RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
October 24, 2013 at 8:59 pm
(This post was last modified: October 24, 2013 at 9:03 pm by bennyboy.)
In the end, I think it comes down to this: morality is about "right" behavior, and establishing rightness of action requires a goal for that action.
If the goal is happiness, the cannibal is right to eat the child. If the goal is preservation of the world, removing people probably doesn't hurt. If the goal is to maintain the social contract, extending mutual safety to all, then the cannibal is wrong to eat the child.
But what objective goals could we look to as a measure for the "rightness" of behaviors? Survival? Pleasure/pain ratio? Adhering to scripture? Choosing any of these is ITSELF a subjective process.
If the goal is happiness, the cannibal is right to eat the child. If the goal is preservation of the world, removing people probably doesn't hurt. If the goal is to maintain the social contract, extending mutual safety to all, then the cannibal is wrong to eat the child.
But what objective goals could we look to as a measure for the "rightness" of behaviors? Survival? Pleasure/pain ratio? Adhering to scripture? Choosing any of these is ITSELF a subjective process.
(October 24, 2013 at 8:53 pm)genkaus Wrote: Its the other way around. The ideas about what is good or bad depends on the morality you've chosen. That your choice of morality can vary due to subjective experience does not preclude the possibility of there being an objective one.How would you know if you ever found one? What non-arbitrary or non-subjective criteria could you use to establish that any morality is objective?
