RE: Theist ➤ Why ☠ Atheism is Evil Compared to ✠ Christianity
November 20, 2016 at 10:09 am
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2016 at 10:14 am by Edwardo Piet.)
@ the OP
I disagree that without God morals have to be subjective.
Objective morals can simply be that there are objective answers in principle to moral questions once we define what moral questions are about. Just like with health. Once it is defined what health is, there are objective answers to what is healthy and unhealthy and there would be in principle even if we were not able to discover those answers in practice.
Epistemically objective morals =/= ontologically objective morals. Moral ontology is nonsense anyway. A science of well being can be objective in principle the same way that science of health can. Why call that morality? Well, there's value in valuing well being when it comes to answers to moral questions. Anyway who says "But why should we even care about well being or morality?" can be laughed at the same way anyone who asks why we should even care about health or the truth can be laughed at.
Morality is about what we ought to do and immorality is about what we ought not to do. When someone asks "Who says we ought to value well-being?" the answer is that we already do value well-being and it makes no sense to ask why we ought to value something we already value. And in fact well-being is the only thing we can value, because anything else we value is in relation to it and we're deluding ourselves if we think otherwise. That's the point.
I disagree that without God morals have to be subjective.
Objective morals can simply be that there are objective answers in principle to moral questions once we define what moral questions are about. Just like with health. Once it is defined what health is, there are objective answers to what is healthy and unhealthy and there would be in principle even if we were not able to discover those answers in practice.
Epistemically objective morals =/= ontologically objective morals. Moral ontology is nonsense anyway. A science of well being can be objective in principle the same way that science of health can. Why call that morality? Well, there's value in valuing well being when it comes to answers to moral questions. Anyway who says "But why should we even care about well being or morality?" can be laughed at the same way anyone who asks why we should even care about health or the truth can be laughed at.
Morality is about what we ought to do and immorality is about what we ought not to do. When someone asks "Who says we ought to value well-being?" the answer is that we already do value well-being and it makes no sense to ask why we ought to value something we already value. And in fact well-being is the only thing we can value, because anything else we value is in relation to it and we're deluding ourselves if we think otherwise. That's the point.
