Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: My views on objective morality
March 28, 2016 at 11:47 pm
(March 28, 2016 at 8:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: LOL, what? But...WHY?! Poor little fella.
It's why the Empire had to switch to carbonite. If it can't harm a chocolate bunny, how could it hold Han Solo?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: My views on objective morality
April 1, 2016 at 2:03 am
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2016 at 3:53 am by Mudhammam.)
(March 27, 2016 at 10:55 am)ChadWooters Wrote: (March 27, 2016 at 1:40 am)Mudhammam Wrote: ...in which case reason continues to serve as the sole means for differentiating the good and bad natures of so-called revealed deities. (You have rendered God to be a completely redundant term that is indistinguishable from the highest possible Good).
People use reason to know about moral objects the same way they about any other type of object. This requirement to use reason would also apply to the highest good or The Good. That does not make reason itself the desired good; but rather the means by which people conceive the good.
Right, the trouble arises, as Plato pointed out, when one attempts to base the highest possible form of goodness, whatever that may be, in something other than the abstract object represented simply and absolutely by an idea of "the Good," and then substitute our sole means of discovering the nature of the Good with divine dictates which are not grounded in reason. To merely assert that God is the Good gains you nothing and obfuscates any possible rational ethical theory for one is then able to suggest (unjustly) that if God commands it - stoning adulterers, owning human beings, or condemning heathens to eternal suffering - then by His nature these suddenly become good things and perversely of which the Good sometimes expects, permits, and ignores in both Himself and others.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: My views on objective morality
April 1, 2016 at 3:29 am
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2016 at 3:30 am by robvalue.)
Yup. Equivocating, repeatedly. It's the only way to get from an arbitrary set of "good" things to what we commonly think of as good, without admitting to a separate standard by which to assess those things.
Dirty, dirty equivocating. I honestly think some people get so used to hearing it and saying it, they don't realize the error they are making.
Some probably do, but are already all-in on this and will say anything rather than reconsider.
I've been meaning to hit this with a video. I'll try and make it my next one.
