Moral Relativism

Started by red g jacks6 pages

or punishment is enforcement of god's absolute morals. which he created. cause he's really smart.

Originally posted by red g jacks
or punishment is enforcement of god's absolute morals. which he created. cause he's really smart.
But why are they absolute? How are they absolute? Why do I have to accept them as absolute? Why are they better than my morals?

because he's god. because he's always right. you dont. because he's god.

Originally posted by red g jacks
because he's god. because he's always right. you dont. because he's god.
Nah, that doesn't cut it. There needs to be a real reason why the morals he gives are absolute. Why everyone has to follow them other than because they get their ass whopped. Why they are "right" so to speak.

I give up lol

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, that doesn't cut it. There needs to be a real reason why the morals he gives are absolute. Why everyone has to follow them other than because they get their ass whopped. Why they are "right" so to speak.
i assume we're speaking hypothetically. if god is all knowing and always right then that's reason enough why his morals would also be "right."

Originally posted by red g jacks
i assume we're speaking hypothetically. if god is all knowing and always right then that's reason enough why his morals would also be "right."
If he is all knowing, he might just know that there are no absolute morals. I still don't see how absolute morals can exist. Can you explain it.

Originally posted by red g jacks
because he's god. because he's always right. you dont. because he's god.

Circular logic.

the way i look at it morality requires a backbone. those who argue that nothing is "right" or "wrong" basically have no sense of morality. they simply avoid victimizing others out of sympathy or even a sense of self-preservation or karma, or to protect their self-image. you can acknowledge morals as subjective but that just means they vary on a personal basis, if you dont even believe that your own idea of morality is right then you have no morals. so if god doesn't believe his morality is right then being a perfect being he couldn't have morals. which is a possible scenario. but that's called not having morals, not having subjective morals.

i don't think absolute morals do/can exist in the current way we view them based on human perspective. anyones opinion is as good as anyone else's. however if there is an intelligent supernatural force which created the universe it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could also create a code of conduct for that universe. in that scenario "right" and "wrong" are not as we commonly think of them as human ideas, but absolute law enforced by the creator. its far fetched but if we're already assuming such a creator could exist then this is far from the most shocking aspect of that belief.

Originally posted by red g jacks
the way i look at it morality requires a backbone. those who argue that nothing is "right" or "wrong" basically have no sense of morality. they simply avoid victimizing others out of sympathy or even a sense of self-preservation or karma, or to protect their self-image. you can acknowledge morals as subjective but that just means they vary on a personal basis, if you dont even believe that your own idea of morality is right then you have no morals. so if god doesn't believe his morality is right then being a perfect being he couldn't have morals. which is a possible scenario. but that's called not having morals, not having subjective morals.

i don't think absolute morals do/can exist in the current way we view them based on human perspective. anyones opinion is as good as anyone else's. however if there is an intelligent supernatural force which created the universe it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could also create a code of conduct for that universe. in that scenario "right" and "wrong" are not as we commonly think of them as human ideas, but absolute law enforced by the creator. its far fetched but if we're already assuming such a creator could exist then this is far from the most shocking aspect of that belief.

God regretted creating humans. The all-knowing, perfect God (check chapter 6 of Genesis) actually had regret.

To regret such a decision, one can't already have known what would happen. If one were to believe in Christianity, you are following laws that God "changed".

Just because someone does not believe God the authority of all things does not mean they do believe in some form of right and wrong as it pertains to morality. In your world, followers of God are more right than others because they follow the real morals of God and so on.

im not christian, and i never said you have to adapt christian morals to have morality. but if you don't have any conviction in your own morals then what sense of morality do you really have?

you may still follow most of the rules. i'd chalk that up to fear more than anything else. you may still feel bad for people and not want to victimize them, but that's just sympathy. if you don't believe in your own idea of right and wrong then you simply have no morals. i'm not dissing just stating. i am far from the most moral individual.

Originally posted by red g jacks
im not christian, and i never said you have to adapt christian morals to have morality. but if you don't have any conviction in your own morals then what sense of morality do you really have?

you may still follow most of the rules. i'd chalk that up to fear more than anything else. you may still feel bad for people and not want to victimize them, but that's just sympathy. if you don't believe in your own idea of right and wrong then you simply have no morals. i'm not dissing just stating. i am far from the most moral individual.

You can believe what you do with conviction and understand that not everyone will feel that way. Doesn't make it bullshit

like i said you can acknowledge morals as subjective because they vary on a personal basis, but if everytime the issue of morality comes up you argue that "right and wrong don't exist" then what use are your morals in the first place. might as well do away with them an just live your life as you see fit.

Originally posted by red g jacks
like i said you can acknowledge morals as subjective because they vary on a personal basis, but if everytime the issue of morality comes up you argue that "right and wrong don't exist" then what use are your morals in the first place. might as well do away with them an just live your life as you see fit.

It doesn't matter if everyone agrees with you or not. We are not talking about the responsibilities to a society (that's another subject altogether). We are talking about individual understandings of morality and how one lives.

i'm getting tired of this debate. can't we just be friends?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm getting tired of this debate. can't we just be friends?

Wrong forum. 😛

When did we stop?

Originally posted by chithappens
When did we stop?

Being friends or JUST being friends? 😉

Shhh! touch, no tell

Originally posted by chithappens

Morals work the same way as opinions: they can never be completely objective.

That depends on the context, are we talking about Morality objective implications or subjective implications? Because only one is truly relative.