Morality versus afterlife

[robvalue]

Orange:

No, I'm not being inconsistent because I owned the whole thing as my opinion according to my morality. I wasn't claiming it was in any way an objective fact. My morality leads me to have opinions about other people's moralities. Yours does too, I'm sure. That doesn't make me right, or change anyone else's opinion of their own morality. This is just what subjective means. If you just follow orders, that is not morality. That is giving up entirely on your own judgement, and hence amoral. You're betting everything on the orders being "good" while having no way to tell if they actually are or not. If you had a way, you wouldn't need to be told what is good or bad by someone else. Alternatively, morality just means "doing what God wants" to you, and as such the consequences of your actions to other people are of no concern to you. I wouldn't call that morality. If you do call it that, we're not talking about the same thing in the slightest.

Yes, morality is an opinion because it's a value judgement. It's subjective. This isn't a problem, it's reality. Just saying it isn't good enough doesn't solve the "problem", and replacing it with some sort of divine instructions doesn't either. That is just redefining morality to be blind obedience. Finding the practical reality uncomfortable is not an argument. I understand religion often preaches objective morality, because it likes to think in binary terms. It's just that the concept is nonsense. Please see my challenge to roadrunner below, you are welcome to try also.

So again, if God started ordering you to do things, is there anything you would refuse to do? Is there any line he can cross? Try and be real here. Don't say what you'd like to think you'd do, think what you would actually do.

Roadrunner: If you want the term "objective morality" to mean anything, you need to define exactly what it is. And to help me understand, please give me an example of how it works in practice where there is some sort of conflict of interest between two competing outcomes. No one has been able to rise to this simple challenge yet. All I get are trivial situations, killing someone versus not killing them. There is no conflict there. A conflict is where you have to balance one outcome against another due to a choice that must be made, or a limited amount of resources.

I have no idea what "inane morality" is supposed to mean. Yes, most people have empathy because it's an efficient evolutionary trait in our species. So hurting others in some way feels like hurting ourselves. Morality is a judgement, things aren't just "moral" or "immoral", it requires someone to make the distinction; see above. So no, things don't become inherently moral or immoral under any circumstances, including me not having empathy, because it's a nonsensical concept.

If I just woke up tomorrow with the urge to rape someone, then I'd simply control the urge. I know it hurts people, so I don't do it. As long as I care about others I will try not to hurt them. If I no longer cared about others, I really wouldn't be me in any shape or form. Do you want to murder and rape people? If not, what it is you want to do that you would worry about being caught doing it? My point was that "getting caught" is not an issue for me personally, because I have no desire to do things that would cause me such concern.