Mohammed's and Jesus's claims that they were God/Allah or heard God/Allah, are unsubstantiated.
Someone claimed to have read an Islamic word in a Kiwi fruit once, years ago. When you look at the clouds you see shapes, it's just imagination.
One test would be to get two people who hear God, keep them seperate, and see if they corroborate each other's claims. You would have to be VERY careful to check for hearing devices, or transmitters.
The rooms could be shielded for conventional radio signals. If they did corroborate, (A MIRACLE), then I would look for someother means as to how they communicated.
why do we have souls and are able to go to heaven, but animals aren't?
as a Christian, i believe that animals ARE inferior to us. which is why they don't have to follow the Bible, because they can't do so. but at the same time, they can think, and some are just as smart as humans. and as a Christian, i believe they will be able to go to heaven
Ya. If there was a heaven, animals should be included. They are decent folk for the most part. Why discriminate just on species and race? And they should thank Allah and then promptly be turned to dust? Because Allah won't burn them in hell instead? And this is all fair and just?
I bet a muslim will now come along and say that it may not sound good but it is the will of Allah, so therefor it is good. Actually no. Now that I've called them on it, they probably won't.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 06-20-2007 at 09:41 AM.
For me, objective morality is not something that can be determined by consensus or numbers. It has to be something that all would be able to recognize, not becuase they agree with it but because it actaully does exist.
As far as we know there is no actual objective source of morality and if there is one then it is not exerting itself effectively. Morality to me simply has to be substantiated morally.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't believe that my claiming of something as moral makes it exist.
Your claiming of it as moral exists as an opinion. It is therefore up to you to substantiate it in order for it to have validity.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And thus having everyone claim it would not make it exist either.
It exists in so much that there is an understanding of it.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Though we might all agree that it does, its exist has to be independent of us and our thoughts regarding it. So, for objective morality to exist it has to exist in and of itself, independent of human thought or opinion.
I disagree. An objective source of morality has to exist in and of itself. What makes an objective source of morality anymore tangible than subjective morality? What is an 'objective source' of morality?
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If there is no source for determining morality outside of human thought, then there can be no source of objective morality.
There can be a method though of justifying moral principles or ideas which is simply more important than subjective morality and objective morality.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And given that I don't recognize subjective morality to be valid as anything other than mere preference, then if there is no source of objective morality, there is no such thing as morality at all.
Oh but you do. The morality I would assume given your religion that you profess to is entirely subjective because it is based on your idea of God. It is arguably arbitrary. Correct me if I am wrong.
It is not who professes an opinion but whether that opinion is backed up.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And if there is no such thing as morality at all, then there is no behavior that in and of itself is either right or wrong, there is just behavior that is appreciate or unappreciated.
That's one way of putting it I concede. But what is the difference between the two ways of defining behaviour in this scenario?
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Do, I really believe that to be the case? No. I don't. I do think that there is a source of objective morality. I do believe in the existence of a divine creator and I believe that this creator creates not only people and animals and earth and other things, but that this creator calls some things good. And that which is outside the will of the creator would be not good.
My assumptions are confirmed. Your definition of morality is then entirely arbitrary and based on the viewpoint of a single source. That is subjective.
What is your views on the Euthyphro Dilemma?
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The creator could have created a world in which there was no morality, a world in which wind blew and water flowed and volcanoes erupted all as set in motion by the creator. But I believe we live in a world in which the creator not only created amoral creatures and things that do not make choices between that which the creator calls good and something else, but that this creator gave some of the creatures the ability to make choices for themselves as to whether they would cooperate with the creator or not. Those choices are moral choices, and the standard they are measured by are those of the creator, which I hold to be an objective source of morality.
See above. That analysis you asserted there just comes to the conclusion that there is authority and that it is advisable to follow.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Of course, if there is no creator, then there would be only the random chance happenings of this atom or that particle and there is no moral action in such happenings. Thus without a creator we live in a world with not source of objective morality, no choices that can be called either good or bad.
This is false. We understand morality and that alone gives it meaning.
Good and bad are no more than subjective. Creations of our minds resulting from our common experiences, empathy, and self interest, ultimately resulting from our DNA and brain chemistry.
Using words like "prejudices" (instead of say "judgments") and redefining "morality" to exclude subjective moral judgments just looks to me like attempts to emotionally load your terms.
This is all about our definitions of "right" and "wrong", on which we differ. You are correct that without objective morality there can be no objective statements of right or wrong. That isn't saying as much as I think you think it is though.
But here is the point then. On what grounds do we hold people accountable for doing "bad", "evil", or "wrong"? If a person gets between a mother bear and her cubs, and the mother bear attacks that person to defend her cubs. We don't say that the bear is good or bad. We just say that this is what mother bears do. It is an amoral act. I am saying that by your way of thinking that all acts are amoral. And if they are amoral, then we have no more grounds for punishing a person who kills than a bear who kills. We might do it because we fear the person or bear will do it again, because we don't trust them or are uncomfortable around them, or simply out of a sense of our personal revenge. But there is nothing moral about the action, so there is no reason to invoke concepts of right or wrong with regard to the behavior. Invoking the language of morality to talk about amoral behaviors and our responses to them does not make sense.
This is semantics. You can call subjective morality what you wish, but it is still what it is. It is a sense of right and wrong. And it is often universal amongst humans (due to what I mentioned above).
Just because you label it morality doesn't mean it is about morality. From what you have said, there really is no source of morality that is not subjective. And subjective morality is a worthless way to run a planet.
If you redefine morality as you have, then sure. But so what? You are still making decisions for the same purposes and with the same impacts and value.
But I don't understand why you make these decisions in your amoral world.
I reject your redefinition and I say morality must be subjective, for objective morality doesn't exist. So you're not talking about morality unless you are talking about the subjective.
Then I repeat. If there is only subjective morality, there is no true basis for calling anything a moral good or a moral evil. And thus no reason to reward a moral good or punish a moral evil, except for how it impacts me personally, of for some alturistic people, how we see it impacting society. Whether personal morality or societal morality it is all just so much subjective preferences for chocolate instead of strawberry ice cream, for Picasso rather than VanGoh, for myspace rather than your space. Ethics are utilitarian, and that is all they are, nothing more.
I actually find belief in objective morality to be one of the more dangerous things religions lead us towards. If morality is thought to be objective, and thought to be revealed to us, then we are prone to accept this "revealed" code of "right" and "wrong" and subdue our own moral sense. Things like burning witches, stoning people to death, or flying planes into buildings become "moral" even though our own internal senses of good and bad scream otherwise.
Oh, I agree that if one believes that there is some source of objective morality and then also believes that this source wants you to behave in a way unappreciated by others, that it could be a danger to others. But of course, if all morality is only subjective, then they really aren't doing anything wrong in acting that way, they are just acting in ways that some would prefer they would not. But once again, it is a matter of personal prefernce. On the other hand, if we could show that they were right about their being a source of objective morailty, but that they were wrong about their understanding of what that source was seeking in the way of behavior, then we might have a reason to stop them, for they would be acting immorally. But if what they are doing is just another amoral act, even though inconvienent, I say, live and let live. You deal with it. But, watch out for your nose.
True, absent a belief in objective morality we may decide that doing a horrible act is just, because we are psychopaths or have been brainwashed and our victims demonized, but at least we could still readjust if a non-psychopath or non-programmed moral voice in us tells us otherwise.
No, absent a belief in objective moraily, we have no right to say that the act is in reality horrible. Because absent an objective (i.e. existing) morailty, morality does not exist.
Obedience to an external moral code, if you don't internally agree with that code, is just bare obedience. And I say that is not morality at all. Many things in religions follow this pattern. Some political ideologies do too.
Now, who is redefining morality?
If you speak to believers/followers you often find them telling you that many things are "right" because such-and-such God or Great Leader says they are right, and not because they the believer actually themselves feel they are right. Recipe for disaster that is.
No bigger recipe for disaster than each person doing what is right in their own eyes.
Just because you label it morality doesn't mean it is about morality. From what you have said, there really is no source of morality that is not subjective. And subjective morality is a worthless way to run a planet.
Morality IS subjective. While Christians find it moral for fathers to sell their daughters to slavery, secularists find it to be a blatant violation of human rights.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But I don't understand why you make these decisions in your amoral world.
I think morality has progressed greatly since the advent of Christianity. Why do you think the world thrives for secularism, as opposed to theocracies?
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Then I repeat. If there is only subjective morality, there is no true basis for calling anything a moral good or a moral evil. And thus no reason to reward a moral good or punish a moral evil, except for how it impacts me personally, of for some alturistic people, how we see it impacting society. Whether personal morality or societal morality it is all just so much subjective preferences for chocolate instead of strawberry ice cream, for Picasso rather than VanGoh, for myspace rather than your space. Ethics are utilitarian, and that is all they are, nothing more.
Morality is not determined by scripture, but by consensus. That is why people's view on morality changes with time. In the past homosexuals would be stoned to death. Now, homosexuals run political offices in America.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No, absent a belief in objective moraily, we have no right to say that the act is in reality horrible. Because absent an objective (i.e. existing) morailty, morality does not exist.
Hogwash.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No bigger recipe for disaster than each person doing what is right in their own eyes.
Again, morality is by consensus. People in a a particular state share similar sentiments for morality. That is how laws are crafted.
But here is the point then. On what grounds do we hold people accountable for doing "bad", "evil", or "wrong"?
Usually on the grounds that we feel they harm us and our society. Actual tangible grounds that is. Not blind obedience to declarations of "Good" and "Evil" from some "revealed" source of "objective" morality.
I am saying that by your way of thinking that all acts are amoral.
Only because you have gone ahead and defined them that way. Obviously if subjective morality does not qualify under your definition of morality (even though value satatements on right and wrong are made) and if there is no objective morality, then there is nothing left to fall under your definition of morality so it doesn't exist. You are playing word games.
And if they are amoral, then we have no more grounds for punishing a person who kills than a bear who kills. We might do it because we fear the person or bear will do it again, because we don't trust them or are uncomfortable around them, or simply out of a sense of our personal revenge.
Or for any number of other moral bases, such as self preservation, empathy with the victim, etc. By the way, it is interesting that you gave the bear a moral excuse for doing what it did (protecting its young). Why not use the example of a bear who kills for the sheer joy of it? Or would you find that a bit morally repugnant? Sure we can rationalize that the bear is just a mindless killing machine (maybe it is?) but don't you instinctively still feel a sense of injustice when you see it mauling random helpless toddlers passing by? That'd be your empathy kicking in, and it is a big part of what forms your subjective sense of morality.
Certainly we hold human beings to a higher standard than animals, but isn't that because we are human beings ourselves and relate to them better, and because we know for sure that humans are thinking beings who could and should know better than to behave in such a way?
Just because you label it morality doesn't mean it is about morality.
And just because you relabel it as excluded from morality doesn't make that so either.
And subjective morality is a worthless way to run a planet.
It is all we have.
And it works a lot better when we realize that instead of pointing to some "revealed" and "objective" morality that may scream to us peronally as unjust. If you strangle your internal feelings of right and wrong and replace them with obedience to some external code, what do you think it bound to eventually happen? Something rather awful, no? Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, gentical mutilation, the list goes on and on. Things any healthy person's sense of empathy would lead them to conclude is wrong, but "objective" morality tells them is righteous. Is that any way to run a planet? I think history has shown it isn't.
But I don't understand why you make these decisions in your amoral world.
Because a lack of objectivity in moral judgments doesn't make questions of right and wrong magically disappear. We still have these issues to address and we do so address them.
Then I repeat. If there is only subjective morality, there is no true basis for calling anything a moral good or a moral evil.
Only if you define terms as you have done.
And thus no reason to reward a moral good or punish a moral evil, except for how it impacts me personally, of for some alturistic people, how we see it impacting society.
We punish certain acts because we judge them dangerous to our society's ideals. We see that they will hurt people or threaten our way of life so we deem them wrong and we outlaw them. Conversely, we see that charity helps those we can relate to (fellow humans) and so we call it good.
As I have repeatedly noted, absent objective morality our findings of good and bad are not arbitrary. They are based on the experiences we have, our DNA, and our empathic sense (based on self preservation and idenfication) These bases of what forms our moral sense can be modified by our culture and our programming (be it religious or political), but the bases remain.
On the other hand, if we could show that they were right about their being a source of objective morailty, but that they were wrong about their understanding of what that source was seeking in the way of behavior, then we might have a reason to stop them
I find this truly mind blowing. Are you telling me that you need some external "source of morality" to motivate you from stopping men from bashing the heads of babies against rocks? You otherwise feel no "reason to stop them"? Have you no sense of empathy?
No, absent a belief in objective moraily, we have no right to say that the act is in reality horrible.
Yes we do. I just did.
Because absent an objective (i.e. existing) morailty, morality does not exist.
Now, who is redefining morality?
If you insist on redefining morality for yourself, why should I not do the same?
I am speaking of obedience to a code of behaviour placed upon you from outside yourself, that your own internal sense of right and wrong fundamentally diasgrees with.
Would you really call that "moral?"
It would mean that should this code tell you theft and murder are virtues and kindness a vice, you'd have to call that just and right. This is the kind of mentality that leads to the attrocities I noted above, such as flying planes into buildings or burning witches at the stake.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 06-21-2007 at 02:53 AM.
So, are you saying that if Hitler had won the war, and achieved his goal of a "superrace", that his actions would have become moral by reason that the society he would have created would have subjectively given credence to them?
Are you saying that a dog with rabies that attacks people is a moral act? I agree that we can use the terms bad and good subjectively. And if I am subject to the attack of a rabid dog I am going to call it a bad thing to have happen to me. But I am not going to call it a morally bad dog. I won't do so because it has no choice in the matter and without choice there is not moral action.
You have said that there is no creator. So where did we come from? Are we not then just the chance production of certain atoms and molecules. We are nothing more than the output of a cosmic science experiment. And that includes are very thoughts, attitude, actions, and motives that we ascribe to those actions. They are not choices, they are accidents of chemistry and physics. Even your decision to respond to this post is something that you are pre-conditioned to by the very random happening that created the entire universe. We are no more free to make our respective choices or have a thought of our own than cat is to chase mice or a rock is to fall downhill. And without freedom of choice, then there can be no assigning of culpability (an essential component of declaring somethng right or wrong behavior). That lack of culpability, not what you think are games of semantics, are why there is no morality of any kind in the world you claim exists.
Again, morality is by consensus. People in a a particular state share similar sentiments for morality. That is how laws are crafted.
Here's what the founders of the constitution had to say about rule by consensus in "Federalist Papers, #10".
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
So, are you saying that if Hitler had won the war, and achieved his goal of a "superrace", that his actions would have become moral by reason that the society he would have created would have subjectively given credence to them?
You need to consider though if and how credence was given. Did his people really follow their own internal senses of right and wrong and agree with Hitler's view though close introspection (especially as it became clearer what his actual ideas were)? Or did they defer to the "revealed" morality of a Great Leader, who they perhaps figured knew better than themselves about moral issues, or perhaps who they simply feared and obeyed? The use of religious and authoritarian imagery is strong in Nazi propaganda for a reason. They had to override people's empathic senses. The same senses that lead you to the subjective idea that Hitler's ideology was wrong.
Are you saying that a dog with rabies that attacks people is a moral act?
I agree that we can use the terms bad and good subjectively. And if I am subject to the attack of a rabid dog I am going to call it a bad thing to have happen to me. But I am not going to call it a morally bad dog. I won't do so because it has no choice in the matter and without choice there is not moral action.
You keep using examples of animals who have some moral excuse you find palatable. How about a dog without rabies who just enjoys ripping children apart? Would you not then make a moral judgment? If not, I thnk you are rather unique.
You have said that there is no creator. So where did we come from?
Don't know. Don't particularly care. And for the record, I didn't actually say there is no creator (though I don't believe in one). I just said I don't believe in objective morality and you don't need a creator or God to explain moral senses.
Are we not then just the chance production of certain atoms and molecules.
Maybe. Again, I don't claim to know. And don't really care. It isn't relevant to this discussion.
We are nothing more than the output of a cosmic science experiment. And that includes are very thoughts, attitude, actions, and motives that we ascribe to those actions. They are not choices, they are accidents of chemistry and physics. Even your decision to respond to this post is something that you are pre-conditioned to by the very random happening that created the entire universe.
This premise just materialized out of nowhere. Why do you claim that there being a creator or not determines if there is free will or not?
There could be no creator and complete free will. Why do you say that is inconsistent? Likewise, there could be a creator and no free will.
And what does this have to do with subjective vs objective morality?
Also, if there is a creator who created morality, according to its view of right and wrong, isn't that itself subjective?
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 06-22-2007 at 04:01 AM.
Here's what the founders of the constitution had to say about rule by consensus in "Federalist Papers, #10".
All rule is ultimately by consensus.
Even slaves consent to the rule of their masters. If they didn't, they would rise up against them. That they don't shows that they value some things (ie, life, family) above their freedom. The consent may be coerced, but it ultimately is consent.
You need to consider though if and how credence was given. Did his people really follow their own internal senses of right and wrong and agree with Hitler's view though close introspection (especially as it became clearer what his actual ideas were)? Or did they defer to the "revealed" morality of a Great Leader, who they perhaps figured knew better than themselves about moral issues, or perhaps who they simply feared and obeyed? The use of religious and authoritarian imagery is strong in Nazi propaganda for a reason. They had to override people's empathic senses. The same senses that lead you to the subjective idea that Hitler's ideology was wrong.
Plenty of Germans agreed with the principles of the superiority of the Aryan race. There are many Americans who continue to think these things. Likewise Japan held a similar view with regard to their superiority over other peoples. Since in Japan this was a consensus of the society it surely was right by your definition. Though in the USA where the consensus is more in favor of all men being created equal those who hold these views would be wrong. Now since by simply moving from one country to another the consensus of society changes, does that mean that one's ethics of right and wrong must change also? Because, afterall, there is no absolute, on subjective morality established by consensus.
You keep using examples of animals who have some moral excuse you find palatable. How about a dog without rabies who just enjoys ripping children apart? Would you not then make a moral judgment? If not, I thnk you are rather unique.
And you keep assuming that other cultures all have the same values that you project we have agreed on by consensus in the USA. But as to the dog, rabid and non-rabid. No, I do not think there are any bad dogs. There are dogs conditioned to behave in certain ways by their owners, by circumstance, by disease, but there are not dogs that make moral choices. To project morality onto an animal that is simply responding to its environment because we perceive their actions as good or bad in our lives is the heigth of anthro-based egocentrism.
And for the record, I didn't actually say there is no creator (though I don't believe in one).
I believe you have in other threads. If not, no matter, you have now.
Maybe. Again, I don't claim to know. And don't really care. It isn't relevant to this discussion.
It is very relevant. If there is no creator, then humans are just another form of animal. And as I have already said repeatedly, there is no moral compass in animals. No objective morality that they are held to, no subjective morailty that they possess. That would hold for us as well.
This premise just materialized out of nowhere. Why do you claim that there being a creator or not determines if there is free will or not?
There could be no creator and complete free will. Why do you say that is inconsistent? Likewise, there could be a creator and no free will.
And what does this have to do with subjective vs objective morality?
This has been part of the conversation for as long as I have been talking about the origins of morality. The origins of morality require free will. Free will requires options. Options means that we are not a mere cosmic accident. If we are, then Skinner's theories of behaviorism must come into play in terms of the origins of your subjective morality. That is, like Pavlov's dog salivating at the sound of a bell, our subjective morality is all about what we have been conditioned by our environment to value and devalue. But if people have it within themselves to rise up, despite their conditioning, and say "No" to the society in which they live, then this is something that is either coming completely from outside them (and thus not subjective) or was intrinsic to them as a human being (and thus created within them as distinct from animals) or both.
Also, if there is a creator who created morality, according to its view of right and wrong, isn't that itself subjective?
Subjective on the creator's part, but absolute as received by us the creator's creatures.
Now since by simply moving from one country to another the consensus of society changes, does that mean that one's ethics of right and wrong must change also?
Different cultures (in both time and space) vary on their moral standards. But as I've said repeatedly, they have more in common than they have differences, due to common experiences and genetic makeup.
To project morality onto an animal that is simply responding to its environment because we perceive their actions as good or bad in our lives is the heigth of anthro-based egocentrism.
You seem to be saying that animals are unthinking beings ruled exclusively by instinct. I've seen such a claim before. It is bold and unsupported. We don't really know either way.
But even if the animal doesn't have any self control and runs like a mindless robot, that doesn't mean we know this. We may believe they do have such choices and make bad ones and are thus bad animals. That is a moral judgment. It just happens to be based on erroneous information (so we're assuming here).
I believe you have in other threads. If not, no matter, you have now.
Actually, I'd never say with certainty that there is no God. I just find the idea unsupported and unlikely. But I certainly don't claim to know for sure one way or the other. I think anybody who does is either dishonest or insane.
It is very relevant. If there is no creator, then humans are just another form of animal.
Humans ARE a form of animal. We are not plants. And we could be just another form of animal even if there was a creator.
And as I have already said repeatedly, there is no moral compass in animals.
That is your opinion, perhaps from religoius training? Its fine to have this opinion but you have no way to back it up. As an earlier poster noted, many non human animals certainly apear to have cultures and moral ideals.
This has been part of the conversation for as long as I have been talking about the origins of morality.
That hasn't been clear at all. I think you've made assumptions not shared by those not in your paradigm.
The origins of morality require free will.
The origins do? I don't know what you mean by that.
I'd agree that most of us wouldn't make a moral judgment against somebody who had no free will in what they did.
Options means that we are not a mere cosmic accident.
?
You are talking about God's choice to create us here? You've lost me completely on this one.
If we are, then Skinner's theories of behaviorism must come into play in terms of the origins of your subjective morality. That is, like Pavlov's dog salivating at the sound of a bell, our subjective morality is all about what we have been conditioned by our environment to value and devalue.
That is certainly a big part of what shapes our views on these matters, yes. Social programming definitely impacts on and shapes our moral sense. It doesn't start there though. It starts with our genetic make up and resulting sense of empathy (seeing ourselves in others).
But if people have it within themselves to rise up, despite their conditioning, and say "No" to the society in which they live, then this is something that is either coming completely from outside them (and thus not subjective) or was intrinsic to them as a human being (and thus created within them as distinct from animals) or both.
If it is "coming completely outside them" it is just more conditioning by their environment.
If it is intrinsic to them, it is a result of their earlier programming or genetics and resulting predisposition to see themselves in others, ie empathy.
The whole concept of "objective morality" makes no sense. Morality is about value judgments and only a working mind can make such judgments and the product of a working mind (even a creator's) is subjective.
Any moral code designated from a hypothetical creator is subjectively created by them. If it is then "revealed" to us we must decide for ourselves if we agree with it, thus making it our subjective view if we do. We could also disagree with this hypotheical creator's code (ie, God saying we should stone people to death for a number of silly reasons). Either way we are making value judgments within our own minds. This is all subjective.
The only objective questions here are whether there is a God, and if so, whether that God wants us to behave or programmed us to behave in a certain fashion. And if there is no God then there are the objective questions of the influences of nature (ie, genetic make up) and nurture (ie, experiences and social programming) on our moral judgments.
You have said that there is no creator. So where did we come from?
Why is it necessary to invoke a creator for us to exist?
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Now since by simply moving from one country to another the consensus of society changes, does that mean that one's ethics of right and wrong must change also? Because, afterall, there is no absolute, on subjective morality established by consensus.
An individual has the ability to establish what ought to be or not to be. Just because specific societies think otherwise now, and in the past does not necessitate that morality ought to be subjective and dependent on the society. The difference of morality in societies is merely an expression of how ideas on morality have developed. They are not necessarily morally substantiated towards and/or reasonable. We have the ability of judgement to declare what is right and wrong.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Subjective on the creator's part, but absolute as received by us the creator's creatures.
It is entirely subjective and arbitrary if a creator is simply attempting to define morality. It matters whether the moral assertions are substantiated rather than declared and by whom.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
And they should thank Allah and then promptly be turned to dust? Because Allah won't burn them in hell instead? And this is all fair and just?
...but Jesus didnt make such claims.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks