RE: Morality IS without God
April 1, 2013 at 11:38 am
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2013 at 12:41 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
(April 1, 2013 at 11:31 am)Drich Wrote: You do understand that Jesus defines our 'morality' as self righteousness right? If so why use self righteousness to try and gauge or understand God?
1) I don't know why any one person's definition of morality is more important than another's.
2) Without understanding your interpretation of God's intentions or expectations, I don't know of any one person's definition that would be helpful in gauging or understanding what God is to you.
(April 1, 2013 at 11:27 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Me: This is non-sequitur. Moreover objective morality and relative morality are not mutually exclusive from my perspective, because I believe ultimately morality boils down to the intention behind the act.
I agree that knowing what a person's true intentions behind an act would help me to personally decide what I think about their actions, whether right or wrong.
But as you said, without redefining the word "objective" in the absolute sense, the reminder of that which may be percieved as good by you and could still be viewed as bad by me, regardless of understanding the intentions. We may very well agree on the intentions but disagree on the action or any other combination of the variables.
I just think there are too many variables to incapsulate any one descision in a definitive category. There are too many angles too consider and we could both logically arrive at different conclusions. This is not the case with any other logical absolutes. This is what we would expect of something should it be purely subjective.
(April 1, 2013 at 11:27 am)MysticKnight Wrote: What ultimately boils down to the need of God, is the very "spirit" of "goodness". I mean spirit metaphorically, and not talking about supernatural soul. I mean the force behind the intention, which has various degrees.
Once we can agree the spirit has a basis, and we can agree on "good will" in general towards others, a lot of morals can be derived from reason and logic, and they would be correct.
Yes. If one is to assert that such acts are the products of a "spiritual force" than a God would need to be proven.
I see no reason to believe that such general rules exist without even their own variations of supposed limits.
Unconditional good to others sounds great as a concept but even certain interpretations of the very God responsible for such concepts cannot be described[/quote] as having such an attribute.
There is no grounded reason to believe that absolute morals should exist and all discourse points to it being purely subjective in every sense but hypothetical or conceptual. This is the way such things should be viewed I think, much like Aristotle's approach to the platonic forms.
Without objects that can take the shape of circularity, the idea of perfect roundness in itself loses meaning. So the concept of perfect circularity is not as valuable as the objects that practice in the form of circularity. Circularity is contingent upon an object being able to participate in it.
Do you agree?
