I gotta say it does seem like a LOT of this discussion was people showing the invalidity of theistic morality instead of answering the question...Why do so many people bring God in that discussion ? It seemed suspicious.
He has a point though right ? There is no objective moral truth, or higher moral authority, as such no one can tell anyone else that something is "wrong" or not, isn't that true ?
The evolutionary explanation explains where our morals come from, and what is best for the species as a whole. However, this is in no way binding or expressly agreed upon...If respecting morals is just to avoid going against the group's morality to keep being accepted in the group, doesn't that mean that being "good" depends only what the group considers "good", which in turns means that "good" or "bad" are concepts that are what the majority believes they are, showing that morality is in itself an argumentam ad populum and as such the basic idea of "morality" is a logical fallacy ?
He has a point though right ? There is no objective moral truth, or higher moral authority, as such no one can tell anyone else that something is "wrong" or not, isn't that true ?
The evolutionary explanation explains where our morals come from, and what is best for the species as a whole. However, this is in no way binding or expressly agreed upon...If respecting morals is just to avoid going against the group's morality to keep being accepted in the group, doesn't that mean that being "good" depends only what the group considers "good", which in turns means that "good" or "bad" are concepts that are what the majority believes they are, showing that morality is in itself an argumentam ad populum and as such the basic idea of "morality" is a logical fallacy ?
