(May 25, 2018 at 1:18 pm)Edwardo Piet Wrote:(May 24, 2018 at 6:30 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: To me, that answer is incoherent. It dodges the question and confuses the issue and in no way represents moral objectivity.
I think it's funny when theists say that they can't understand the idea of objective morality being possible without God. Because the reality is that whatever objective morality is it doesn't come down to "because I say so", whether it's an omniscient being saying so or not. If goodness is identical to God's nature then that just makes God redundant as the objective goodness is objectively good for the exact same reasons. God's saying so doesn't magically make something not objectively good become objectively good at all. That makes no sense at all. Either an action is moral or not. Either a motive is moral or not. Either something is wrong or right. God saying so is just a red herring.
(May 24, 2018 at 7:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Playing devil's advocate here, why is murder objectively wrong?
May I answer this question as well?
Of course, Ed!
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
