RE: God & Objective Morals
May 2, 2013 at 2:27 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2013 at 3:02 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Fallen,
I'd like to address your specific comments, but in the meantime I thought to share this video. It seems old, but it is new to me. And I thought it generally reflected my opinion about that the logical conclusion of atheism is moral nihilism (in addition to other forms of nihilism). At the same time, I anticipate finding a defense of some objective morality, with which I disagree. As stated above, my current opinion is that it is subjective, but not arbitrary.
I think you are still stuck on the idea that I am defending a basis for an objective morality. I am not. Indeed, my revision of Premise I is subjective. It refers to the moral agent’s judgment about what they believe they should do.
Here is my point. You cannot escape your freedom. Now based on this existential choice, how can you select a moral standard that provides a useful reference? To what can you point as a consistent measure with which you can evaluate your actions and which if applied as a common standard would be universally just? Personally, I believe the Love of Christ, whether real or imagined, satisfies this criterion.
I'd like to address your specific comments, but in the meantime I thought to share this video. It seems old, but it is new to me. And I thought it generally reflected my opinion about that the logical conclusion of atheism is moral nihilism (in addition to other forms of nihilism). At the same time, I anticipate finding a defense of some objective morality, with which I disagree. As stated above, my current opinion is that it is subjective, but not arbitrary.
(April 29, 2013 at 11:57 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I still think AH would be considered a morally good person even after the revision of (I) & (II):… I think what is happening here is something kind of like what happens to +ve and -ve numbers…as soon as we chuck something subjective into the mix of objectivity, the outcome is something subjective…EDIT: I think the contradiction is that in (I), "Jesus' love" is being subject to a subjective context whereas in (II) it is being subject to an objective context, meaning that one is not equal to the other i.e. "Jesus' love" in (I) is different to "Jesus' love" in (II) and hence the conflict between (I) & (II) as you want me to understand them.
I think you are still stuck on the idea that I am defending a basis for an objective morality. I am not. Indeed, my revision of Premise I is subjective. It refers to the moral agent’s judgment about what they believe they should do.
Here is my point. You cannot escape your freedom. Now based on this existential choice, how can you select a moral standard that provides a useful reference? To what can you point as a consistent measure with which you can evaluate your actions and which if applied as a common standard would be universally just? Personally, I believe the Love of Christ, whether real or imagined, satisfies this criterion.
