Should we ban pornography?

[The New California Republic]

But that still equates to: "God told me that something is immoral, and that moral code applies to everyone, even if they don't believe in said God. It is right to force that morality on everyone, as their opinions are fallible, so their opinions don't matter really. All that matters is that we obey the word of God, whose existence I cannot prove, but I do not need to, because human opinions are fallible, except for the opinion that I know God exists and I know what he wants". Do you not see one tiny little problem with that?

No problem except that God is not an opinion.

If it isn't an opinion, then what is it? It certainly isn't a proven truth...

[Alvecia]

No problem except that God is not an opinion.

If it isn't an opinion, then what is it? It certainly isn't a proven truth...

It's a strongly held opinion belief

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Okay, putting aside whether or not the first amendment applies to "obscenity" (which sounds frankly like utter mental gymnastics to me anyway) it still says lawmakers do not get to impose religion on people.

So religious objections aren't enough reason to ban it either way. So let's put religious reasons away for now. What else have they got for us?

[Mattopilos II]

Okay, putting aside whether or not the first amendment applies to "obscenity" (which sounds frankly like utter mental gymnastics to me anyway) it still says lawmakers do not get to impose religion on people.

So religious objections aren't enough reason to ban it either way. So let's put religious reasons away for now. What else have they got for us?

The development of humanism came along with the defining of morals separate from God... ironically similar in what they define as good and bad but defined in terms of Man, not God. So... I am sure there will be humanists in here to attempt to disagree here.

[La Vendee]

No problem except that God is not an opinion.

No, but belief in a god is definitely an opinion. What else could it be? The truth is not an acceptable answer here as the existence of a god is unprovable. This renders your religious argument against pornography useless.

It is a truth.
Also, a non-religious moral argument for anything is useless, because with a God, there is no moral truth.

[Vassenor]

No, but belief in a god is definitely an opinion. What else could it be? The truth is not an acceptable answer here as the existence of a god is unprovable. This renders your religious argument against pornography useless.

It is a truth.
Also, a non-religious moral argument for anything is useless, because with a God, there is no moral truth.

>Atheists cannot have morality

Everybody take a shot.

[Mattopilos II]

No, but belief in a god is definitely an opinion. What else could it be? The truth is not an acceptable answer here as the existence of a god is unprovable. This renders your religious argument against pornography useless.

It is a truth.
Also, a non-religious moral argument for anything is useless, because with a God, there is no moral truth.

You created the illusion of a moral truth, which is quite different from there actually being a moral truth. This is little more than projection of the failings of your logic onto atheists.

[Purpelia]

There is no moral truth. That's just a fact. This universe does not have an atom of good any more than it has a joule of evil. Morality is entirely a make belief human construct that we have invented for the purpose of having ordered groups that cooperate and don't collapse into infighting. Therefore moral truth is what ever works to achieve this goal for the group in question.

[Reploid Productions]

No, but belief in a god is definitely an opinion. What else could it be? The truth is not an acceptable answer here as the existence of a god is unprovable. This renders your religious argument against pornography useless.

It is a truth.
Also, a non-religious moral argument for anything is useless, because with a God, there is no moral truth.

Since you're repeating yourself, I'll just repeat... okay, not myself, but somebody else who beat me to the punch:

it still says lawmakers do not get to impose religion on people.

So religious objections aren't enough reason to ban it either way. So let's put religious reasons away for now. What else have they got for us?

[La Vendee]

It is a truth.
Also, a non-religious moral argument for anything is useless, because with a God, there is no moral truth.

>Atheists cannot have morality

Everybody take a shot.

I don't understand what you mean by take a shot, but you are correct in saying that atheists cannot have morality (as in, claim object moral truths).

It is a truth.
Also, a non-religious moral argument for anything is useless, because with a God, there is no moral truth.

You created the illusion of a moral truth, which is quite different from there actually being a moral truth. This is little more than projection of the failings of your logic onto atheists.

Moral truths are not illusions.

There is no moral truth. That's just a fact. This universe does not have an atom of good any more than it has a joule of evil. Morality is entirely a make belief human construct that we have invented for the purpose of having ordered groups that cooperate and don't collapse into infighting. Therefore moral truth is what ever works to achieve this goal for the group in question.

Perfect description of the atheist moral view.

It is a truth.
Also, a non-religious moral argument for anything is useless, because with a God, there is no moral truth.

Since you're repeating yourself, I'll just repeat... okay, not myself, but somebody else who beat me to the punch:

it still says lawmakers do not get to impose religion on people.

So religious objections aren't enough reason to ban it either way. So let's put religious reasons away for now. What else have they got for us?

From an atheist POV, there is no object morality, so there is also nothing wrong with lawmakers imposing religion on people.

[Ifreann]

From an atheist POV, there is no object morality, so there is also nothing wrong with lawmakers imposing religion on people.

Really, you can stop trying to tell us what our opinions are.

[Ethel mermania]

>Atheists cannot have morality

Everybody take a shot.

I don't understand what you mean by take a shot, but you are correct in saying that atheists cannot have morality (as in, claim object moral truths).

You created the illusion of a moral truth, which is quite different from there actually being a moral truth. This is little more than projection of the failings of your logic onto atheists.

Moral truths are not illusions.

There is no moral truth. That's just a fact. This universe does not have an atom of good any more than it has a joule of evil. Morality is entirely a make belief human construct that we have invented for the purpose of having ordered groups that cooperate and don't collapse into infighting. Therefore moral truth is what ever works to achieve this goal for the group in question.

Perfect description of the atheist moral view.

Since you're repeating yourself, I'll just repeat... okay, not myself, but somebody else who beat me to the punch:

From an atheist POV, there is no object morality, so there is also nothing wrong with lawmakers imposing religion on people.

i would imagine the athiests would oppose such a move.

[Mattopilos II]

From an atheist POV, there is no object morality, so there is also nothing wrong with lawmakers imposing religion on people.

You don't learn do you? You are not getting the memo: your ideas, whether correct or not, are based on religious superstition and have no place in law. As such, to claim one ought to band porn on the basis of "god" won't fly. And lastly, what you have said makes no sense, but others have trued to explain that to you with no success so I won't touch that.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

From an atheist POV, there is no object morality, so there is also nothing wrong with lawmakers imposing religion on people.

See, this is what happens when people are brainwashed into conflating morality with pretending it is not a matter of opinion. Just because we know they're opinions doesn't mean we're obligated to treat them as equal. We go by actual harm done or lack thereof, not what some book written by primitives has to say about it.

[Vassenor]

>Atheists cannot have morality

Everybody take a shot.

I don't understand what you mean by take a shot, but you are correct in saying that atheists cannot have morality (as in, claim object moral truths).

That I've heard the crap you're spouting so many times you could make a drinking game out of it.

[The New California Republic]

atheists cannot have morality.

Please do a bit of reading into the branch of Philosophy known as Ethics, and then say that there is no morality without God/s. Overall, if anything, I think you will find that there are more moral systems without a God or Gods at their core than moral systems with one at their core...

[Purpelia]

What I do not understand is this fixation on objective moral truth. Why does anyone feel its necessary to have such a thing?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What I do not understand is this fixation on objective moral truth. Why does anyone feel its necessary to have such a thing?

Fear of human nature, exploited by religion to hijack moral feelings.

It's the only explanation for why so many people support moral priorities they cannot defend.

[The New California Republic]

What I do not understand is this fixation on objective moral truth. Why does anyone feel its necessary to have such a thing?

Having control of objective moral truth has often been historically associated with power, as a prerequisite or a condition to having it, so that might explain it...

[Purpelia]

You both explain how it came to be or why it is desirable for some subgroups. But I am more concerned with the philosophical part of the question.
Why is objective moral truth morally desirable? As opposed to its alternatives.

[Katzenstaat]

Porn is good precisely because it makes people less interested in real sex and piss off both SJ and Abrahamic moralists.

Moralists have caused more harm than good through their moralism.

[The New California Republic]

You both explain how it came to be or why it is desirable for some subgroups. But I am more concerned with the philosophical part of the question.
Why is objective moral truth morally desirable? As opposed to its alternatives.

Probably because of the word "objective" itself. It appears neutral, authoritative, and final. The word seems to have an alluring power all on its own, anything "objective" seems desirable, for example "objective knowledge" is seen as somehow superior to "subjective knowledge", regardless of what the knowledge is in relation to. Perhaps further study of the etymology of the word "objective" would shed some light on this...

[Purpelia]

You both explain how it came to be or why it is desirable for some subgroups. But I am more concerned with the philosophical part of the question.
Why is objective moral truth morally desirable? As opposed to its alternatives.

Probably because of the word "objective" itself. It appears neutral, authoritative, and final. The word seems to have an alluring power all on its own, anything "objective" seems desirable, for example "objective knowledge" is seen as somehow superior to "subjective knowledge", regardless of what the knowledge is in relation to. Perhaps further study of the etymology of the word "objective" would shed some light on this...

Again though, you are explaining why it would be desirable to an emotional human.

What I am asking is: Assume you are a philosopher philosophizing about morality as it applies to the real world. What is your argument for objective reality being desirable?
Also, the "as it applies to the real world" is crucial to my question. Because whilst I can probably think off arguments for it in a purely philosophical sense they don't carry over to the real world when applied to real problems and most importantly to ordered societies.

[Brazilian Empire]

Are you a real zealot? I thought you guys were extinct.
Really, this poll is so stupid, I'd suggest you all try to stop explaining how stupid this is and go do something more productive, cause clearly, the author is beyond salvation.

[Purpelia]

Are you a real zealot? I thought you guys were extinct.

Why would you think that? I mean, ISIS exists does it not?