My views on objective morality
March 4, 2016 at 9:32 am
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2016 at 9:50 am by LadyForCamus.)
(March 4, 2016 at 12:32 am)The_Empress Wrote:(March 3, 2016 at 11:54 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: What exactly is "morality" anyway? I'm going to chalk this up to yet another Xtian construct, and this is unfortunate -I believe the dialogue in this thread has been hopelessly muddled on account of the argument is based on a construct of nebulous definition (as is typical with religious constructs). Then again, I have observed in my last post that an objective judgement can be made on whether something one may do is social or anti-social. Is this enough to determine whether or not it's moral? If so, then maybe we can all agree on there being objective morality, and without any need for any theistic doctrine. But I don't think it would work for any theists who insist that their controversial prohibitions and requirements are also founded on objective morality.
You can lump all Catholics in together if you really want, but their beliefs aren't all exactly the same, like whether Genesis is literal or not.
Again...therein lies the problem. This is practically the definition of subjectivity, and saying that the objective morals are "out there," and it is only human's interpretations of them that are subjective is not an excuse, and does not wiggle you out of the contradiction the way you think it does.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
