We all have faith in something: world views take faith.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

You still don't understand the actual difference between subjective & objective.

Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't mean that they don't understand the words and phrases that are being used. Please stop with your condescension!

Maliciousness & unneccesary contemptible actions are always bad. Just because someone might think it's "good" to torture, rape, pillage, & murder doesn't mean it is good. Only subjectively good.

Millions of religious individuals, including the OP, disagree with you. When God ordered it in the Old Testament, it was good and just.

"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). \

God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

Christian Apologist William Lane Craig

Objective morality is just a pipe dream Christians, and other Abrahamic faiths, use as an excuse to justify their "holier than thou" position that the Biblical God's laws are completely good, just and moral. But, they're not!

People used to believe that people inflicted with diseases were evil They believed that their maladies were caused by demons and they sent inflicted individuals to die alone in the dessert. Now, we know that viruses and germ, not demons, cause disease. Germs and disease are NOT inherently evil, they're a necessary part of nature and our ecosystem that is required to keep the balance of life.

a reply to: windword

NO I DON'T! Everything, including right and wrong is subjective. There is no objective moral standard! Everything is relative, including the existence of the universe.

So the man who killed you and your family preformed an ethically good action? Concede that and I will respect your intellectual consistency. I will respectfully disagree, but I will respect your consistency

No. You misunderstand. Why is destroying the universe bad? Serious question. Things are only bad to those who perceive them to be

Destroying the universe by conscious decision ends the lives of many people, and life has meaning. Humans have intrinsic value in my world view. Humans have a purpose.

a reply to: windword

Millions of religious individuals, including the OP, disagree with you. When God ordered it in the Old Testament, it was good and just.

Don't put words in my mouth, because I don't disagree with Him. I also don't hold that just because God orders something it is good and just. Christian Theology dictates that God is the essence of Good. That means he cannot commit evil acts. I don't view any of the deaths ordered by God as evil, and I would love to hear why you think they were evil seeing as how you don't believe evil exist.

One other thing I would like to point out moral relativism is disproved by the laws of logic.

The law of noncontradiction says for an contradictory statements either the proposition is true or its negation is true.

premise:
Murder is evil.

negation:
Murder is not evil.

regardless of which proposition is true, logic dictates only one of them is a true statement.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So the man who killed you and your family preformed an ethically good action? Concede that and I will respect your intellectual consistency. I will respectfully disagree, but I will respect your consistency

From his standpoint, yes. And, like with you, any argument I use to try and change his mind will be met with futility.

Destroying the universe by conscious decision ends the lives of many people, and life has meaning. Humans have intrinsic value in my world view. Humans have a purpose.

That's YOUR "world" view. From a higher standpoint, human life didn't have meaning when God decided to flood the entire Earth. From even another standpoint, humanity may appear like a harmful virus to another space faring species that would desire to conquer and colonize Earth for their own survival and their own meaningful existence, but humanity is a deadly threat to them and their continuing existence.

Morality and meaningfulness is subjective.

premise:
Murder is evil.

negation:
Murder is not evil.

regardless of which proposition is true, logic dictates only one of them is a true statement.

Murder is not always evil.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Good and evil exist. They just exist ONLY on an abstract and subjective level.

a reply to: windword

Murder is not always evil.

Again laws of logic are going to reject this answer via law of the excluded middle:

"For any proposition either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"For any proposition either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."

That's ridiculous. Morality is not a mathematical equation. It's a subjective opinion of what is considered to be, by that individual or group, good or bad.

"I'ts good for me that I got the promotion, but it's bad for Bob that I got the promotion."

a reply to: windword

That's ridiculous. Morality is not a mathematical equation. It's a subjective opinion of what is considered to be, by that individual or group, good or bad

And now your experiencing cognitive dissonance. You are telling me that one of the three classical laws of thought (you know how we determine rationality) is ridiculous. Your right morality is not a mathematical equation but it is in the realm of philosophy and so is logic and reason. I have presented you with a logical argument for the existence of an objective moral realm. So unless you want to drop the laws of logic for the rest of our conversations from here on out I suggest you wake up to reality homie.

"I'ts good for me that I got the promotion, but it's bad for Bob that I got the promotion."

Lol thats not even in the realm of ethics. This would be called a false dilemma. I didn't want to resort to using the whole your being illogical thing. i was hoping I could get you to see that you have an objective moral experience on a daily basis, but now I am afraid I can do nothing but frustrate you with blunt truth.

Murder is a legal term. It is the unlawful killing of a human. So you aren't actually discussing the killing of a human, you are discussing laws surrounding the taking of a humans life.

If a society deemed all homicide as murder, then an auto accident would be deemed murder.
If a society deemed no homicide as murder, then premeditated skull bashing would not be murder.

Ergo, not all murder is evil, because the definition of murder is not static.

a reply to: TheArrow

And now you are arguing with semantics yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow

And now you are arguing with semantics yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

It's not semantics. It's the crux of the debate.

Murder is meaningless without a law in place to define it. Is the law just, or is it tyrannical?

a reply to: TheArrow

It's not semantics. It's the crux of the debate. Murder is meaningless without a law in place to define it. Is the law just, or is it tyrannical?

It most definitely is semantics lol.

If I ask a person "is your homework done?" and rather than answer that start to argue about what does the word "done" actually mean they are arguing semantics right?

The question would Is Murder evil? and you have answered by saying well what does "Murder" really mean.

Murder is deliberate homicide simple as that....

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Murder is deliberate homicide simple as that....

So, every time a cop pulls the trigger and puts down a criminal, that is murder?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I have presented you with a logical argument for the existence of an objective moral realm.

What? This Argument?

The law of noncontradiction says for an contradictory statements either the proposition is true or its negation is true.

premise:
Murder is evil.

negation:
Murder is not evil.

LOL! No you haven't. I don't find your argument logical at all. However, you still may be able to prove your logic by providing an example of objective morality, something that is always good or bad, which you have yet to do.

You can't trick me into believing something that I don't believe.

a reply to: TheArrow

Good point I suppose it was a careless definition to throw out there. The point is your still arguing semantics. How about murder is deliberate homicide without the intention of protecting human life and/or well being?

a reply to: windword

LOL! No you haven't. I don't find your argument logical at all. However, you still may be able to prove your logic by providing an example of objective morality, something that is always good or bad, which you have yet to do. You can't trick me into believing something that I don't believe.

Why do i have to provide you with an example of what is good or bad when I just showed you the laws of logic dictate that there can only be one truth? Think for just a moment about what I am saying. If there can only be one truth via laws of logic does it matter what that truth is? This is where the unicorn guy and I think you dont understand what objective means. It means that there is a truth we can attempt to appeal to outside of our own subjective perceptions of good and evil . The laws of logic show you that the truth exist, but it does not tell you how to determine them.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow

Good point I suppose it was a careless definition to throw out there. The point is your still arguing semantics. How about murder is deliberate homicide without the intention of protecting human life and/or well being?

So, Hitler wasn't a murderer when he killed 6 million Jews because he believed he was protecting humanity from pollution of inferior genetics?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why do i have to provide you with an example of what is good or bad when I just showed you the laws of logic dictate that there can only be one truth?

Morality is NOT a quantifiable truth! Good or Bad can't be defined in mathematical terms. They are abstracts!


What is "good" to one person CAN be "bad" for another.

a reply to: TheArrow

Lets use your form of argument. what is meant by protecting?

a reply to: windword

What is "good" to one person CAN be "bad" for another

Doesn't matter. What is good? Has only one true answer via logic. you keep speaking as though mathematics is the basis of logic. Its the other way around the laws of logic are the basis of math. The laws of logic are abstracts. They are truth statements.