I Am Morally Reprehensible [Archive]

View Full Version : I Am Morally Reprehensible

Nebuchadnezzar

19th November 2009, 02:28

As an atheist and a cynic, I believe that morality is extremely relative, possibly to the point that this relativity is effectively infinite. This means that I don't believe in any absolute morality, so long as there is at least one person in the world who doesn't find murder off-limits, another who doesn't consider rape irredeemable, another who's moral code is different enough that he will act as you or I never would.

Though these beliefs on their part may be a result of mental illness, I don't think that contributes to any form of ultimate morality. Therefore, I believe that the only reliable way to calculate general morality is through majority opinion. This may seem ridiculous at first, but if you think about it: Genocide is a horrific travesty to most of us here. Genocidal religious zealots who kill in the name of their own moral code tend to think differently, who do we believe? We believe the international community, largely because we share their opinion, but I think that we can take it a step further; that the opinion of the majority can be considered the general morality.

Since I believe in a lot of things that differ from majority opinion, I am therefore morally reprehensible, but you know what?

I don't mind.

What's wrong with a little evil, especially in this context?

Anyone wanna inflict crushing reality on my theory? It's not well-developed at all, feel free.

Bud Struggle

19th November 2009, 02:53

AUTHOR: Samuel Johnson (1709–1784)

QUOTATION: If he does really think that there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why, sir, when he leaves our houses let us count our spoons.

ATTRIBUTION: Life of Johnson (Boswell). 1 Vol. ii. Chap. v. 1763.

:D

Richard Nixon

19th November 2009, 02:59

Simple: there are some decent standards of morality (ie no murder, rape, physical violence, torture etc.), the government will enforce it, and if you violate it you will be arrested, fined, imprisoned and/or executed.

Nebuchadnezzar

19th November 2009, 03:03

Ah, see, I think morality does indeed exist: It's just calculated by majority opinion. I'm willing to accept that the mainstream is right, largely because I don't know any other way of calculating it. If I'm wrong, so be it.

If the mainstream is the government, the government is right. If the mainstream is religious, then god exists, at least until disproven.

Kingpin

19th November 2009, 03:14

Do objective standards of morality exist?

It seems to me that what happens is that the people in power pick standards to rule over others but completely disregard the standards themselves.

And this isn't just about the murderous commies, I can't think of any alleged crime or human rights violation of the Soviet Union or Red China that couldn't also be charged against the United States.
The piles of death bodies caused by capitalist wars and famines might be higher than that of the communists, but you see they get away with it because they have power.

Nebuchadnezzar

19th November 2009, 03:17

I don't know anything for certain, but I don't know any way of calculating general morality other than the mass opinion. If the people in power saturate mass media with their morality to the point that the majority believes it, then it becomes the majority opinion, no matter how the change is made.

Murderous commies?

what are you talking about?

Skooma Addict

19th November 2009, 03:52

As an atheist and a cynic, I believe that morality is extremely relative, possibly to the point that this relativity is effectively infinite. This means that I don't believe in any absolute morality, so long as there is at least one person in the world who doesn't find murder off-limits, another who doesn't consider rape irredeemable, another who's moral code is different enough that he will act as you or I never would.

You are correct. Morality is completely subjective,and there are no objective morals whatsoever. For some reason, the idea of subjective relativism bothers a lot of people. You can still attempt to persuade others to adopt a different moral code, but there are no objective morals for us to discover.

Though these beliefs on their part may be a result of mental illness, I don't think that contributes to any form of ultimate morality. Therefore, I believe that the only reliable way to calculate general morality is through majority opinion. This may seem ridiculous at first, but if you think about it: Genocide is a horrific travesty to most of us here. Genocidal religious zealots who kill in the name of their own moral code tend to think differently, who do we believe? We believe the international community, largely because we share their opinion, but I think that we can take it a step further; that the opinion of the majority can be considered the general morality.

And if the majority said genocide was morally acceptable? Besides, the term "general morality" seems a little iffy in my opinion.

RGacky3

19th November 2009, 08:36

NO ONE BELIEVES THAT OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXISTS!!! No one.

No your not morally repreensible, get that smirk of your face.

WhitemageofDOOM

19th November 2009, 11:21

You are correct. Morality is completely subjective,and there are no objective morals whatsoever. For some reason, the idea of subjective relativism bothers a lot of people. You can still attempt to persuade others to adopt a different moral code, but there are no objective morals for us to discovery.

Hey a libertarian who realizes morality is a construct, holy crap never thought I'd see the day.

----------------------------------------

Anyways, morality is a construct, a pragmatic construct. As social animals we need rules and standards of behavior we call these standards morality. But what rules and standards work changes with the times, and so too does morality adapt. Morality is a process of discovery, but of discovery what works here and now not what has been mandated from up on high.

This is why i argue for utilitarianism as a meta-morality, because it lets us better discuss which moral code will benefit us to take up.

Since I believe in a lot of things that differ from majority opinion, I am therefore morally reprehensible, but you know what?

I don't mind.

What's wrong with a little evil, especially in this context?

Anyone wanna inflict crushing reality on my theory? It's not well-developed at all, feel free.

Sure, we might decide to stop putting up with your bullshit. Then we kill or imprison you, and we outnumber you.
Good reason to go along even if you think a different moral code would work better.

Kayser_Soso

19th November 2009, 11:35

Somehow I think if this guy suddenly finds himself peering down the barrel of a mugger's gun, he will develop a very strong sense of morality.

Nebuchadnezzar

19th November 2009, 13:28

NO ONE BELIEVES THAT OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXISTS!!! No one.
Some people do. I don't see how it makes a difference, but neither does your point.

No your not morally repreensible, get that smirk of your face. In America, if the majority of the legislature thinks it's right to go to war, we go to war. That's one highly visual, if small, example of this type of morality already in place. If the majority feels something is amoral, then anyone who doesn't think so is amoral by association in the eyes of the majority. Therefore, I'm wrong about many things. Dunno why anyone would smirk about being evil.

Sure, we might decide to stop putting up with your bullshit. Then we kill or imprison you, and we outnumber you.
Good reason to go along even if you think a different moral code would work better. EXACTLY! :)

Somehow I think if this guy suddenly finds himself peering down the barrel of a mugger's gun, he will develop a very strong sense of morality. See fig. 1

Fig. 1

<------------------the point

Kayser_Soso's head

Hiero

19th November 2009, 13:47

Jazzratt

19th November 2009, 13:56

What does this mean, the spoons has lost me.

It means if you don't accept a rigid moral code as objective fact you're obviously a kleptomaniac with a thing for cutlery.

Bud Struggle

19th November 2009, 13:58

[Edit]

Already andsweed.

RGacky3

19th November 2009, 16:05

In America, if the majority of the legislature thinks it's right to go to war, we go to war. That's one highly visual, if small, example of this type of morality already in place. If the majority feels something is amoral, then anyone who doesn't think so is amoral by association in the eyes of the majority. Therefore, I'm wrong about many things. Dunno why anyone would smirk about being evil.

They believe they have a right based on subjective morality, i.e. This is the type of country we are, and this is what we do, because we hold ourself this this standard.

Tungsten

20th November 2009, 22:12

Ah, see, I think morality does indeed exist: It's just calculated by majority opinion.

I'd say it was more than just majority opinion. Morality concerning murder has been pretty much universal. After all, a nation or species that allows murder is going to rapidly see a decline in population and eventual anihilation (or extinction). So yes, murder is objectively bad.

Skooma Addict

20th November 2009, 22:31

I'd say it was more than just majority opinion. Morality concerning murder has been pretty much universal. After all, a nation or species that allows murder is going to rapidly see a decline in population and eventual anihilation (or extinction). So yes, murder is objectively bad.

Murder is not "objectively" bad. Nothing is objectively bad. There are some people who want to see humans go extinct. Also, murder may be good in the eyes of the killer. He may really think he is doing something good.

The Count

20th November 2009, 23:28

NO ONE BELIEVES THAT OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXISTS!!! No one.
Many religious fundamentalists probably do.

Morality concerning murder has been pretty much universal.
This isn't necessarily true. Remember the Crusades? They were perpetrated by the morally elitist Catholic Church, which condoned the murder of infidels in the name of Christianity (even to the point of revising the Ten Commandments).

This is a very interesting topic and I wish I had some original thoughts to contribute; however, the reality of how subjective morality is and how much it depends on the conditions of society have already been articulated.

Robert

20th November 2009, 23:44

Remember the Crusades? They were perpetrated by the morally elitist Catholic Church, which condoned the murder of infidels

Was the Church right or wrong in this?

The Count

21st November 2009, 00:02

Was the Church right or wrong in this?
My personal morality would say that it was wrong. Murder is not universally seen as wrong, as shown by my example and countless others.

Pirate turtle the 11th

21st November 2009, 00:18

Robert

21st November 2009, 01:45

My personal morality would say that it was wrong.

Quite.

The Count

21st November 2009, 04:47

Quite.
So what does that have to do with anything I said? I think genocide is morally wrong, but obviously they didn't. If you're attempting to make a point, I'd suggest you articulate it.

Robert

21st November 2009, 05:41

Tungsten has already noted, unremarkably, that morality concerning murder is "pretty much universal."

You demur, pointing out the murders of the crusades. That doesn't particularly undermine Tungsten's general point.

Then you concede that murders committed at the behest of the Church were wrong, but you qualify it in the same sentence as "just your morality," and of course you have to say that to maintain your position. But you're revealing, unsurprisingly, that you share the consensus opinion Tungsten points out.

So the point is: you, Tungsten, I, the Church today, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, The Quilting Society of Borneo, and everybody on the board all agree that murder is wrong. No significant, modern exceptions among civilized people that I can think of.

That's quite a coincidence of "subjective" views.

Demogorgon

21st November 2009, 08:37

So the point is: you, Tungsten, I, the Church today, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, The Quilting Society of Borneo, and everybody on the board all agree that murder is wrong. No significant, modern exceptions among civilized people that I can think of.

The snag is that people use the get out clause of disagreeing what murder means. To me for instance, the Death Penalty is nothing but cold blooded murder, but rather a lot of people think its fine. They don't claim that murder is good in that circumstance. They claim it isn't murder. And that is just one example. You could fill several pages with words in the English language for killing that people use specifically to describe acts they do not wish to view as murder.

The trouble with morality is that the only thing people seem able to agree on is that there is a difference between right and wrong. What exactly that is or how to determine it proves to be rather tricky to pin down. Even if we agree on a method, we might not come up with the same answers. Tungsten for instance said murder could be determined as wrong because it is blatantly obvious that we wouldn't last long if we allowed it. Well that's true, but it is also true that as were are a naturally social species we would not last long if we did not recognise obligation to help one another, yet Tungsten denies that as a moral imperative.

For the record I do believe there is a difference between right and wrong and that it is possible to determine what that is. I just don't think it is easy.

*Viva La Revolucion*

21st November 2009, 09:18

Moral codes have developed - in my opinion - partly because they're essential for an advanced society, but mostly we've come to these conclusions based on how the actions make ourselves and others feel. The general consensus is that altruism and kindness is good; murder, rape and violence is bad. When you help someone in need, it's a positive sensation. The murdered person's family suffers for the rest of their lives. Pain can never be a good thing and so most actions that cause it are morally wrong. Those who say they like pain are contradicting themselves because if they like it, it ceases to be pain.

graffic

21st November 2009, 14:50

What "viva la revolucion" said ^^^ But I think although religion has many problems one aspect which I think it stands on good ground is morality. The system of law in the western world was based on Christian principles. Taking the ten commandments as a basis for morality is a good thing for civilisation and human beings whether you believe in a God or not.

The Count

21st November 2009, 16:28

Robert

21st November 2009, 16:53

I acknowledge your post.

To reiterate what Demogorgon said ...

If you're going to invoke Demogorgon, you might want to re-read his last post ... all the way through to the last line.

The Count

21st November 2009, 21:36

I acknowledge your post.

If you're going to invoke Demogorgon, you might want to re-read his last post ... all the way through to the last line.
It wasn't exactly what he said, but he started to address it. I suppose I should have said, 'to expand on what Demogorgon mentioned'. However, I'm sure you comprehended my point regardless.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

22nd November 2009, 01:53

Moral Scenario:

A person has two options. They will both make them equally happy, and they can only choose one. The world behaves in everyday "normal" ways. Here are the options:

1. Brutally torture ten babies.
2. Hug a puppy.

Remember, the world behaves normally. Torturing babies does not stop the Holocaust in this world. Consequences are always relevant. The consequences here are the everyday consequences we would associate with these particular actions.

A person who is moral will always choose #2.

Why is this? Stay with me. Harming people is necessarily evil when avoidable. Let's clear this up.

I enjoy pleasure, and someone asks me, "Why do you enjoy pleasure?" Obviously, we would seem quite confused by claim. Pleasure is "good."

Now this better illustrates my point. If we are asked why we dislike pain, we will claim it is bad. Then our friend in chains stop us. He enjoys pain. So we have the following claims:

1. Someone can believe pain is good.
2. Someone can believe pain is bad.

Now how to we make sense of these claims. What content do these sentences contain? They contain the following:

They reference the terms "good" and "bad" which are necessary terms which a scientist might define as "worth pursuing by an agent" and "worth avoiding by an agent."

Now does the statement "pain is bad for John" give me a reason to consider his interests with respect to my own. The references to terms like "good" and "bad" refer to something.

Are these references corresponding to states of affairs accessible only to ourselves? Or do they contain value outside of our individual observation? This a moral complex issue. I'd argue they contain value independent of individuals and, therefore, we can legitimately care about the suffering of others. If we were moral saints, I would suggest we would care about suffering regardless of who it belongs to.

That being said, that's a more controversial claim. However, we can bring back the single individual. Pleasure is "good" and "pain" is bad. Therefore, they "at the very least" have some sort of obligation to themselves to pursue these ends. By obligation we simply mean "a reason to pursue ends and avoid others."

The mistake moralists make is claiming morality is something different than a reason to pursue ends and avoid others. Now if given the original scenario of killing ten babies or a puppy, a rational person can see the negative value in the suffering of others and choose to hug a puppy.

The reason people don't make moral decisions purely motivated by reason is because utilities rarely play out in favor of the puppy. People prefer to help themselves to a third helping of dinner instead of giving some extra food to a local homeless shelter.

This is because reason has no causal pull without the right biological capacities to recognize the value of suffering in others. A poor math student cannot solve the problem of designing a safe building. They won't even recognize the values involved in the right way in order to accomplish the task.

A poor ethicist (which I would suggest is every human being) will not properly recognize the values of suffering and inevitably make bad choices.

Now why is subjective/relative/anything-goes morality so popular. Most people have the ability to know they make selfish decisions everyday. They just don't have the ability to recognize that they can do more (1) and (2) they are flawed and have to be realistic.

Sartre's concept of bad faith is interesting here. I advocate accepting morality as governed by specific rules but not giving yourself a hard time about it. Peter Singer thinks you should guilt-ridden people. Someone asks me why I don't volunteer? I'll respond "I'm just not that good of a person." I'll probably laugh about it too.

A religious person who knows God doesn't exist pretends he does. They delude themselves and continue to believe. They are less happy than a religious person who genuinely believes and less happy than an atheist who isn't lying to themselves.

Take the workers. Communism will never work. I can't change anything. Somebody is lying to themselves there, too. We all know we could make a difference. We just aren't good at it.

If you suddenly hold yourself to the standards of perfection rationality would dictate (be in 100% shape, be moral, be smart, be kind), you'd be so upset with yourself for failing you'd self-destruct.

Morality might still be relative, subjective, non-existent. I don't know. I just think it's incredibly interesting.

RGacky3

22nd November 2009, 16:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchadnezzar http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1602573#post1602573)
As an atheist and a cynic, I believe that morality is extremely relative, possibly to the point that this relativity is effectively infinite. This means that I don't believe in any absolute morality, so long as there is at least one person in the world who doesn't find murder off-limits, another who doesn't consider rape irredeemable, another who's moral code is different enough that he will act as you or I never would.

Though these beliefs on their part may be a result of mental illness, I don't think that contributes to any form of ultimate morality. Therefore, I believe that the only reliable way to calculate general morality is through majority opinion. This may seem ridiculous at first, but if you think about it: Genocide is a horrific travesty to most of us here. Genocidal religious zealots who kill in the name of their own moral code tend to think differently, who do we believe? We believe the international community, largely because we share their opinion, but I think that we can take it a step further; that the opinion of the majority can be considered the general morality.

Since I believe in a lot of things that differ from majority opinion, I am therefore morally reprehensible, but you know what?

I don't mind.

What's wrong with a little evil, especially in this context?

Anyone wanna inflict crushing reality on my theory? It's not well-developed at all, feel free.
http://i432.photobucket.com/albums/qq46/joel02078/conformist-demotivational-picture.jpg

Appropriate responce.

gorillafuck

23rd November 2009, 03:21

NO ONE BELIEVES THAT OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXISTS!!! No one.

No your not morally repreensible, get that smirk of your face.
Religious people often do, if they believe in a god that has specific laws.

gorillafuck

23rd November 2009, 03:25

but I think that we can take it a step further; that the opinion of the majority can be considered the general morality.
If morality is subjective then the views of the majority wouldn't make a certain morality be objective. It would still be subjective.

RGacky3

23rd November 2009, 09:18

Religious people often do, if they believe in a god that has specific laws.

Thats not objective morality, its from gods (a specific being) perspective, and its entirely up to you whether you want to accept that morality or not.

ComradeMan

23rd November 2009, 10:00

This is an age-old argument indeed. What is right and what is wrong? To an ancient Roman killing a slave would not have been seen as wrong, a slave was property to be done with as one pleased- it would seem abhorrent today but then that is "our" modern morality.

I would say, tempered in a Machiavellian sense, that which harms none is that which is right. As Jesus sais, "do unto others....". Those, in my opinion, are the pure tenets of any morality.

Bud Struggle

23rd November 2009, 13:53

Thats not objective morality, its from gods (a specific being) perspective, and its entirely up to you whether you want to accept that morality or not.

What what makes the morality objective isn't "if you believe in God" but rather if indeed there actually IS a God and he gave rules--those rules would be then be objective.

RGacky3

25th November 2009, 17:39

What what makes the morality objective isn't "if you believe in God" but rather if indeed there actually IS a God and he gave rules--those rules would be then be objective.

No they would'nt, I could definately choose to ignore Gods rules, and decide his morality is'nt the one I want to follow.

Bud Struggle

25th November 2009, 21:15

No they would'nt, I could definately choose to ignore Gods rules, and decide his morality is'nt the one I want to follow.

But if there IS a God his rules become the objective norm. You could comply or not--but as creator of all things including you--he can make the rules. Now if you want to become a wayward kitty, that's up to you--but the rules are the rules.

greymatter

25th November 2009, 22:08

What what makes the morality objective isn't "if you believe in God" but rather if indeed there actually IS a God and he gave rules--those rules would be then be objective.
Holy shit, effgee alpha 1/arrsquared! I'm morally compelled (by law) to be attracted to every female body in the universe.

Bud Struggle

25th November 2009, 22:35

Holy shit, effgee alpha 1/arrsquared! I'm morally compelled (by law) to be attracted to every female body in the universe.

Not quite it.

greymatter

25th November 2009, 22:40

Not quite it.
The law of gravity ain't quite 'moral' enough for you? If I jack off, god doesn't care that I got my rocks off - only that the arc my semen follows is in perfect accordance with his "objective" laws, NOT the dumbass human ones designed to confuse my ass so that I submit to the higher authority of the kiddie-piddling human who invented the law in the first place!

Bud Struggle

25th November 2009, 22:43

The law of gravity ain't quite 'moral' enough for you? If I jack off, god doesn't care that I got my rocks off - only that the arc my semen follows is in perfect accordance with his "objective" laws, NOT the dumbass human ones designed to confuse my ass so that I submit to the higher authority of the kiddie-piddling human who invented the law in the first place!

Fine. I was just explaining how the philosophy works. I'm not defending it.

Find your battles somewhere else. :closedeyes:

greymatter

25th November 2009, 22:57

Bud Struggle

25th November 2009, 23:04

Fine, wrong target. That said, I'm tired of all this morality bullshit. I can't understand why people cling to right and wrong when actions, consequences, cause, and effect are staring them in the face every day. The thought behind it seems to revolve around an imaginary god with imaginary laws - hah! It's funny cause the real god is all around them and the moralists want a phony one they're worried about braking 'his' laws when the real laws can't be broken.

Daamn.

OK then, how DO you define what's right and wrong? I want stuff. I'm kinda smart. Hmmm, I have a product and these people over here will work dirt cheap. They can leave any time they want.

I can make millions. It's MY IDEA. Who says I'm wrong?

greymatter

25th November 2009, 23:13

OK then, how DO you define what's right and wrong? I want stuff. I'm kinda smart. Hmmm, I have a product and these people over here will work dirt cheap. They can leave any time they want.

I can make millions. It's MY IDEA. Who says I'm wrong?

NOT ME, NOT GOD. Those people will work dirt cheap. If those people kill you because they were fed up with the paramilitaries you were hiring to keep them in line, then God and I don't have a problem with that either. If I piss on the pope? God only cares that the heat energy in the urine is redistributed according to his legislation on thermodynamics.

Bud Struggle

25th November 2009, 23:16

NOT ME, NOT GOD. Those people will work dirt cheap. If those people kill you because they were fed up with the paramilitaries you were hiring to keep them in line, then God and I don't have a problem with that either. If I piss on the pope? God only cares that the heat energy in the urine is redistributed according to his legislation on thermodynamics.

And if thousands die in my factory to buy my daughter a new diamond bracelet on her 16th birthday--that's fine, too?

RGacky3

25th November 2009, 23:19

But if there IS a God his rules become the objective norm. You could comply or not--but as creator of all things including you--he can make the rules. Now if you want to become a wayward kitty, that's up to you--but the rules are the rules.

Thats not objective, even if they become the norm, if I want to become a wayward kitty, then maybe i don't recognise God authority to make laws, even if its the norm, that means Morality is'nt objevtive.

Even in the bible, the whole part about adam and eve choosing to eat the fruit and then (become like God), shows that morality is not objective, the decided to reject God authority and choose their own, God is considered (by judeo-christian tradition) a personal God, which means his morals ARE subjective, because they are his, and humans may or may not choose to follow those rules, or make their own rules, which by definition means subjective. So yeah, with a God, morality is still subjective.

OK then, how DO you define what's right and wrong? I want stuff. I'm kinda smart. Hmmm, I have a product and these people over here will work dirt cheap. They can leave any time they want.

I can make millions. It's MY IDEA. Who says I'm wrong?

You say your wrong, you believe slavery is wrong, as is unjustified authority, and if you look into exactly what capitalism is, its both of those things, you just don't understand it for what it is.

You have said before that you believe Capitalism is, what we say it is, but you don't care, its on top, so you think thats ok. Yet you also claim to believe in other moral codes that conflict, like democracy, freedom and judeo-christian values, sooo, your a hypocrite, which is a harsh way of saying YOU say your wrong. You go against your own morality.

greymatter

25th November 2009, 23:28

And if thousands die in my factory to buy my daughter a new diamond bracelet on her 16th birthday--that's fine, too?

Gee, I bet she's hot. I bet her half sister who's shoveling coal wishes daddy paid her as much attention. Is it right or wrong? neither. It's a primate opera whose beauty we cannot begin to fathom.

Will humanity live in a fascist dystopia or a worker's paradise? Morality has nothing to do with it. If we turn our planet into a galactic Nazi Berlin (or modern Moscow), then there will be some great drama before the aliens wipe us out. Oh well.

Bud Struggle

25th November 2009, 23:32

Thats not objective, even if they become the norm, if I want to become a wayward kitty, then maybe i don't recognise God authority to make laws, even if its the norm, that means Morality is'nt objevtive.

Even in the bible, the whole part about adam and eve choosing to eat the fruit and then (become like God), shows that morality is not objective, the decided to reject God authority and choose their own, God is considered (by judeo-christian tradition) a personal God, which means his morals ARE subjective, because they are his, and humans may or may not choose to follow those rules, or make their own rules, which by definition means subjective. So yeah, with a God, morality is still subjective. You miss the point. God still makes the rules he invent all of this. HE MAKES ALL EVERYTHING OBJECTIVE. My dog stops believing in me, well he's still my dog.

You say your wrong, you believe slavery is wrong, as is unjustified authority, and if you look into exactly what capitalism is, its both of those things, you just don't understand it for what it is.

You have said before that you believe Capitalism is, what we say it is, but you don't care, its on top, so you think thats ok. Yet you also claim to believe in other moral codes that conflict, like democracy, freedom and judeo-christian values, sooo, your a hypocrite, which is a harsh way of saying YOU say your wrong. You go against your own morality.

It doesn't matter what I actually believe or not (yes I'm Christian but that has NOTHING to do with the theoretical point I'm making here) but if there is no objevtive morality (God) than anything I do is subjectively "moral." I can actually do whatever I want. There is no moral or spiritual rule that tells me different than that little moral compass inside myside myself that tells me more more more.

This is where materialism truly fails to make the universal good worth more than the individual good. Here Marx eats his children.

RGacky3

25th November 2009, 23:39

You miss the point. God still makes the rules he invent all of this. HE MAKES ALL EVERYTHING OBJECTIVE. My dog stops believing in me, well he's still my dog.

Your child has to listen to your rules yes, but your morality is still subjective, its still your point of view. Gods morality is still his point of view, even if he made everything, that does'nt mean his point of view is not a point of view. If I make a chair, and someone says it looks like a stool, just because I made it does'nt make it "objectively" a chair.

It doesn't matter what I actually believe or not (yes I'm Christian but that has NOTHING to do with the theoretical point I'm making here) but if there is no objevtive morality (God) than anything I do is subjectively "moral." I can actually do whatever I want. There is no moral or spiritual rule that tells me different than that little moral compass inside myside myself that tells me more more more.

There is your OWN morality, what you decide to be moral based on many different things, and if you go against that, your immoral, and most people tend to have similar morals, that does'nt make it objective.