If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong

[AngelThMan]

Why don't you stop with your stupid armchair psychology? We are having a philosophical discussion. Why ruin it with childish nonsense??

"The moral codes we all work under are typically agreed upon codes."

So then in societies where the majority approved of slavery, slavery was morally sound? Answer the question directly without derailing the conversation. Last change before I stop reading your replies. Stick to the topic

Yes. In fact, it is largely majority approval which is what makes a practice morally sound.

Boru

So then there's no right or wrong. Just what one society thinks, which could change. Why should anyone care what that society thinks? Their morality is not a truth of the universe, just that society's. Someone might just decide to remove themselves from the societal ideas. Jimmy Saville didn't follow his society's values. Why should he care what others think? Subjective morality is not binding to anyone other than those who hold it. Therefore, there's no right or wrong.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes. In fact, it is largely majority approval which is what makes a practice morally sound.

Boru

So then there's no right or wrong. Just what one society thinks, which could change. Why should anyone care what that society thinks? Their morality is not a truth of the universe, just that society's. Someone might just decide to remove themselves from the societal ideas. Jimmy Saville didn't follow his society's values. Why should he care what others think? Subjective morality is not binding to anyone other than those who hold it. Therefore, there's no right or wrong.

Of course there’s right and wrong. I don’t know how I can make my position any more clear than I already have.

People should care what society thinks because they’re part of that society.

Correct, morality is not and never has been ‘a truth of the universe.’

Yes, people DO remove themselves from society ideals. In many cases, we refer to such people as ‘criminals.’ But you’re attempting a pointless point with this one. Even if there were Universal Moral Absolutes, there’s no guarantee that people would adhere to them, God or no God.

I’m tired of talking about Jimmy Savile [note correct spelling], other than to say the he obviously DID care what other thought, since he took great pains to hide his immoral actions.

Subjective morality is not binding to anyone other than those who hold it. Therefore, there's no right or wrong.

This is a non sequitur - there IS right and wrong, even under subjective morality.

Boru

[Ravenshire]

That’s kind of a redundant statement, but yes. Masters raping slaves, husbands raping wives, fathers raping their children, lords raping their subjects - ALL of these were, at one time or another, positive moral behaviours, justified (in some cases) by Holy Writ.

Boru

Can you just give a straight answer without rhetoric? Was rape moral when it was accepted? Yes or no. No explanation is needed. I'm asking about your perspective. You and other said there's no objective morality, and that it's all about subjective morality. Stick to that topic

He just gave you his perspective and stayed well within the bounds of the topic. You can't separate the explanation from the affirmative and still give a perspective. Your insistence on yes/no answers strikes as an attempt at some "gotcha" moment you're trying to set up.

[Ravenshire]

No one is "right." The moral codes we all work under are typically agreed upon codes. It is generally agreed that rape, murder, slavery, stealing, etc... are wrong, and there is a minority that disagrees. It's still a subjective standard. That's why stealing for personal enrichment is typically reviled and stealing to feed your kids is typically understood and easily forgiven.

That you need these things spelled out makes me wonder if the only thing keeping you from a raping, murdering, stealing rampage is the fear that some imaginary figure from an ancient text will spank you in the "next life."

Why don't you stop with your stupid armchair psychology? We are having a philosophical discussion. Why ruin it with childish nonsense??

"The moral codes we all work under are typically agreed upon codes."

So then in societies where the majority approved of slavery, slavery was morally sound? Answer the question directly without derailing the conversation. Last change before I stop reading your replies. Stick to the topic

According to the morality of that society, they felt their morality was sound. That's how morality works you fucking tool. How you or I or the majority alive today feels about the soundness of their morality is completely irrelevant. Just as future generations feelings about our morality will be completely irrelevant. Every society in every era has had differing, sometimes conflicting morality. A common moral code is what allows a society to function, even if you think their morals stink.

And quit trying to direct the discourse of others with your petty threats. Fucking ignore me if you can't take it. Talk about taking a conversation off topic!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Can you just give a straight answer without rhetoric? Was rape moral when it was accepted? Yes or no. No explanation is needed. I'm asking about your perspective. You and other said there's no objective morality, and that it's all about subjective morality. Stick to that topic

He just gave you his perspective and stayed well within the bounds of the topic. You can't separate the explanation from the affirmative and still give a perspective. Your insistence on yes/no answers strikes as an attempt at some "gotcha" moment you're trying to set up.

Exactly. He’s looking for the answers he wants, whether those answers are right or wrong. Boru don’t play dat.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

...and you're wrong.  In fact.  That's that, right?  You and I and ayone else can continue to have disputes about the proper ethical system to adopt...but you were just plain and simply wrong with the claim you came in with.  I'm sorry, but theres no point in going any further unless you're willing to acknowledge that the sun rises in the east.  Right and wrong are not empty sets, regardless of whether or not gods exist.

My point is about morality. You're switching the topic to "truth." That's a red herring fallacy. Yes, the sun rises in the east. That dictates nothing about our moral duties. There is no obligation you can deduce from that

If the topic is objective morality how can a discussion of true statements possibly be a change of subject?

[AngelThMan]

So then there's no right or wrong. Just what one society thinks, which could change. Why should anyone care what that society thinks? Their morality is not a truth of the universe, just that society's. Someone might just decide to remove themselves from the societal ideas. Jimmy Saville didn't follow his society's values. Why should he care what others think? Subjective morality is not binding to anyone other than those who hold it. Therefore, there's no right or wrong.

Of course there’s right and wrong. I don’t know how I can make my position any more clear than I already have.

People should care what society thinks because they’re part of that society.

Correct, morality is not and never has been ‘a truth of the universe.’

Yes, people DO remove themselves from society ideals. In many cases, we refer to such people as ‘criminals.’ But you’re attempting a pointless point with this one. Even if there were Universal Moral Absolutes, there’s no guarantee that people would adhere to them, God or no God.

I’m tired of talking about Jimmy Savile [note correct spelling], other than to say the he obviously DID care what other thought, since he took great pains to hide his immoral actions.

There IS right and wrong, even under subjective morality.

Boru

I haven't mentioned God, so stop derailing the conversation. I'm trying get a pathway for something being wrong without objective morality. You don't seem to understand the implications of saying there's no moral absolutes. It literally means nothing is wrong. You thinking something is wrong, or millions of people thinking something is wrong, or the entire population thinking it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. They could all be wrong. If Hitler conquered the world and convinced every single human being that Jews should be exterminated, that wouldn't mean society is right. Again, you don't seem to understand what objective morality means. It means it is truth regardless of human minds.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course there’s right and wrong. I don’t know how I can make my position any more clear than I already have.

People should care what society thinks because they’re part of that society.

Correct, morality is not and never has been ‘a truth of the universe.’

Yes, people DO remove themselves from society ideals. In many cases, we refer to such people as ‘criminals.’ But you’re attempting a pointless point with this one. Even if there were Universal Moral Absolutes, there’s no guarantee that people would adhere to them, God or no God.

I’m tired of talking about Jimmy Savile [note correct spelling], other than to say the he obviously DID care what other thought, since he took great pains to hide his immoral actions.

There IS right and wrong, even under subjective morality.

Boru

I haven't mentioned God, so stop derailing the conversation. I'm trying get a pathway for something being wrong without objective morality. You don't seem to understand the implications of saying there's no moral absolutes. It literally means nothing is wrong. You thinking something is wrong, or millions of people thinking something is wrong, or the entire population thinking it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. They could all be wrong. If Hitler conquered the world and convinced every single human being that Jews should be exterminated, that wouldn't mean society is right. Again, you don't seem to understand what objective morality means. It means it is truth regardless of human minds.

You mentioned God in your very first post in this thread, ya numpty.

Didn’t you just tell Nudger not to conflate truth with morality? 

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

What, exactly, do you think moral realism is?

[Ravenshire]

It literally means nothing is wrong.

You think you understand, but you do not. Moral absolutism doesn't define right or wrong any better than moral relativism does. There are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. Any act you can possibly think of can be considered morally right or morally wrong, depending on the time, the society, the circumstance, and what gawd they pay to.