective: indipendent of opinion
So "absolute" implies "objective", but not vice versa. So no, one can hold to objective morality but not to absolute morality.
31Uriel 1 month ago
@31Uriel Well then it would be dumb to say the guy to the left has an absolute morality, since we know that's impossible.
mycatsnameishoudini 1 month ago
@31Uriel
No it doesnt
mikkwik 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@mikkwik
It does: "What's wrong yesterday is wrong today..."
31Uriel 1 month ago
@31Uriel
I do not agree with stoning other humans
mikkwik 1 month ago
@mikkwik Depends on the humans.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 month ago
As an Atheist, I can make absolute certainties as well, but it's not my job to tell Christians that they're wrong, no matter what they believe. Evolution is a fact. The age of earth is a fact. People don't live to 900 years...fact. Snakes don't talk...fact. I could go on and on.
paramattic70 1 month ago
I have a tough time with the Christians absolute certainty. I.e. It doesn't matter if you believe in God, because he created you and will still judge you. Even though there is zero evidence, and you don't believe it, Jesus is your only salvation. No No No, God didn't create the universe or me. Jesus is Not my salvation. Christians, keep it to yourself.
paramattic70 1 month ago
nice! i had this type of conversation not long ago
allal231 1 month ago
lol funny ending. i gotta say I'm christian and my mom is just like that guy (left). she says "well I'm sure God is lenient" in regard to us not going to church every sunday. and I disagree, I'm like the guy on the left before he "changes" sides. I think that if it's in the Bible it is true, so BAM i should be put to death.
buggyiscool 1 month ago
how do objectivists fit into this?
tehCavil 1 month ago
@darkmatter2525 You got the christian dogma down pat. When i was coming up these were the exact excuses I got as to why god changed his mind so much.
kmcl11 1 month ago
I knew it the Alien is god
thejustin9000 1 month ago in playlist Atheistic Animations
I kinda think (my own philosophy) morality works on two plains, the "now" and the "always"...
What is wrong "now? Well, it changes depending on when, where, and who you are...
What is wrong "always"? Whatever harms human life! Why? Cuz we are humans xD... simple as that! Ask a dog and you'll get a diferent answer...
GoozaBF 1 month ago
While this video makes a good point, it fails to mention the Achilles Heel of subjective morality. If morality is subjective then who is to say what Hitler did was wrong? Who is to say anything is wrong at all, if morality is subjective? Subjective morality just doesn't work.
So is morality objective or subjective? Answer: both. Some parts of morality are subjective, and some are objective.
The reason Christians focus on objective morals is because it leaves Atheists with a bit of a conundrum.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 society decides.......
rooney14282 1 month ago
@rooney14282
So theoretically, if society decided slavery of black people was ok again, then it magically would be? When black people were slaves in America pre-1860 it was ok? What if society decided that black people can't vote anymore?
Tell me, if poor treatment of a race is ok, why did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. push so hard for equality in the 60s? Society at the time said it was ok to discriminate, yet we say MLK was right in what he wanted and asked for.
vader421138 1 month ago
@rooney14282
If society decides it is wrong for gay people to marry, should they stop fighting for the right of equality?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 No they should not, society obviously does decide what is moral as it has done so throughout human history. This does not mean that societal norms cannot be changed nor that they should not be. Societal morals are influenced by a plethora of factos, for example gay rights issues stem almost exclusively from religious sources. Slavery existed for so long because black people were not seen as "people", this stigma remained for some time causing continued racism and lingers today.
rooney14282 1 month ago
part 2- Humanity has evolved to care about other members of the species, exclusions from this are justified in the mind by an "us and them" mentality which is realistically irrelavant in todays world given how we now know all people to be almost identical. Our relative wealth and security also afford us the opportunity to be kinder to others as in earlier times this would not have been possible, the poor could not be supported then and therefore were not, different tribes were mistrusted etc
rooney14282 1 month ago
@rooney14282
So you are going from a majority standpoint? The majority decides what is or is not moral? One slight issue with this stance is what motivation is there for me to be moral? The good of humanity? I should do good or else be punished? What if I don't get caught doing wrong?
And with society deciding what is and is not moral, you run into the problem of societies such as the Nazis who persecuted Jews. That is what society decided. They weren't wrong in what they did?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 The Nazi example is seriously old, the gassing of Jews was not endorsed by German society but by a small portion of it which had control. The maltreatment of Jews, at least the extent of it was not really known, indeed there were field marshalls who did not discover the extent until around 1944. On top of this the consensus that Hitler was unanimously supported is untrue.
What incentive is there for you to be moral? Your own morality. If you dont get caught you cant be
rooney14282 1 month ago
punished, that is obvious, this is not fair but inevitable. The idea that fairness has any role to play in what "is" though is wishful thinking. In pretty much every religion as long as a person "accepts god in their heart" before their demise they can go to heaven regardless of crimes committed whilst people who have done good all their lives face oblivion. How would you punish people that are not caught?????
rooney14282 1 month ago
@rooney14282
Yes it is an old argument. While you make a good point that the whole of German society did not support Hitler, the discrimination that lead up to the holocaust was pretty well known, I think, by the German people.
So the incentive to be moral is one's own morality. Ted Bundy is an example of one who I think claimed to have no conscience. If one can escape one's conscience, then that is the only bar to freedom from moral laws?
vader421138 1 month ago
@rooney14282
And I would disagree. These needs we feel in our lives are generally because there is some fulfillment that actually exists. Hunger is a need. It would be silly to feel this need so strongly if there was no such thing as food. The desire to be loved has a fulfillment within relationships and community. Perhaps the desire for justice is more than just a fantasy.
vader421138 1 month ago
@rooney14282
And I also disagree that every religion lets one get to heaven as long as they accept God in their hearts. Karma is the main doctrine of Hinduism and Buddhism. You pay for your crimes with Karma. In Islam it is all within the will of Allah whether or not one is saved (one can never be sure). You die and hope that when you meet Allah your good deeds outweigh your bad. Judaism tries to justify themselves with the law and obeying it perfectly.
vader421138 1 month ago
@rooney14282
Which means the main religion that says such is Christianity. The doctrine is called Grace, and what it means is that, despite what all other religions believed, one cannot earn heaven based upon one's own actions. It is taught that God, knowing this, provided a way for us to be saved (that's the good news). No matter how good or bad you are, God loves you anyways and took that punishment of our crimes upon Himself.
vader421138 1 month ago
@rooney14282
By that doctrine, someone did pay: Jesus. He offers salvation to those that follow Him. It is more than just verbally assenting to a belief system: God is the judge of the universe, He will judge the heart rightly. True repentance will be forgiven. Faking it will be shown to be what it is. Does that give you a better understanding?
PS I would love to keep answering any questions you have, however the character limit can be oppressive. Perhaps messaging would be better?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 Nah its ok, the reality is that would love to believe in an afterlife, being raised in a christian household I sought justification for faith and found none. I understand the teachings of christianity- at least the normal ones- and accept that generally they are for the better. That I wish to believe is not however a reason to believe.
rooney14282 1 month ago
@rooney14282
If you'd be ok with sharing, I'd be interested to hear what some of the road-blocks were to believing.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 I just havent seen any evidence in favour of the argument that boils down to goes anything more than, we dont know and therefore god. Nor do I think it logical to take a "gamble" on a particular religion to avoid a potential hell given the infinite possibilities of judgement criterion that could be employed by a deity. Even if there was undoubtedly a god it would still make no sense to follow a particular religion which has no more evidence in favour of it than another.
rooney14282 1 month ago
@rooney14282
I have always disliked Pascal's Wager in the use for converting people to a belief. I feel like it focuses on moving towards fear as a motivation when I would prefer to move someone towards truth. Have you ever read CS Lewis' book Mere Christianity?
vader421138 1 month ago
@rooney14282
And if there was undoubtedly a god, you're right: It would make no sense to follow one or another without looking at evidences and beliefs and overall coherence within those beliefs. If you're interested in reading on the subject, I would recommend Ravi Zacharias' book Jesus Among Other Gods.
Thank you for sharing.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 i kinda see your point, if the germans had won the war then the crimes commited and the genoside would be considered "a necesary evil" by the winers. it is still a matter of perspective, i dunno why people always uses Hitler and the nazis as an example of "evil"... bit i think hiroshima and nagasaki bombing are way better examples why? well that was a "necesary evil" that saved the lives of thousands of american soldiers, right?
GoozaBF 1 month ago
@GoozaBF
If you haven't yet, do some research on what concentration camps were like. Read some of Viktor Frankl or Elie Wiesel. It is an example used often because if was recent and it is starkly obvious that what the Nazis did was wrong.
You're right, they would try to justify it as a necessary evil. So why does anyone say it is wrong to imprison and torture another if it is just their perspective?
I don't ethically agree with the bombings of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, btw.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 Morality to a extent is subjective, however basic morality as we know and what we base our "moral laws" around is simply just empathy. We are equipped as social beings to be able to work and trust one another, without empathy we would not understand how to earn another's trust, with empathy we understand morality as "Do to others as you'd like to have done to you" which is why sociopaths have "no morals" so to speak, because they do not feel empathy.
DeadButBreathing 1 month ago
@vader421138 Empathy has been linked to a certain neuron in our brain which is referred to as the "mirror neuron" it is believed that evolution provided us with this due to our need to adapt in societies and survive with one another. This is why the line of morality can get a bit hazy when in large groups (Group mentality), if everyone else is doing it, is it so wrong? That is what makes the brain support people such as Hitler, we empathize with the larger group around us too often.
DeadButBreathing 1 month ago
@DeadButBreathing
The problem with going to science with these questions is that science, while it does a great job of explaining how sometimes, cannot ultimately tell us why.
Why do I believe things are still wrong even when everyone else is doing it?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 Because as I explained even though morality can get a bit hazy because of group mentality, the basic empathy still exits, when we see a person in pain we still feel uncomfortable because our brain is sending out signals that make us feel as if we're in that situation. People can't stand to look at someone being tortured because it feels like it's mentally happening to them as well. A sociopath will find someone getting tortured fascinating or neutral on the other hand.
DeadButBreathing 1 month ago
@vader421138 However we as a species always look toward others for guidance of how we should be, therefore if a huge group of people are supporting something inhumane, even knowing that it is wrong, we might start to believe it may be right or some form of lesser evil that needs to be done (The Jews for example in Hitler's case were made to appear like the evil ones to Germans). Many moral men have been turned into monsters in war for example, our morals are according to what we see and feel.
DeadButBreathing 1 month ago
@DeadButBreathing
If it is completely a social outworking involving groups, would it be wrong for a society to ban, kill, or outcast gay people since they don't contribute to furthering the genetic survival of the human race? As long as we dehumanize them, destroy any empathy for them, then it should be ok, right? Empathy is our only barrier?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 Also no that would not be right, just like slavery was not right. Even with our empathy as our barrier, it doesn't make it right, we know that we would not like to be in that position so what gives us the right to put anyone else in that position? All it will do is cause tension and chaos and riots and it is not logical in any sense
DeadButBreathing 1 month ago
@DeadButBreathing
You say our morals are according to what we see and feel. What if I don't see or feel the pain of the discriminated gay community? To me the situation would therefore be morally neutral, right? But you say it isn't. You say it would still be wrong, just like slavery. Why? Slavery was based on the thought that black people were less than human. Many didn't have moral qualms about it (some did, though). Herd mentality said it was ok. Why was it wrong?
vader421138 1 month ago
@DeadButBreathing
Another philosophical question:
We wouldn't want to be harvested and eaten, but we do so with cows. Are you a vegetarian? Is there a difference between humans and animals?
P.S. This discussion is getting rather lengthy. I would be willing to continue it by the inbox system if you'd prefer that to discussion here. The character limit can be frustrating.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 "We wouldn't want to be harvested and eaten, but we do so with cows. Are you a vegetarian? Is there a difference between humans and animals?"
We also would rather not starve ourselves of precious and vital nutrients to sustain our health and growth. In our current, large society, breeding and herding livestock is practically a necessity to feed our large population. Simple plants won't do, and meat has readily sources of protein and fats for nutrition available in such food.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 Cont.) Eating humans would be cannibalism. Obviously, if you learned that a fellow man/woman would actually do that, then you would be less likely to trust them for in fear of being a possible course on their dinner menu. A lack of trust is very harmful in terms of societies—which are built upon cooperation. To ensure this cooperation, we instill objective morals based on society's consensus to uphold certain values. Often these values are decided by the consequences of our actions.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 Cont.) We consider that if we want to live together in as much peace as possible then we must lay down principles in which people must follow for the benefit of cooperating on this planet rather than turn to a much more unforgiving and difficult approach of competition between each other.
It's human interaction that is the source of our morals.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 Cont.) To truly answer your question though: we, humans, simply value food over life for the majority of the time in terms of animals. We do not gain attachment to them and we understand that we must consume things in order to survive. It's one of our basic behaviors as humans: staying alive. Exceptions can be made when dealing with emotional attachments, but ultimately, we recognize livestock too beneficial as a food source than another creature to be emotionally attached to.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@Scyntist
But some tribes in some countries are cannibalistic. To say it is natural not to eat other humans denies what is happening on some islands. What they are doing isn't wrong? It's just not the most efficient way of relating to other people and cooperating? You sound like you're taking a pragmatic approach to this whole thing.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 "But some tribes in some countries are cannibalistic. To say it is natural not to eat other humans denies what is happening on some islands."
I never said that it wasn't natural, now did? Tell me though—who would you be willing to trust more off from face value? A man who wasn't a cannibal or the same man who wasn't?
How advance are these tribes in terms of technology? What percentage of them die from disease? What other tribes do they cooperate with, and just how strong is this
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 Cont.) cooperation?
Do you agree that a society that frowns upon cannibalism is more healthier than a society that does not?
Scyntist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vader421138 "What they are doing isn't wrong? It's just not the most efficient way of relating to other people and cooperating? You sound like you're taking a pragmatic approach to this whole thing."
It's wrong in our society's eyes. It's wrong to many individuals because that is what we were taught while growing up. To some, however, it isn't.
Take an example: a serial killer. We have moral standards that look down upon (if not outright prohibit) the killing of another human (unless under
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 Cont.) reasonable circumstances). However, such individuals commit these acts. Why is that? Are they truly evil? Or perhaps they have different/missing/faulty thought processes that prevent the connection between others? Perhaps they may even take pleasure out of their acts. What constitutes them as evil, immoral beings? Do you believe that there is more to a society's consensus that determines right and wrong?
From what I understand, our morals are simply compromises that we make
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 COnt.) between ourselves to further our survival. After all, we would all like to live, not don't we? We have more to gain from cooperating and bonding together than to be at each other's throat, correct? These are prime reasons. We only supplement them further by teaching these at a to children so they would automatically recognize them as wrong.
Perhaps this is a pragmatic approach. I fail to see what exactly is so horrible about it though. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@Scyntist
I am not trying to deny your point that society does indeed work better with these laws in place. I agree, they do work better in these circumstances. What I was asking was if anything is inherently right or wrong that is apart from society. Basically, are there any objective morals, any at all. I think you are answering no, but I may be jumping the gun on that conclusion.
vader421138 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vader421138 "What I was asking was if anything is inherently right or wrong that is apart from society. Basically, are there any objective morals, any at all. I think you are answering no, but I may be jumping the gun on that conclusion."
Your assumption is correct. Morality, in reality, is subjective. That is my position. However, I fail to see how this makes morality any less significant—if not better—than objective morality. Perhaps your next few comments will enlighten me.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@Scyntist
I am mostly asking these questions to figure out where you stand on these issues. I'm not trying to attempt to create a viable basis of morality off of these hypothetical questions, lol.
And yes, it sounds to me like a very pragmatic approach. The trouble with pragmatism is that it doesn't work in the long run. It is concerned about the most good for the most people, but in many countries minorities are given special privileges and protections from the majority.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 "The trouble with pragmatism is that it doesn't work in the long run. It is concerned about the most good for the most people, but in many countries minorities are given special privileges and protections from the majority."
There's no denying that such things do happen; I do agree with you. However, in the case of, say, the United States—our Constitution is designed to allow law from democracy, but it has checks and balances to strike down laws that are deemed to violate
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 Cont.) basic rights. These rights were agreed upon and by living here with our society you are bound to respect and follow the rights and laws unless you re-located out of the country.
Rights come from a value judgement we have placed, based on our understanding of empathy. It is a social contract you make with others by living in the society.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@Scyntist
Also, if I read you correctly, what you're saying is there is no difference between humans and animals. It is merely the emotional attachment that is the reason for not killing animals. Therefore, is it also just the emotional attachment keeping us from killing other humans? Would it be ok if I didn't feel bad? Sure, it might not be pragmatic and beneficial to society, but would it be inherently wrong or not?
vader421138 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vader421138 "Also, if I read you correctly, what you're saying is there is no difference between humans and animals. It is merely the emotional attachment that is the reason for not killing animals. Therefore, is it also just the emotional attachment keeping us from killing other humans?"
Merely? Emotion plays a huge role in our behavior and actions, don't you agree? Why do you automatically dismiss it as insignificant? Surely if we didn't have emotion then we would be some sort of sociopath
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 Cont.) and just how healthy of a society made up of such people be? It is not easy to take away human emotion (as you seem to imply that it is a thin sheet of paper that prevents us from doing violent acts) nor is it to completely destroy bonds made from, say, an offspring to a parent. We see these kinds of relationships all the time in the animal kingdom. Even he fierce, unforgiving crocodile (whom are "natural killers") take care of their young.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 "Would it be ok if I didn't feel bad? Sure, it might not be pragmatic and beneficial to society, but would it be inherently wrong or not?"
You would be a sociopath. Do you believe that people choose to be such people by choice? Truly if you were to attempt to kill me or someone I cared about, I would attempt kill you first—after all, why should I care about your life when you obviously do not care about mine (or others)? You would be more of a danger to me and the society I live in
Scyntist 1 month ago
@Scyntist
I probably worded the sociopath question poorly, but I think you got my point.
To propose a counterpoint: The morality of other cultures isn't so different from us as you seem to think. Example: Sure a culture may disagree on whether or not one can have one spouse or several, but they all agree that you can't just have any person that you like.
vader421138 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vader421138 "If morals were societal at heart, then what right have we to compare our morality to any other nations'? Wouldn't that be pointless? We approach it with a better than/worse than view. Doesn't this imply there is an objective better or worse?"
You're forgetting that much of our morality comes from an understanding of empathy. We do compare our society with others mainly based on this emotion. Whether we do have this "right" or not depends on which reasons you want to compare it to.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 Cont.) If you wanted to compare based on objectivity of say, gay marriage for instance, then there will be no consensus between the two. If you decided to compare it on an empathy basis, however, then gay marriage would win (this example roughly follows with killing as well). Saying that something is not objectively wrong is not the same as saying it is morally permissible.
Scyntist 1 month ago
@Scyntist
Ironically, in the case of America, the phrase "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" is not a phrase that comes from empathy but a phrase that comes from the Christian world-view.
Based on our understanding of empathy, we shouldn't kill animals either then. Are you a vegetarian?
I don't believe morality and empathy are the same thing. Morality is not an instinct; empathy is. I will send you a message detailing why. Character limit and all
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 "Ironically, in the case of America, the phrase "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" is not a phrase that comes from empathy but a phrase that comes from the Christian world-view."
Ironically, no. You are leaving out the rest of the sentence: " that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." No where is that a Christian perspective—at most it is merely a
Scyntist 1 month ago
@vader421138 Cont.) **at most it is deism—not theism (as what Christianity is). In fact, many of the founding fathers were deists and despised Christianity.
Scyntist 1 month ago