Is morality possible without God

[New Werpland]

This account is the only one I am active with at the moment. Why do you ask?



Where did you get that bit of nonsense from?

Being able to speak and think aren't objectively good, according to you. So you wouldn't mind being stripped of your right to speak and think, yes?

If you would prefer to keep your right to speak and think, you then concede it is better be able to speak and think then not being able to.

If you don't mind being stripped of that right, then I really don't know what to say to you.

I'm sure ne would mind it very much, then ne will contend that denying objective morality doesn't mean ne can't enforce nir own subjective views whilst throwing in some silly stuff about empathy and niceness being proven vital by neuroscience or whatever.

All while ignoring that ne just left the door open for all kinds of horrible things, like Mussolini.

[Eslan]

No. Morality revolves around the idea of a deity.

Bullshit.

Indeed, you could set your own morality by your own morals...

Which everyone does anyway.

...but then again, where do we get morals?

Science. Biology. Evolution. Sentience. Empathy.

Why is murder wrong?

If you do not know the answer to this question, you may want to seek psychological help.

Finally, someone who thinks like I do.

[New Werpland]

Bullshit.

Which everyone does anyway.

Science. Biology. Evolution. Sentience. Empathy.

If you do not know the answer to this question, you may want to seek psychological help.

Finally, someone who thinks like I do.

You're not in the minority.

[RSDLP]

Being able to speak and think aren't objectively good, according to you. So you wouldn't mind being stripped of your right to speak and think, yes?

I would most strongly object to having the rights to speak and think removed, for a number of reasons.

If you would prefer to keep your right to speak and think, you then concede it is better be able to speak and think then not being able to.

1. Why do you assume that having a preference for something means that it is objectively better? Do you also think that your favorite color is objectively superior to every other color on the visible spectrum in some inherent way? Or that your favorite sports teams have been somehow selected by the universe to be better than others? Has your best friend inherently a more pleasant person than any of your more causal associates? Then why to people prefer other colors, root for other teams, and have other friends? Surely we all agree that all those preferences are subjective value judgments without a basis in objective fact.

2. Why do you equate the experience of existing in a certain manner without not experiencing anything at all? It is easily possible to say that nonexistence is preferable or equivalent to existence, but that certain modes of existence are preferable to others. Or, to express it in mathematical terms: X greater than or equal to Y and Z doesn't preclude Y being greater than Z. The are multiple ways to experience existence and it is no contradiction to say that some of them are preferable to others, even objectively preferable based on some established criteria, than the singular way of (not) experiencing non-existence. Your entire line of argument rests on the assumption that the experience thinking something ordained by others and saying something that you did not choose to say is equivalent to not experiencing anything at all, which isn't true by definition.

[Pandeeria]

Being able to speak and think aren't objectively good, according to you. So you wouldn't mind being stripped of your right to speak and think, yes?

If you would prefer to keep your right to speak and think, you then concede it is better be able to speak and think then not being able to.

If you don't mind being stripped of that right, then I really don't know what to say to you.

I'm sure he'd mind it very much, and then he'll contend that denying objective morality doesn't mean he can't enforce his own subjective views.

And then ignore that this kind of thought ends up opening the door for stuff like this.

See, the poster would then be dancing around the question.

Ultimately, the question of "Would you mind the right of speech and thought being revoked?" corners the poster. If the poster answers yes, then the poster concedes that speech and thought are objectively better as the poster is preferring to having those freedoms rather than not having those freedoms.

If the poster says no, the poster would then look silly for beign willing to give up their freedoms like that to try and win an internet argument, and would still essentially lose due to silliness and if the poster actually were forced to give up said rights, the poster would most likely fight for those rights, putting importance on them which leads us back to if said poster says "yes".

[Pandeeria]

Being able to speak and think aren't objectively good, according to you. So you wouldn't mind being stripped of your right to speak and think, yes?

I would most strongly object to having the rights to speak and think removed, for a number of reasons.

If you would prefer to keep your right to speak and think, you then concede it is better be able to speak and think then not being able to.

1. Why do you assume that having a preference for something means that it is objectively better? Do you also think that your favorite color is objectively superior to every other color on the visible spectrum in some inherent way? Or that your favorite sports teams have been somehow selected by the universe to be better than others? Has your best friend inherently a more pleasant person than any of your more causal associates? Then why to people prefer other colors, root for other teams, and have other friends? Surely we all agree that all those preferences are subjective value judgments without a basis in objective fact.

2. Why do you equate the experience of existing in a certain manner without not experiencing anything at all? It is easily possible to say that nonexistence is preferable or equivalent to existence, but that certain modes of existence are preferable to others. Or, to express it in mathematical terms: X greater than or equal to Y and Z doesn't preclude Y being greater than Z. The are multiple ways to experience existence and it is no contradiction to say that some of them are preferable to others, even objectively preferable based on some established criteria, than the singular way of (not) experiencing non-existence. Your entire line of argument rests on the assumption that the experience thinking something ordained by others and saying something that you did not choose to say is equivalent to not experiencing anything at all, which isn't true by definition.

If you object to it, then you concede that you believe it is important. I'm guessing we could apply that to most everyone, asking them the same question.

Regardless, you've conceded that being able to speak and think is preferable to not being able to. I suppose this argument is now over.

[New Werpland]

Regardless, you've conceded that being able to speak and think is preferable to not being able to. I suppose this argument is now over.

Ne has conceded that it's preferable, but that's just in his context.

[RSDLP]

If you object to it, then you concede that you believe it is important. I'm guessing we could apply that to most everyone, asking them the same question.

I haven't concede that it is objectively important. I have stated that, presupposing existence, I subjectively value it and that it might be possible to establish an objective criteria for preferring one form of experience over another. Why did you continually confuse subjective preferences with objective reality?

Regardless, you've conceded that being able to speak and think is preferable to not being able to. I suppose this argument is now over.

Now you're just being dishonest. I only stated that experiencing being about to speak and think is preferable, in my view, to experiencing not being able to do so. I most empathetically did not state that those experiences are preferable to not experiencing anything at all. Far from being a knockdown argument, your point is entirely fallacious because it equates the relation of one experience to another with the having no experiences. You basically asked me "is green or blue preferable?" and, when I suggested that green was preferable to blue, declared that I had somehow admitted that green was preferable to red. That isn't an argument, that's just bad logic.

[RSDLP]

Regardless, you've conceded that being able to speak and think is preferable to not being able to. I suppose this argument is now over.

He's conceded that it's preferable, but that's just in his context.

Umm... Will you please stop referring to me as he?

I don't particularly like it and noted my preferred pronouns in my signature for a reason, thank you.

Ne is equivalent to he or she, nir to his or hers, nim to him or her, and nemself to himself or herself.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

But that presumes that experiencing things is somehow intrinsically better than not experiencing nothing. I could just as easily say that being dead, or not having been born in the first place, is better than being alive for the exact same reason.

Ignoring the double negative, It is my personal determination that being alive is preferable to being dead, and the suicide rate is high enough that I assume it encompasses anyone who makes the opposite determination. Given that this leaves me almost entirely with those who would prefer life, I can move on using the assumption that nearly everyone does.

[Zottistan]

When you take into account environmental differences and the fact that no two people have identical brain structure and composition, this isn't a problem for a mechanistic worldview.

That we have different brain structures is the very reason why subjectivity exists. I agree with you that we are nothing but organic machines. But that doesn't mean that we can't be subjective. Each person has a slightly different logic pattern, influenced both by genetics and experience. I'm not sure why you think the concepts of subjectivity and organic machines are mutually exclusive.

I don't.

[Hurdegaryp]

That we have different brain structures is the very reason why subjectivity exists. I agree with you that we are nothing but organic machines. But that doesn't mean that we can't be subjective. Each person has a slightly different logic pattern, influenced both by genetics and experience. I'm not sure why you think the concepts of subjectivity and organic machines are mutually exclusive.

I don't.

Apparently the two of you actually don't disagree, then.

[The New Sea Territory]

If God didn't exist, then I wouldn't want to live.

...you're still alive.

[Benuty]

If God didn't exist, then I wouldn't want to live.

...you're still alive.

Then technically they are dead?

If their logic is indeed correct.

[Anollasia]

Morality is a part of human nature.

[The Venderlands]

If God didn't exist, then I wouldn't want to live.

...you're still alive.

Indeed.....

[Godular]

...you're still alive.

Indeed.....

So you're basing your continued existence on the presumed existence of an entity with zero evidence supporting said presumption and a gravely contradictory moral framework.

A tenuous base indeed.

[RSDLP]

I'm sure ne would mind it very much, then ne will contend that denying objective morality doesn't mean ne can't enforce nir own subjective views whilst throwing in some silly stuff about empathy and niceness being proven vital by neuroscience or whatever.

Close enough.

All while ignoring that ne just left the door open for all kinds of horrible things, like Mussolini.

Why would I ignore that? I have no problem acknowledging that other people will also have their own views and will try to enforce them. All that does is reduce things to a question of physical force- do I shoot Mussolini or does Mussolini shoot me?- and test the willingness of people to fight to see their views implemented.

[Grave_n_idle]

...you're still alive.

Indeed.....

But you don't want to be.

*nods*

[RSDLP]

Morality is a part of human nature.

Is slavery immoral?

[Nilla Wayfarers]

If God didn't exist, then I wouldn't want to live.

... Umm... okay. Then I suggest you go here:

I don't take these things lightly.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Morality is a part of human nature.

Is slavery immoral?

Yes, yes it is. What does that have anything to do with this?

[Pachenstein]

There's no possibility of objective morality without God. If there is no God then morality is subjective/non-existent.

[Grave_n_idle]

There's no possibility of objective morality without God. If there is no God then morality is subjective/non-existent.

There's no possibility of objective morality WITH a god. Read a holy book, some time - religious morality is entirely subjective.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

There's no possibility of objective morality without God. If there is no God then morality is subjective/non-existent.

Religious morality cannot be objective. You interpret the meaning of a holy book in your own way (unless you let some guy in a robe indoctrinate you), so morals based on your interpretation are unique and subjective.