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

[The Architect Of Fate]

Like I have said, he wants some weird secular version of divine command theory, a morally bankrupt moral system.

That may be the case, it does seem like that’s the only thing we could conclude from his insistence on a decider…but if that is the case, then he doesn’t actually reject these so called rules.  He accepts subjectivism, which works with or without gods.  If that is the case, what he rejects is objectivity.

There would still, ofc, be people who do not follow those rules.  They’ve done nothing objectively wrong, but if objectivity is irrelevant this doesn’t mean much.

He, ironically enough, insists you are engaging in moral subjectivity. I am starting to wonder if he even knows what moral subjectivity is. Hell, even his notion of a decider is inherently subjective and if he appeals to nature or sources, those are subjective if they are part of a being.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don’t care about these rules but want to know what you’ve done wrong by them?  It’s not going to be particularly difficult for me to explain, as an atheist and an objectivist, what you e objectively done wrong with x.   We’ve even agreed on this matter exactly, in thread…..but if you don’t care about that then you don’t care about that.

So what?  No matter what the rules are, no matter the nature of those rules, regardless of whether or not there are gods….there will be rule dissenters, rule breakers…hell…straight up sociopaths.

Why are they wrong? All I've heard is: subjective morality.

That may be all you’ve heard, but that’s not all that’s been explained to you. For the umpteenth time, I’m not a subjectivist. Im not the kind of person you prepared yourself to argue with. I don’t believe the things that you’re saying…I’ve never said the things you’ve been attributing to me. I’m an objectivist. You may think that moral objectivity is not possible. You might think it’s wrong. He’ll, you may even be right…..and if so, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about what you’ve objectively done wrong in x. If so, you cannot possibly have done anything objectively wrong, no matter how many gods there are or what their rules are. If moral objectivity is not possible…then gods can’t get it to you either.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You don’t care about these rules but want to know what you’ve done wrong by them?  It’s not going to be particularly difficult for me to explain, as an atheist and an objectivist, what you e objectively done wrong with x.   We’ve even agreed on this matter exactly, in thread…..but if you don’t care about that then you don’t care about that.

So what?  No matter what the rules are, no matter the nature of those rules, regardless of whether or not there are gods….there will be rule dissenters, rule breakers…hell…straight up sociopaths.

Why are they wrong? All I've heard is: subjective morality.

Given that all you’ve heard is subjective morality, how extensive is your collection of Victorian porn?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

That may be the case, it does seem like that’s the only thing we could conclude from his insistence on a decider…but if that is the case, then he doesn’t actually reject these so called rules.  He accepts subjectivism, which works with or without gods.  If that is the case, what he rejects is objectivity.

There would still, ofc, be people who do not follow those rules.  They’ve done nothing objectively wrong, but if objectivity is irrelevant this doesn’t mean much.

He, ironically enough, insists you are engaging in moral subjectivity. I am starting to wonder if he even knows what moral subjectivity is. Hell, even his notion of a decider is inherently subjective and if he appeals to nature or sources, those are subjective if they are part of a being.

Yeah, that’s one of his misapprehensions…but…in fairness…it seems like a shared misapprehension to many people. A moral proposition isn’t actually made meta ethically subjective because it’s a part of a being (or a moral agent, or a moral subject, the way I’d put it). It’s made so if its truthmaking property is a property of the being rather than the object of contention.

For example…sure, it’s my opinion that some x is wrong because it is harmful. My opinion is a part of me….but said harm either exists out in the world or it does not. For starters.

[AngelThMan]

Why are they wrong? All I've heard is: subjective morality.

That may be all you’ve heard, but that’s not all that’s been explained to you.  For the umpteenth time, I’m not a subjectivist.  Im not the kind of person you prepared yourself to argue with.  I don’t believe the things that you’re saying…I’ve never said the things you’ve been attributing to me.  I’m an objectivist.  You may think that moral objectivity is not possible.  You might think it’s wrong.  He’ll, you may even be right…..and if so, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about what you’ve objectively done wrong in x.  If so, you cannot possibly have done anything objectively wrong, no matter how many gods there are or what their rules are.  If moral objectivity is not possible…then gods can’t get it to you either.

Then I simply have not understood your arguments. The problem may be that you use a lot of made up terms that become confusing. Not trying to slight you, I appreciate your willingness to engage in good faith, which is rare here. I legit have not been able to understand.

Can you tell me like you would tell a 6 year old: If I steal a car and no one ever finds out, what have I done wrong, and why should I care what others think?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. 

I never mentioned chocolate.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That may be all you’ve heard, but that’s not all that’s been explained to you.  For the umpteenth time, I’m not a subjectivist.  Im not the kind of person you prepared yourself to argue with.  I don’t believe the things that you’re saying…I’ve never said the things you’ve been attributing to me.  I’m an objectivist.  You may think that moral objectivity is not possible.  You might think it’s wrong.  He’ll, you may even be right…..and if so, it doesn’t really make sense to talk about what you’ve objectively done wrong in x.  If so, you cannot possibly have done anything objectively wrong, no matter how many gods there are or what their rules are.  If moral objectivity is not possible…then gods can’t get it to you either.

Then I simply have not understood your arguments. The problem may be that you use a lot of made up terms that become confusing. Not trying to slight you, I appreciate your willingness to engage in good faith, which is rare here. I legit have not been able to understand.

Can you tell me like you would tell a 6 year old: If I steal a car and no one ever finds out, what have I done wrong, and why should I care what others think?

What an impressively stupid question.

Boru

[Kitan Etos]

Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. Chocolate. 

I never mentioned chocolate.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Wishing there were moral absolutes and wishing these had consequences is not moral objectivism, it is moral emotivism, you seem to be confusing the two here again. How you want the world to be, is not an objective truth about how the world is.

As i have explained many pages ago: There is no (requirement for) cosmic justice. You want objective morals? You think life is unfair without them? The universe and reality in general does not have any fucks to give about what you like or not.

Considering how many times we have read that OP does not like to follow rules determined by human deceny and empathy, shouldnt we call the FBI? There are several serial killers on the loose, we may have one here.

[Nay_Sayer]

Maybe its best ATM has his faith, apparently he desires to do horrible things otherwise