RE: Do atheists even need an objective moral system?
January 5, 2013 at 2:00 am
(This post was last modified: January 5, 2013 at 2:00 am by yardmeat.)
I guess I come from the point of view that, if you want to use force/violence to violate someone’s will, it is your burden of proof to justify your action. Rape and slavery should be considered unjustified by default just as God should not be assumed to exist by default. The person claiming that God exists has a burden of proof to fulfill and so does the moron who claims that rape or slavery are justified. All that is required for a rudimentary objective morality are empathy and reason.
I think an important distinction to make here is objective vs subjective and relative vs absolute. Morality can be both objective an relative. For example, it could depend on the circumstances involved but be independent of personal tastes.
But how are moral nihilists any more justified in their position than theists are? I mean, even a theist that acknowledges that God does not exist could just say that they just personally prefer fiction over truth the same way someone might prefer cheddar over Swiss or rape over consent.
I think an important distinction to make here is objective vs subjective and relative vs absolute. Morality can be both objective an relative. For example, it could depend on the circumstances involved but be independent of personal tastes.
But how are moral nihilists any more justified in their position than theists are? I mean, even a theist that acknowledges that God does not exist could just say that they just personally prefer fiction over truth the same way someone might prefer cheddar over Swiss or rape over consent.
