RE: Morals - Objective and Subjective
June 29, 2014 at 8:53 am
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2014 at 9:24 am by DeistPaladin.)
(June 29, 2014 at 12:35 am)Knowledge of God Wrote: ...
You realize you have a picture of an atheist as your avatar, yes?
There is no objective morality.
This was demonstrated in the movie Terminator 2. I'll explain.
In the movie, there's this scientist that's working on a breakthrough in AI. His dream is seeing this technology used for peaceful purposes. He has no idea his breakthrough will be used to manufacture a military super computer that causes a nuclear war and attempts to kill all of humanity.
One of the protagonists learns of this scientist and how he will contribute to this nightmare future. She sets out to kill him. If morality were objective, then murdering one man, even an innocent man (since his intent was not to cause such death and destruction), in order to save the lives of 3 billion, represents a net gain of 2,999,999,999 lives. Expressed in objective, mathematical terms, this should be a bargain.
The fact that morality can't be expressed in numerical terms is evidence that it is not objective in nature. We can't plug numbers into a spreadsheet and calculate the morally correct course of action.
The subjective nature of morality is underscored by our use of the term "moral judgment". We judge, we evaluate, we form opinions on the nature of morality.
Contrary to Christian assertions, this does NOT mean that "anything goes" or that all opinions are equal. Some subjective opinions are stronger than others. If it were not so, there would be no point to a debate.
Some subjective opinions are supported by objective data. Others have only the strength of the convictions of those who argue for them. Some subjective evaluations are based on verifiable observations and repeatable experiments. Others are based only on theories that can't seem to be produced in the real world. Some ideas are put into practice that get the intended results. Others are tried only to fail and have the proponents try to explain why that one doesn't count.
Sure, it's complicated. That's no reason to plug in simple answers like "JesusWillsIt" and appeal to ignorance.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
