Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ethics/morals

Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:05:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 12:09:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
Where do they come from?

Are you asking for the metaethical foundations of morality?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:09:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:05:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/3/2015 12:09:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
Where do they come from?

Are you asking for the metaethical foundations of morality?

Sure...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:22:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:09:12 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/3/2015 3:05:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/3/2015 12:09:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
Where do they come from?

Are you asking for the metaethical foundations of morality?

Sure...
I think the most sensible account is Foot's morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives.
Fancy name, easy message:
Moral judgements cannot be intrinsically reason giving, therefore they cannot be binding for everyone, but only those who desire to be moral.
Hypothetical imperative:
1. You desire X.
2. The best way to achieve X is doing Y.
3. Therefore you should do Y.
Plug in for X world peace, end of suffering, whatever and for Y the best way to achieve the corresponding X.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:29:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Moral judgements cannot be intrinsically reason giving, therefore they cannot be binding for everyone, but only those who desire to be moral.
Hypothetical imperative:
1. You desire X.
2. The best way to achieve X is doing Y.
3. Therefore you should do Y.
Plug in for X world peace, end of suffering, whatever and for Y the best way to achieve the corresponding X.

That is simplistic indeed. Thanks.

The only issues that I see with that is it seems to equate morality with desire.

Can desires be immoral?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:30:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:29:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
Moral judgements cannot be intrinsically reason giving, therefore they cannot be binding for everyone, but only those who desire to be moral.
Hypothetical imperative:
1. You desire X.
2. The best way to achieve X is doing Y.
3. Therefore you should do Y.
Plug in for X world peace, end of suffering, whatever and for Y the best way to achieve the corresponding X.

That is simplistic indeed. Thanks.

The only issues that I see with that is it seems to equate morality with desire.

Can desires be immoral?

Or can the best way to achieve desire be immoral?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:43:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:30:27 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/3/2015 3:29:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
Moral judgements cannot be intrinsically reason giving, therefore they cannot be binding for everyone, but only those who desire to be moral.
Hypothetical imperative:
1. You desire X.
2. The best way to achieve X is doing Y.
3. Therefore you should do Y.
Plug in for X world peace, end of suffering, whatever and for Y the best way to achieve the corresponding X.

That is simplistic indeed. Thanks.

The only issues that I see with that is it seems to equate morality with desire.

Can desires be immoral?

Or can the best way to achieve desire be immoral?

That is pretty much the problem I have with it, too. It does not properly reflect the way we make moral statements. We don't say "You ought not kick your infant, if you want healthy offspring", we say "You ought not kick your infant!". The later statement is categorical as opposed to hypothetical (allegedly intrinsically reason giving and objective).
I don't think there is a foundation for morality that can easily make sense of well-known, common-sense judgements like "you ought not kill". In fact I don't think there is any at all, that's why I consider myself to be an error-theorist. I have pretty strong views concerning applied ethics, but ultimately I don't think I can give a satisfactory response to a sadistic murderer who always answers with "What's that to me? I don't care."
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:51:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:30:27 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 7/3/2015 3:29:50 PM, kasmic wrote:
Moral judgements cannot be intrinsically reason giving, therefore they cannot be binding for everyone, but only those who desire to be moral.
Hypothetical imperative:
1. You desire X.
2. The best way to achieve X is doing Y.
3. Therefore you should do Y.
Plug in for X world peace, end of suffering, whatever and for Y the best way to achieve the corresponding X.

That is simplistic indeed. Thanks.

The only issues that I see with that is it seems to equate morality with desire.

Can desires be immoral?

Or can the best way to achieve desire be immoral?

http://www.debate.org...
In case you are interested in my position.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:51:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That is pretty much the problem I have with it, too. It does not properly reflect the way we make moral statements. We don't say "You ought not kick your infant, if you want healthy offspring", we say "You ought not kick your infant!". The later statement is categorical as opposed to hypothetical (allegedly intrinsically reason giving and objective).

This is a great example, because I do feel it morally obvious (if there is such a thing) not to kick an infant.

I don't think there is a foundation for morality that can easily make sense of well-known, common-sense judgements like "you ought not kill". In fact I don't think there is any at all, that's why I consider myself to be an error-theorist. I have pretty strong views concerning applied ethics, but ultimately I don't think I can give a satisfactory response to a sadistic murderer who always answers with "What's that to me? I don't care."

My whole life I assumed the foundation was divine... but as you are aware, that is no longer an assumption I accept.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:56:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 12:09:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
Where do they come from?

Ethics/Morals are determined by society. In a society/world where we were all extremist fundamental Muslim's; suicide bombing a park for Allah and go to heaven would be a heroic act and regarded by the society as a moral thing.

This is why we cannot morally justify historic events. I once wrote a paper on whether or not the bombing of Heroshima and Nagasaki was a moral thing to do. About half way through i realized that I was comparing the scenario to a differend standard.

I was deciding whether or not it was justifialable by today's moral standards, which are different than the moral standards back then, not significently different, but still noticable.

Hundreds of years ago it was moral to burn someone alive if they were a witch, this was seen as a moral act. By today's standards, this is seen as cruel.

Morals/ethics are determined by society.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:58:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:51:44 PM, kasmic wrote:
That is pretty much the problem I have with it, too. It does not properly reflect the way we make moral statements. We don't say "You ought not kick your infant, if you want healthy offspring", we say "You ought not kick your infant!". The later statement is categorical as opposed to hypothetical (allegedly intrinsically reason giving and objective).

This is a great example, because I do feel it morally obvious (if there is such a thing) not to kick an infant.

I don't think there is a foundation for morality that can easily make sense of well-known, common-sense judgements like "you ought not kill". In fact I don't think there is any at all, that's why I consider myself to be an error-theorist. I have pretty strong views concerning applied ethics, but ultimately I don't think I can give a satisfactory response to a sadistic murderer who always answers with "What's that to me? I don't care."

My whole life I assumed the foundation was divine... but as you are aware, that is no longer an assumption I accept.

Consider the moral ontological argument:
P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2) Obective moral values do exist.
C) Therefore God.

On the internet people are mostly going to deny the 2. premise. In professional philosophy it would be the first. I for once deny both.
The thing is, even if there is a divine being in this world, it did not create any objective values. Error-theoretic considerations apply to divine command theory, too.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 3:59:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:56:48 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 7/3/2015 12:09:05 PM, kasmic wrote:
Where do they come from?

Ethics/Morals are determined by society. In a society/world where we were all extremist fundamental Muslim's; suicide bombing a park for Allah and go to heaven would be a heroic act and regarded by the society as a moral thing.

This is why we cannot morally justify historic events. I once wrote a paper on whether or not the bombing of Heroshima and Nagasaki was a moral thing to do. About half way through i realized that I was comparing the scenario to a differend standard.

I was deciding whether or not it was justifialable by today's moral standards, which are different than the moral standards back then, not significently different, but still noticable.

Hundreds of years ago it was moral to burn someone alive if they were a witch, this was seen as a moral act. By today's standards, this is seen as cruel.

Morals/ethics are determined by society.

Great examples.

I am of the opinion that the bombings were not morally justified. The hard part there is those who justify it do so with utilitarian arguments. Cost/benefit analysis. Not to say morals don't function that way, but I am curious to see if there are objective morals. Though if society is the author of morals than they would have to be subjective.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:01:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Consider the moral ontological argument:
P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2) Obective moral values do exist.
C) Therefore God.


I have heard this before. The issue I have with this is that I am not sold that objective morals could not exist without a God per se.

That is not to say that I am of the opinion that there is objective morality. I just have not ruled out the possibility.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:11:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:51:44 PM, kasmic wrote:
That is pretty much the problem I have with it, too. It does not properly reflect the way we make moral statements. We don't say "You ought not kick your infant, if you want healthy offspring", we say "You ought not kick your infant!". The later statement is categorical as opposed to hypothetical (allegedly intrinsically reason giving and objective).

This is a great example, because I do feel it morally obvious (if there is such a thing) not to kick an infant.

I don't think there is a foundation for morality that can easily make sense of well-known, common-sense judgements like "you ought not kill". In fact I don't think there is any at all, that's why I consider myself to be an error-theorist. I have pretty strong views concerning applied ethics, but ultimately I don't think I can give a satisfactory response to a sadistic murderer who always answers with "What's that to me? I don't care."

My whole life I assumed the foundation was divine... but as you are aware, that is no longer an assumption I accept.


Same here. I wondered, "If our morality all comes from the same place (God), then why are there so many disagreements?" and, "As much as we disagree, there does tend to be a general consensus about the major things like murder, rape, theft, etc. Could there be an explanation for this that doesn't involve God?"

Asking questions like that is why I have the position I do today. I haven't done a ton of reading into moral nihilism or error theory, but from what I've read so far they seem to fit my beliefs.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:13:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:07:32 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Question, where do you derive objective morality from?

That is one implied question of this thread.

If morality is objective, where does it come from?

God? Nature? what?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:15:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:11:07 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/3/2015 3:51:44 PM, kasmic wrote:
That is pretty much the problem I have with it, too. It does not properly reflect the way we make moral statements. We don't say "You ought not kick your infant, if you want healthy offspring", we say "You ought not kick your infant!". The later statement is categorical as opposed to hypothetical (allegedly intrinsically reason giving and objective).

This is a great example, because I do feel it morally obvious (if there is such a thing) not to kick an infant.

I don't think there is a foundation for morality that can easily make sense of well-known, common-sense judgements like "you ought not kill". In fact I don't think there is any at all, that's why I consider myself to be an error-theorist. I have pretty strong views concerning applied ethics, but ultimately I don't think I can give a satisfactory response to a sadistic murderer who always answers with "What's that to me? I don't care."

My whole life I assumed the foundation was divine... but as you are aware, that is no longer an assumption I accept.


Same here. I wondered, "If our morality all comes from the same place (God), then why are there so many disagreements?" and, "As much as we disagree, there does tend to be a general consensus about the major things like murder, rape, theft, etc. Could there be an explanation for this that doesn't involve God?"

Asking questions like that is why I have the position I do today. I haven't done a ton of reading into moral nihilism or error theory, but from what I've read so far they seem to fit my beliefs.

Moral nihilism has no arguments in favor of it that I am aware of. Error-theory however has:
http://www.debate.org...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:16:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 3:58:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/3/2015 3:51:44 PM, kasmic wrote:
That is pretty much the problem I have with it, too. It does not properly reflect the way we make moral statements. We don't say "You ought not kick your infant, if you want healthy offspring", we say "You ought not kick your infant!". The later statement is categorical as opposed to hypothetical (allegedly intrinsically reason giving and objective).

This is a great example, because I do feel it morally obvious (if there is such a thing) not to kick an infant.

I don't think there is a foundation for morality that can easily make sense of well-known, common-sense judgements like "you ought not kill". In fact I don't think there is any at all, that's why I consider myself to be an error-theorist. I have pretty strong views concerning applied ethics, but ultimately I don't think I can give a satisfactory response to a sadistic murderer who always answers with "What's that to me? I don't care."

My whole life I assumed the foundation was divine... but as you are aware, that is no longer an assumption I accept.

Consider the moral ontological argument:
P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2) Obective moral values do exist.
C) Therefore God.

On the internet people are mostly going to deny the 2. premise. In professional philosophy it would be the first. I for once deny both.
The thing is, even if there is a divine being in this world, it did not create any objective values. Error-theoretic considerations apply to divine command theory, too.

Oh man, it's funny to see that again. I also focused on P2 in my discussion, but I do deny both. Oh well, next time someone throws that one at me I'll be better prepared, thanks if part to your responses from my thread, so thanks for that.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:21:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:15:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Moral nihilism has no arguments in favor of it that I am aware of. Error-theory however has:
http://www.debate.org...

Thanks. Since we're on the subject, are there any other good websites, books or philosophers you'd recommend checking out if we wanted to learn more about this stuff? Not just error theory but different moral and ethical philosophies in general?

I mean I already use wikipedia and rationalwiki and stuff like that, but I figured I'd ask in case there were some resources I don't know about yet.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:30:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is my take/opinion

Morality, for it to be the correct moral standard, must be objective. It cannot be subjective, because if it is, then it would no longer be absolute. If morality wasn't absolute, then murder could be considered good or bad, it wouldn't matter. There are many other problems with subjective morality.

Another thing people don't think about is, why should we be moral? If morality exists, why should we be moral in the first place? If we derive our morals from nature, why should we follow it? It doesn't matter.
We must take our morality from God. If its from nature, then who cares if we follow it or not?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:32:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:21:22 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/3/2015 4:15:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Moral nihilism has no arguments in favor of it that I am aware of. Error-theory however has:
http://www.debate.org...

Thanks. Since we're on the subject, are there any other good websites, books or philosophers you'd recommend checking out if we wanted to learn more about this stuff? Not just error theory but different moral and ethical philosophies in general?
Error-Theory:
J.L. Makie (the guy on my pic, gotta love him) - Ethics. Inventing Right and Wrong.
R. Joyce - The Myth of Morality

Metaethics:
Alex Miller - Contemporary Metaethics: An Introduction

Anything by Blackburn, McDowell, Railton, Koorsgaard.

I mean I already use wikipedia and rationalwiki and stuff like that, but I figured I'd ask in case there were some resources I don't know about yet.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be the proper sources on the subject.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:39:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:34:44 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want your thoughts on it, not some website's take on it.

Is this addressed at me?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:40:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:32:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/3/2015 4:21:22 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/3/2015 4:15:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Moral nihilism has no arguments in favor of it that I am aware of. Error-theory however has:
http://www.debate.org...

Thanks. Since we're on the subject, are there any other good websites, books or philosophers you'd recommend checking out if we wanted to learn more about this stuff? Not just error theory but different moral and ethical philosophies in general?
Error-Theory:
J.L. Makie (the guy on my pic, gotta love him) - Ethics. Inventing Right and Wrong.
R. Joyce - The Myth of Morality

Metaethics:
Alex Miller - Contemporary Metaethics: An Introduction

Anything by Blackburn, McDowell, Railton, Koorsgaard.


I mean I already use wikipedia and rationalwiki and stuff like that, but I figured I'd ask in case there were some resources I don't know about yet.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be the proper sources on the subject.

Thanks a bunch dude!
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:43:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:30:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Here is my take/opinion

Morality, for it to be the correct moral standard, must be objective. It cannot be subjective, because if it is, then it would no longer be absolute. If morality wasn't absolute, then murder could be considered good or bad, it wouldn't matter. There are many other problems with subjective morality.

So consequential ethics would argue that the outcome is what makes an action moral or not. So murder, hypothetically could be moral if by murdering one you save thousands etc...

Another thing people don't think about is, why should we be moral? If morality exists, why should we be moral in the first place? If we derive our morals from nature, why should we follow it? It doesn't matter.
We must take our morality from God. If its from nature, then who cares if we follow it or not?

So are you saying that if we have any morals, that necessitates God's existence?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:44:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:34:44 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
I want your thoughts on it, not some website's take on it.

I think you may have confused his response to me as a reponse to your question.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:49:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:40:26 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/3/2015 4:32:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/3/2015 4:21:22 PM, Cryo wrote:
At 7/3/2015 4:15:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Moral nihilism has no arguments in favor of it that I am aware of. Error-theory however has:
http://www.debate.org...

Thanks. Since we're on the subject, are there any other good websites, books or philosophers you'd recommend checking out if we wanted to learn more about this stuff? Not just error theory but different moral and ethical philosophies in general?
Error-Theory:
J.L. Makie (the guy on my pic, gotta love him) - Ethics. Inventing Right and Wrong.
R. Joyce - The Myth of Morality

Metaethics:
Alex Miller - Contemporary Metaethics: An Introduction

Anything by Blackburn, McDowell, Railton, Koorsgaard.


I mean I already use wikipedia and rationalwiki and stuff like that, but I figured I'd ask in case there were some resources I don't know about yet.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be the proper sources on the subject.

Thanks a bunch dude!
My pleasure. Joyce's book is pretty hard, so I would not recommend it as strongly.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:50:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Forums always confuse me xD
I was saying I'm here to disuses with anyone

And morality does presuppose God. But the more important (and probably more controversial) topic is what God is the real God? That is important in determining what set of morals we should follow.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 4:52:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 4:30:49 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
Here is my take/opinion

Morality, for it to be the correct moral standard, must be objective. It cannot be subjective, because if it is, then it would no longer be absolute. If morality wasn't absolute, then murder could be considered good or bad, it wouldn't matter. There are many other problems with subjective morality.

Another thing people don't think about is, why should we be moral? If morality exists, why should we be moral in the first place? If we derive our morals from nature, why should we follow it? It doesn't matter.
We must take our morality from God. If its from nature, then who cares if we follow it or not?
Or we dispose of morality all together. This is more of an appeal to the consequences as an actual argument.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic