Help me make sense of this

[Greg]

Human beings determine what is right or wrong otherwise we have lawlessness and chaos. Absolutely no higher power is involved.

Nope. If human beings determine what is right or wrong then there is no objective morality.

For example, the Nazis determined it was right to kill 6 million Jews and start a war that killed tens of millions more. Was that wrong or right? Well, both and neither by your view.

How about racism? Some human beings think it is fine, others find it abhorrent. Which one is morally right?

If human beings determine right and wrong it isn't objective, it is subjective.



Aldous Huxley put it this way:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

Richard Dawkins puts it this way:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.[i]

[Greg]

OK greg if you dont want to be considerate of other poster’s preferences, you dont have to be. But it seems a little petty to take issue with a suggestive comment. Especially considering that you started a thread asking for people’s consideration.
Btw, not everyone is using a computer and mouse to view and post here. But hey thank you for the condescension.

Well sorry. My post was about people just posting links and nothing else. I was mainly concerned that they add their views to the post. If not, then a bit of what is at the link was okay. But again, I was hoping to get the poster's take rather than nothing but a link.

[Greg]

I posted the dictionary definition below of objective morality. It apparently didn't meet Greg's erroneous definition therefore he poo-pooed it. Sorry you all seem to want to twist things into your worldview that apparently cause mental anguish if it does not involve the almighty. Got news for you - religion is the major cause of human suffering throughout history.

Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion. It's the concept that some actions and beliefs are imperatively good or inherently bad, and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in

I didn't poo poo it. LOL.

I found it acceptable and didn't challenge it at all. It's your view that doesn't align with the definition you used.

Here from your definition: ". .. and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in."

So regardless of what you BELIEVE things are good or bad according to your definition. Thus, it isn't human beings that decide because it is regardless of WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

[2bynight]

I didn't poo poo it. LOL.

I found it acceptable and didn't challenge it at all. It's your view that doesn't align with the definition you used.

Here from your definition: ". .. and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in."

So regardless of what you BELIEVE things are good or bad according to your definition. Thus, it isn't human beings that decide because it is regardless of WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

But it takes human beings to define what is good and bad, right? If the statement is the goodness and badness of things holds true no matter what you believe - then someone has to have an overall definition of what is good and what is bad. That is the majority of society that makes those rules. I really don't believe Moses came down from a mountain with the almighty's imprint on stone tablets. I think that is an allegory for how laws developed.

[Greg]

But it takes human beings to define what is good and bad, right? If the statement is the goodness and badness of things holds true no matter what you believe - then someone has to have an overall definition of what is good and what is bad. That is the majority of society that makes those rules. I really don't believe Moses came down from a mountain with the almighty's imprint on stone tablets. I think that is an allegory for how laws developed.

It takes human beings to define what is good and bad SUBJECTIVELY.

For an OBJECTIVE morality it takes a universal law giver, a universal moral compass.

The difference. Under your view there are literally billions of moral codes all equally valid. Under the objective moral view there is one we are all responsible for.

[2bynight]

It takes human beings to define what is good and bad SUBJECTIVELY.

For an OBJECTIVE morality it takes a universal law giver, a universal moral compass.

The difference. Under your view there are literally billions of moral codes all equally valid. Under the objective moral view there is one we are all responsible for.

Not at all. We both agree. There has to be a universal code that says things like killing is wrong. Stealing is wrong. etc....the difference is it seems you believe there has to be an almighty to have that universal moral code. I don't.

[Greg]

Not at all. We both agree. There has to be a universal code that says things like killing is wrong. Stealing is wrong. etc....the difference is it seems you believe there has to be an almighty to have that universal moral code. I don't.

Well, that's because I am being logical.

How can you say morality is set by humans? Again, we would have 8 billion different moral codes right now. How is that a universal morality? It is nothing but a personal one. It isn't even a morality, it is opinions.

The left is the side of individual truths. Pure nonsense. There are not individual truths. 2 + 2 = 4. That's universally true for everybody, just like rape is universally wrong for everybody. Even if you don't think so in both examples it is still true.

It was true for Stalin that what he was doing was perfectly fine. It was true for Hitler that the Jews needed to be eradicated.

How do you incorporate these views into your universal morality?

A universal, objective morality can only come from outside of humanity if it is to be equally applicable to all.

[2bynight]

Well, that's because I am being logical.

How can you say morality is set by humans? Again, we would have 8 billion different moral codes right now. How is that a universal morality? It is nothing but a personal one. It isn't even a morality, it is opinions.

The left is the side of individual truths. Pure nonsense. There are not individual truths. 2 + 2 = 4. That's universally true for everybody, just like rape is universally wrong for everybody. Even if you don't think so in both examples it is still true.

It was true for Stalin that what he was doing was perfectly fine. It was true for Hitler that the Jews needed to be eradicated.

How do you incorporate these views into your universal morality?

A universal, objective morality can only come from outside of humanity if it is to be equally applicable to all.

Humans developed the moral code. However, human beings are flawed. Hence Stalin and Hitler and people who followed them. Anti-semitism and the murder of Jews stemmed from religion again causing harm. Or should I say people's interpretation of religion, stereotypes and scapegoating when things go wrong. Why don't you prove God created universal moral codes...

[Greg]

Humans developed the moral code. However, human beings are flawed. Hence Stalin and Hitler and people who followed them. Anti-semitism and the murder of Jews stemmed from religion again causing harm. Or should I say people's interpretation of religion, stereotypes and scapegoating when things go wrong. Why don't you prove God created universal moral codes...

objective
əb-jĕk′tĭv
adjective

Existing independent of or external to the mind;
actual or real.Based on observable phenomena;
empirical.Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.

In no way can a moral code be objective and be dependent on human minds. If it is dependent on human minds it would be influenced by emotions and prejudices. It would not be fair.

Anti-semitism flowed from tribalism and evil. The Nazis were occultists when it comes to religion.

God didn't create universal moral codes. Morality is part of God's nature. Just as logic is. Neither were created, they just exist eternally as part of God. They are part of His creation as well.

As for proving it, I have. The only way an objective moral code can exist is with some kind of Moral Law Giver. You want to claim it is some kind of human invention. Again, if so, it isn't objective, not anywhere close.

Who gets to decide what is morally objective? Well, no human being, because once a human being, or even group of humans, decide(s), it becomes subjective immediately.

[MacMunin]

As observed by Paul in Romans, even the Pagans had the laws written on the heart.