RE: Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.
June 10, 2012 at 9:42 am
(This post was last modified: June 10, 2012 at 9:49 am by Mystic.)
If you don't believe in objective morality, then subjective morality is just opinion that is not really based on any reason.
You can't really say something is likely to be wrong or right, without belief that there is objective morality either.
Now ofcourse if someone is going to deny he knows "Torturing a child for fun" is wrong in a sure definite manner, then that won't prove it to him.
But I believe if a person is honest to themselves, they will realize they know it's wrong in a definite manner. Not only that, but will prohibit themselves from it in a strong manner.
The opinion of morality doesn't also seem to be like opinion of what food tastes best so I don't see the analogy. When it comes to opinions of what food tastes best, we say there is no right or wrong answer, it's a matter of different taste.
The same is not true of morality. For example, although people differ on the rule of killing apostates, people will not state, neither opinion is right or wrong, it depends on what you like.
Yes having millions of people agree on an opinion will not prove it, but my intention here is for people to reflect on their knowledge of morality.
Someone mentioned that morality doesn't have highest degree of authority to the extent it has no limit, and I want to ask, what is the limit on the "should" command of not torturing a child for fun?
And if you can know this is wrong, does it occur to you, that sincerely listening to the same thing that shows that is wrong, will also show many others thing to be wrong or right?
And if many things can be shown, why would any moral question be excluded from possible knowledge of it.
As for God's nature, I don't believe he chose it, he just rather chose to stay on that nature, but if changed from that nature, then still morality would have been eternal and not chosen and he would be leaving the state of ultimate greatness and ultimate morality.
Thanks everyone for their input. We're having an interesting conversation.
You can't really say something is likely to be wrong or right, without belief that there is objective morality either.
Now ofcourse if someone is going to deny he knows "Torturing a child for fun" is wrong in a sure definite manner, then that won't prove it to him.
But I believe if a person is honest to themselves, they will realize they know it's wrong in a definite manner. Not only that, but will prohibit themselves from it in a strong manner.
The opinion of morality doesn't also seem to be like opinion of what food tastes best so I don't see the analogy. When it comes to opinions of what food tastes best, we say there is no right or wrong answer, it's a matter of different taste.
The same is not true of morality. For example, although people differ on the rule of killing apostates, people will not state, neither opinion is right or wrong, it depends on what you like.
Yes having millions of people agree on an opinion will not prove it, but my intention here is for people to reflect on their knowledge of morality.
Someone mentioned that morality doesn't have highest degree of authority to the extent it has no limit, and I want to ask, what is the limit on the "should" command of not torturing a child for fun?
And if you can know this is wrong, does it occur to you, that sincerely listening to the same thing that shows that is wrong, will also show many others thing to be wrong or right?
And if many things can be shown, why would any moral question be excluded from possible knowledge of it.
As for God's nature, I don't believe he chose it, he just rather chose to stay on that nature, but if changed from that nature, then still morality would have been eternal and not chosen and he would be leaving the state of ultimate greatness and ultimate morality.
Thanks everyone for their input. We're having an interesting conversation.
