RE: Do atheists even need an objective moral system?
December 31, 2012 at 6:06 pm
(This post was last modified: December 31, 2012 at 6:11 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(December 31, 2012 at 5:25 pm)Chuck Wrote:(December 12, 2012 at 8:21 pm)Annik Wrote: "Right" and "wrong" and subjective. All moral/value systems are subjective.
No, what should be the goal of the system of morality is subjective. But once the goals are defined, the rest of the system is in principle capable of being objective in its pursuit.
Still, the "goals" are ultimately purely arbitrary which is what my point is.
(December 31, 2012 at 4:24 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: ...
The question would of course arise of what sort of society do we become if we all follow this code. ( or maybe are as although many profess religion myself included how many really live up to it)
That's the appeal to consequences fallacy that usually comes up in discussions such as this. It's irrelevant to the issue. The consequences of a position does not affect the truthfulness of a position.
(December 31, 2012 at 6:02 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: ... Intuitively I think some aspects of morality ARE objective, we seem to be able to agree that using a live human baby as a hockey puck for the fun of it would be wrong, and I think agreement on extreme cases points to something, but I don't see that as proof....
Yet for some, "intuition" says otherwise.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
