John McClane
02-18-07, 09:01 PM
As some might know, Yoda and I have disagreements on just about everything. ;) Theology, politics, video games, electronics, etc. As such, I officially dub this thread the official place for he and I to disagree. What do you say, Yoda? Sound like a good idea?
Anyways, we were were having a disagreement in the shout box about morality being objective or not. I shall continue it here.
Well, without objective morality, an "inconvenience for society" is precisely what it is. Looked at with the cold, calculating eye of materialism, such crimes are largely inconsequential as a part of human history, and even setting history aside, effect a tiny percentage of even the living.
This is, of course, one of the reasons many theists balk at atheism; because it demands that we ultimately label the most horrendous of acts as mere social inconveniences. Atheists may feel the same level of disgust over it, but there's not much logical basis for treating it as anything more.I agree that it might very well be hard to look at life that way but, the alternative is just an assumption. That some being made "right and wrong" for mere comfort or better explanation doesn't appeal to me. I can see where you're coming from though.
Johnny boy, why do you let this man push you around? Objective morality most certainly can and does exist without a higher power. Morality is no more than a system of rights and wrongs, invented and enforced by mankind and those rules change along with society. If morality can only exist with regard to a higher power, it would never change just as that higher power never changes. But it does, and things that were once considered immoral are now acceptable.Well, I'd have to disagree. Much for the same reason as I'm disagreeing with Yoda. If it changes, it's not objective morality.
Anyways, we were were having a disagreement in the shout box about morality being objective or not. I shall continue it here.
Well, without objective morality, an "inconvenience for society" is precisely what it is. Looked at with the cold, calculating eye of materialism, such crimes are largely inconsequential as a part of human history, and even setting history aside, effect a tiny percentage of even the living.
This is, of course, one of the reasons many theists balk at atheism; because it demands that we ultimately label the most horrendous of acts as mere social inconveniences. Atheists may feel the same level of disgust over it, but there's not much logical basis for treating it as anything more.I agree that it might very well be hard to look at life that way but, the alternative is just an assumption. That some being made "right and wrong" for mere comfort or better explanation doesn't appeal to me. I can see where you're coming from though.
Johnny boy, why do you let this man push you around? Objective morality most certainly can and does exist without a higher power. Morality is no more than a system of rights and wrongs, invented and enforced by mankind and those rules change along with society. If morality can only exist with regard to a higher power, it would never change just as that higher power never changes. But it does, and things that were once considered immoral are now acceptable.Well, I'd have to disagree. Much for the same reason as I'm disagreeing with Yoda. If it changes, it's not objective morality.