RE: Apologetics open challenge
October 1, 2015 at 8:04 pm
(This post was last modified: October 1, 2015 at 8:06 pm by Mystic.)
What I'm suggesting is given a person has this amount of knowledge or experience or is in a certain state, he is expected to come up with a certain type of judgement and perception. Sometimes that judgement can be off, but without any objective reality of morality, then in general different relative morality would not be better then another as far as being morally better (some obviously will have better outputs in some areas of life).
For example if a person believed there is no such thing as right or wrong, I believe it would still be "evil" for him to kill people and think it's ok. It doesn't mean simply because a person believes something is ok, that it is ok.
Our judgement itself has an objective value and is objectively measured, that is why we think some moral views are better then others, even if not absolutely perfect.
That said, the argument simply relies on that the morality we are speaking about is not arbitrary.
So if you define relative morality as not totally arbitrary, but that even has some standards, then the argument would extend to relative morality, and say that cannot be created either. The fact it cannot be simply created shows it's eternal and in reality stems from an objective reality of morality.
If you say relative morality is arbitrary, then this how I understand it to be defined, but it would mean there is no true good action given any judgement or motive, it's simply made up in our heads through evolutionary feelings.
Honor, praise, greatness, goodness, all this would just be in our heads, with no real truth to them.
For example if a person believed there is no such thing as right or wrong, I believe it would still be "evil" for him to kill people and think it's ok. It doesn't mean simply because a person believes something is ok, that it is ok.
Our judgement itself has an objective value and is objectively measured, that is why we think some moral views are better then others, even if not absolutely perfect.
That said, the argument simply relies on that the morality we are speaking about is not arbitrary.
So if you define relative morality as not totally arbitrary, but that even has some standards, then the argument would extend to relative morality, and say that cannot be created either. The fact it cannot be simply created shows it's eternal and in reality stems from an objective reality of morality.
If you say relative morality is arbitrary, then this how I understand it to be defined, but it would mean there is no true good action given any judgement or motive, it's simply made up in our heads through evolutionary feelings.
Honor, praise, greatness, goodness, all this would just be in our heads, with no real truth to them.
