RE: How to easily defeat any argument for God
August 14, 2019 at 9:23 am
(This post was last modified: August 14, 2019 at 9:29 am by LadyForCamus.)
(August 13, 2019 at 9:12 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(August 13, 2019 at 5:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, and why shouldn’t we hurt people, Acro? Who or what decides these “oughts” that aren’t, according to you, at all related to physical well-being? Is “The Good” concerned with well-being? Yes, or no?
I wonder if any of us can justify these things.
Why shouldn't we hurt people? Because it works against the wellbeing of them and our society.
Why is it bad to work against that wellbeing? Because we want wellbeing.
Why is it good to want wellbeing? Because we just want it.....
If these ethical principles ultimately come down to habit, or preferences, then they may just change.
I dunno, Bel. I don’t think it’s ever going change that most beings want to be. It’s kind of that thing unique to us, lol. As long as that fact remains true, “goods” and “bads” with reference to well-being, can be objective. I mean, what are we even talking about if we aren’t talking about well-being? What does “morally good” or “morally bad” even mean outside of the context of living beings? Acro refuses to consider these facts, and as a result he’s left with the only other explanation available to him regarding ‘what is good’:
“It just is.”
Who decides that it “is”? A god? How can we know what a god thinks is good? Does he have to justify his morality with reference to well-being, or do we just do as told; no questions asked? That’s not a superior alternative to moral realism, lol. Further, if we don’t have to justify our morality using any facts about reality, it’s far more susceptible to whim and preference. “I just know”, and “it just is”, can be used by anyone in defense of literally anything. How reliable is a method that can lead to mutually exclusive conclusions?
