List of reasons to believe God exists?

[henryp]

Grandizer, this is absurd.  Do you agree with this?

I don't understand Tizheruk's second sentence, but as for the first sentence, I don't see it as absurd. I don't necessarily fully agree with harm-based morality, but it is objective in the sense that if there is harm involved, then it's not a good thing. Harm, bad. No harm, not bad. Objective morality need not be grounded in a person, it can be grounded in concepts such as pain or harm. But I think harm-based system does pose a problem in that the perception of harm itself is subjective to the person upon which the supposed harmful action is being inflicted on. Some people may not be harmed by the stuff other people say, but the same stuff could harm others. So is it bad for the latter group of people, but not the former? I don't know. I'm clearly not a moral philosopher, so I don't wish to speak with authority on this matter.

Do you think sharing a species designation is enough to objectively invest me in the well-being of 8 billion other humans?  Isn't that arbitrary.  Oh you're a human?  I'm a human too!  I guess that means we have overarching objective behavioral guidelines linking us and the other few billion animals sort of like us.  How could we not, we have some genetic similarities!

Doesn't that seem silly?  It seems silly to me.  But you need that premise for harm being objectively bad.  You need me to view you and all other humans being harmed as objectively bad, or it doesn't work.  If I'm indifferent to you being harmed, then you being harmed being bad is subjective, no?  Super easy example is ants.  I genocided the shit out of a bunch of ants this year.  Wiped out a couple colonies.  Some serious harm was doled out.  I did not receive any calls from Geneva about facing war crimes.  There were no Ants-rights people picketing the pesticide section of the Home Depot.

I get it.  It'd be nice.  It'd be cool if everyone agreed harming each other was bad.  It could be a practical solution.  We could make it a social law.  Create some sort of social contract that people agree to.  But that's not really morality.  That's an agreement you can opt into (and out of).   And isn't that enough?  Why pretend there's more when there's not?