So let me get this straight you're saying without a God there is no moral compass. Therefore if you think rape is good then you should be free to do whatever you want?
Which just boils down to basically you're saying without a God to rule over you you're a dick and rapist.
And I don't NEED society to SURVIVE, other than needing a weakness that I can prey upon.
No God so No Afterlife or Eternal Karma to worry about. So if I want to Burn your house down with you in it and then make sammiches with the meat. Why should I care if will upset your weekend plans?
Ohh will somebody make a mean comment about me on Facebook?
Ohh How Cruel Society can be!?
__________________ Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Nah he's saying if there is no higher purpose or objective morality to the universe, it's nihilistic, in which case morality is empty and pointless.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Of course if you're abandoning morality for complete and total self-interest, that kind of behavior isn't exactly in your best self-interest since you'd probably get arrested or killed for your actions.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
How exactly is that a childish argument? If everything is ultimately purposeless, why should he have a moral obligation to do anything?
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Because it starts from the premise that all morals/laws must stem from a higher power.
It also assumes that any manner of purpose must stem from a higher power as well.
By using those assumptions he has tried to remove relevance on topic of morals. Essentially he is trying to make the argument without a God there can be no morals therefore there must be a God because we have morals. It's a childish way to argue. At least that is the argument he wants to make because he believes in a God.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Laws are essentially a contract between people and get their weight from being respected and enforced. They can exist without morality.
If morality is purely subjective, then what logical argument is there that anyone should follow any specific judgement of morality and not base every one of their decisions on pure selfishness?
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Last edited by Emperordmb on Nov 27th, 2016 at 11:17 PM
There are a number of different topics on this for instance we can talk about common laws that have found their way across the globe in many different and why they are common despite vast borders and differences in religions.
That doesn't change his childish argument on the matter. His argument is a perversion of what you're trying to talk about. If there is no God therefore rape must be okay because only God could decide it is immoral. It's a circular argument and you're not really defending his stance.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Then what constitutes objective morality Newjak?
If you want to suggest law defines morality, then there are several examples that contradict that notion.
If you are suggesting the ubiquity of certain laws implies an objective moral truth, then it could also be argued that laws are basically a contract between every member of a community to provide protection, and people just happen to go with the laws that will protect them most. That doesn't imply an objective morality, just that people find certain ways of establishing law to protect themselves and the things they care about more effective than others.
It's not that rape would be okay. He's arguing that if there is no higher power than the universe just arbitrarily exists and is thus devoid of any objective meaning, and if this nihilism is the case then there is no "okayness" or "not okayness" to something.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
But once again he assumes objective morality can only come from a higher power. In which case he is essentially arguing people can not be objective. Do you believe that?
Also I'm not suggesting that laws equate to pure morality but that doesn't mean we haven't seen humans develop collective morals similar to each other despite distance and religious backgrounds. Things like rape being bad, hurting children, outright murder.
And he is trying to argue that without God there can be no morals therefore rape would be okay. The implication he is trying to say is therefore there must be a God because rape is bad. It's a circular argument that tries to force an extreme view to solidify his own belief easily.
Better page the dermatologist, cuz I'm under your skin.
He's a sociopathic demagogue-admirer. He barely needs an excuse to lower himself to the level of the scum of humanity.
People can not objectively point to a literal, physical source of morality and claim it absolute and universal. They can call it objective, they can imagine in their minds that a source exists, and they can formulate their laws around that, but they can't objectively--empirically--identify morality or moral facts. A god or gods are usually needed to provide a buffer, and even then, their role in that morality will change based on the opinions and beliefs of every single individual (if they believe in that deity in the first place).
That's usually because these things collectively hurt us. We establish our morality around maximizing what we feel and believe to be beneficial to ourselves and our creations. And even then, sometimes we need to kill or rape or hurt children (usually by raping or murdering them). Plenty of cultures, societies, and governments in the past (and present) have modified their laws to fit what they (or the current ruler) feels to be beneficial. And they'll usually concoct a moral or religious (often both) reason to justify it.
Nihilism is the way to go. It's simpler. Less messy. Makes more sense.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Last edited by Lord Lucien on Nov 28th, 2016 at 12:24 AM
Absolute and objective do not equate to each other. There does not have to be absolute moral authority for someone to be objective on a moral level for the given situation and society.
I don't mean to say that they equate. But if we're to use the word objective:
Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality.
Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices.
Based on observed facts.
Then we can't point to morality as something that can be objectively studied, measured, or observed in any way. It's an abstract concept created by humans, for humans. Just like the concept of 'law.' Or the 'Force.' It's not a real thing in the universe. It's something that gets created and interpreted by every single individual. His morality is different from that guy's. And that's guy's from that one over there.
It's a belief in the idea that there is a truth in regards to "correct" behaviour or thought. And countless people and ideologies have tried to suss out that truth and codify it (via laws and religious dogma, typically). Morality isn't objective. It's make believe. It will assume whatever truth it needs to. It's completely subjective because it's completely fictional.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 27th, 2016 10:08 PM
