I can do whatever I want right? For ex. stealing, killing inocent animals, being rude to people, being racist, etc If I am sure I can get away with it?
Sure, if you can live with your own self conscience.
This question is irrelevant anyway. Even if there is a God, you still can kill, rape, steal, etc at any time if you can get away with it. God doesn't stop it; He just punishes it after life is over, and a person willing to kill isn't going to care what God thinks anyway.
It seems as though you could do whatever you want even if there was a god; in either case, you'd be banking on the hope that there would be no consequences.
I can do whatever I want right? For ex. stealing, killing inocent animals, being rude to people, being racist, etc If I am sure I can get away with it?Zeuxo
yeah but youd be a big jerk and no one would like you cuz u suck and eventually youd rly get pwned...
[QUOTE="zombie_forumite"][QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]But there are still morals... Zeuxo
Im glad I read this far before posting,because that is what i was thinking.But without god the morals are meaningless.I disagree. In fact some of the most moral loving people I have ever met are humanist atheists. It does not matter your religion,or if you have one at all,there are some natural laws that general consensus and perception tell humanity to follow. Fact.
Absolute and objective morality are just myths. They do not exist. All morality is subjective and open to personal interpretation. If God does not exist, morality and law can still exist.
[QUOTE="zombie_forumite"]Not really. charlie is not insane.GabuEx
I beg to differ.
Idiot yes,he was always sub intelligent. im not sure how much of that is insanity. I do not like the man,I am not defending him,but the perception and the reality are not the same in my opinion. A lot of other stuff was going on,and there is more to the history of Mr. Manson than most people know.
I said absolute and objective morality do not exist, then go on to say that morality does, it is merely open for interpretation. Nice try though.foxhound_fox
"Subjective" = existent only in the mind. If morality is subjective, it does not physically or temporally exist; it is a figment of imagination that can conceivably be eradicated with the right meds and technology. Example: I interpret the Mona Lisa to be frowning, while someone else interprets it to be smiling. Which of us is right? Neither: because the Mona Lisa is neither smiling nor frowning. We're imagining it. If one of us is right, and the Mona Lisa is smiling/frowning, the interpretation remains subjective but one of us is simply wrong in our interpretations, because one interpretation is rooted in reality while the other is not.
There's more to this analogy, but this is pertinent to the discussion.
Why bother with morals if you will never be held accountable for it? Thats the satanist view anyway, they do as they please because they think that they will never be held accountable for it in the afterlife......Because to them there is none.
"Subjective" = existent only in the mind. If morality is subjective, it does not physically or temporally exist; it is a figment of imagination that can conceivably be eradicated with the right meds and technology. Example: I interpret the Mona Lisa to be frowning, while someone else interprets it to be smiling. Which of us is right? Neither: because the Mona Lisa is neither smiling nor frowning. We're imagining it. If one of us is right, and the Mona Lisa is smiling/frowning, the interpretation remains subjective but one of us is simply wrong in our interpretations, because one interpretation is rooted in reality while the other is not.
There's more to this analogy, but this is pertinent to the discussion.
Zackariel
Doesn't matter. You cannot prove that morality is objective nor absolute. All morality is open to interpretation.
[QUOTE="Zackariel"]"Subjective" = existent only in the mind. If morality is subjective, it does not physically or temporally exist; it is a figment of imagination that can conceivably be eradicated with the right meds and technology. Example: I interpret the Mona Lisa to be frowning, while someone else interprets it to be smiling. Which of us is right? Neither: because the Mona Lisa is neither smiling nor frowning. We're imagining it. If one of us is right, and the Mona Lisa is smiling/frowning, the interpretation remains subjective but one of us is simply wrong in our interpretations, because one interpretation is rooted in reality while the other is not.
There's more to this analogy, but this is pertinent to the discussion.
foxhound_fox
Doesn't matter. You cannot prove that morality is objective nor absolute. All morality is open to interpretation.
Cop-out if I've ever seen one. Morality is the Mona Lisa: there are interpretations but I contend that some interpretations are wrong because they are not rooted in reality.
[QUOTE="peeviness"]I'm pretty sure there's plenty of killers in heaven. Joan of Arc?True-Legend86
There are different levels of killing, not everything is considered murder.... Self Defense. Should someone go to the underworld because they killed someone in self defense? Doesn't sound to fair.
That's called Nihilism, and while it can seem cool to be a hardcore believer in it is absurd. It's best to take it with a grain of salt and only follow a few of its teachings.
Cop-out if I've ever seen one. Morality is the Mona Lisa: there are interpretations but I contend that some interpretations are wrong because they are not rooted in reality. Zackariel
No one subjective interpretation is ultimately or absolutely "right."
If someone who is insane has come to believe that killing people and eating their hearts is "right" by their personal morals, to them, they must uphold what is right and kill people and eat their hearts. To us, who do not think those actions are moral, he seems crazy... but to them they are completely right and we are crazy.
Please, prove that morality is absolute and that one action cannot be interpreted to mean something else.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Zackariel"]"Subjective" = existent only in the mind. If morality is subjective, it does not physically or temporally exist; it is a figment of imagination that can conceivably be eradicated with the right meds and technology. Example: I interpret the Mona Lisa to be frowning, while someone else interprets it to be smiling. Which of us is right? Neither: because the Mona Lisa is neither smiling nor frowning. We're imagining it. If one of us is right, and the Mona Lisa is smiling/frowning, the interpretation remains subjective but one of us is simply wrong in our interpretations, because one interpretation is rooted in reality while the other is not.
There's more to this analogy, but this is pertinent to the discussion.
Zackariel
Doesn't matter. You cannot prove that morality is objective nor absolute. All morality is open to interpretation.
Cop-out if I've ever seen one. Morality is the Mona Lisa: there are interpretations but I contend that some interpretations are wrong because they are not rooted in reality.
Well, morals are interpretive though. What you think are morals might not be for others. It all varies from person to person.
Cop-out if I've ever seen one. Morality is the Mona Lisa: there are interpretations but I contend that some interpretations are wrong because they are not rooted in reality.
Zackariel
The statement "The Mona Lisa is smiling" is a descriptive statement.
The statement "Humans should not kill other people" is a prescriptive statement.
Log in to comment