Can you have objective morality without believing in God?

No it isn't. "God" has all sorts of other attributes that don't solely revolve around that.

You are a fuckin idiot, but the trips have me reeling? My conviction, perhaps, is leading to my downfall? Could this lowly pleb really be right? Is my whole world an even bigger lie than previously thought?
Do any of these questions have answers?

TRIPS
TRIPS
TRIPS

user, since you clearly have all the answers can we read some Kierkegaard and chill? ;)

Good argument. Totally proved me wrong in those 63 words.

Right. You definitely cant prove an objective God. Though, since it is just a choice with no proof either way, one leads toward the productive social contract and one path leads towards chaos or tyranny. I am using a utility argument at the end of the day, for belief in God and hence morals, which is not great, since I hate when people use a utility argument for morals--as you just did, though, Ultimately utility arguments cannot endure. Might will make right, is that philosophies logical conclusion. At least Im using the utility argument higher in the logical chain where its place actually belongs. Utility to construct a moral framework has no justification. It cannot explain why we should valie life in the first place

You are helpless m8. Keep it moving to another board. This big boy conversation is beyond your feeble minds understanding. You have misunderstood from the jump. Cat, lol

as God or gods are creations of men, why would it be objective? There are different religions with different codes of ethics...

I'm not the one arguing from unfounded prepositions in grade-school grammar.

You say that stefan, ((upb)), yet, what can be the justification to value life in the first place?

Oh, so whats your argument then?

...

True, but how is that relevant? Im saying he does x to prove my point, and you are saying he does x, y and z. Which I probably agree with you on, dependi g where you take this next

>Ultimately utility arguments cannot endure.
But they do. If you considered utility arguments as "a functional reason why something exists" then that's not even an argument. It's just the way it is. It's like saying you don't believe the sky is really blue. We're animals, with hardwired compulsions built in over millions, if not billions of years.

Religion is basically just putting those inherent laws to paper in a way that doesn't make us seem like animals. But we are just animals.

I don't begrudge people their religion. I'm happy for religious people and I've tried my hand at it myself- but I'm also not deluding myself.

Whatever you believe, religion, atheism, or whatever, the ultimate goal is survival. And, frankly, reducing each "law" down to it's purpose makes it's painfully clear.

Take any law presented to you by religion or otherwise and reduce it down to how it benefits you (or whoever made the law) and it's undeniable.

Don't kill? = If you kill you're drawing the aggression of others toward yourself
Don't eat shellfish? = Shellfish was difficult to safely store and therefore, eating it could result in sickness.
Don't worship idols? = Worshiping that which the local whoever didn't approve of took power away from that local whoever and made him easier to overthrow.

Get it? It's all logic. It all has a function. It's not something spiritually fulfilling. That doesn't mean it's not useful.

Belief in a Christian God has no bearing on whether or not there is an objective morality. Your opinion that God is the arbiter of rightness, is a subjective one.

hobbes apriori blah blah golden rule

you get the picture

Heres where you are wrong though m8: there have been countless examples of people abusing power through out mankinds history. Its actually more the rule than the exception, without God in the picture there is no reason why this is morally wrong. Might makes right. There is no inherent reason we should value other peoples lives.

As for the history of morals, as you more or less put it, religion--God--was needed to justify this utility and give it a back bone. Without God it all falls apart. It might still be logically coherent, but it has no consequence outside of law.

It is not though, if God exists, then there is right and wrong. It is a conditional affirmation. Also, I never said Christian God.

Unless everything that happens is right.

>without God in the picture there is no reason why this is morally wrong.

>without god, I don't feel guilt

yeah, only if you're a psychopath. I honestly don't know how this is an argument. Are you implying people who believe in religion can't do awful things?

Suck a fat one. You're not making sense. God is not the constant. Not even by a long shot.

People do awful things. That's just how people are. Morality boils down survival rules, and there's a goddamn venn diagram of "whats good for my survival" and "what does religion want me to do"

God doesn't change that. Sorry.

You don't seem to understand the difference between belief in God and God's actual existence. Also, given that "God" would simply be one other opinion, his idea of morality is also a subjective one, so it's irrelevant. You're like a peasant saying that The King exists and therefore there's an objective morality because The King says so. Just because someone's bigger and more powerful than you doesn't mean their opinion is more correct than yours. Your entire mode of thinking is stymied in (inaccurate, stereotypes of) medieval thought.

You only think someone who kills is a psychopath, because youve been conditioned you pseud. Sheep at its finest right here. I am not implying people who are religious cant be bad. Im saying only the religious have the possibility of having an objective conception of good and bad. Go home reddit

God is the creator of not only us, but the universe. His judgement would be final. I see what you are trying to do their, but its not applicable, unless you are using a different definiyion of God. Not as the all-mighty

>God is the creator of not only us, but the universe
So?
>His judgement would be final.
I disagree. Which proves you wrong.
>Not as the all-mighty
I don't give a fuck how big the bully is, doesn't make him right.

a shirt for you user.

Lol, go back to your freshman seminar m8. Youve been outclassed

Why tho?

Again, great argument there.

Last reply Ima give you:

His judgement would be final
>I disagree which proves you wrong
>I dont...bully...whatever

This is your argument. Everyone here knows how retarded you are. Good luck reddit-fag.

Look, kid I get. You're religious, right? If you're even a little bit wrong, then your whole religion falls apart.

But that's not an argument
>Im saying only the religious have the possibility of having an objective conception of good and bad.
In what version of reality does this make any sense?
If there's no objective moral law, then how do religions present an objective moral law? How the fuck would they know? It's all fucking make believe. It's all building on simple, cold functionality, dressed up to appeal to people who are scared to confront the idea that we're all dumb animals that are going to fuck and then die.

Whether you're religious or not isn't an issue. It doesn't matter. But no, there isn't a "right answer" and there isn't an objective moral law because there is no "right answer".

Fucking deal with it.

Morality is not equatable with religion.

I don't know who said it and I don't care, but here's a quote you should take to heart:
"If the only reason you don't hurt strangers is because of religion, then thats a you problem."

Normal people, no matter how shitty people are, do not feel a strange compulsion to attack people. Yeah, we get mad and sometimes we fantasize about picking up a chair and flinging it through the front window of a cafe when something goes wrong on a bad day- BUT people don't not do it because of religion. God is not the reason why people have inhibitions.

People don't throttle strangers in the mall because not only would we be arrested, but people we have social relationships with would no longer want to have these relationships with us. God is not a factor.

In fact if the only reason you DO do something good, is because "God would want me to," then you're not actually a good person.

You are so hopeless its incredible. You are out of your league m8.

>b4 you say, nice argument

Everything youve said here has been answered above.

You do realize that green texting a legitimate reply first doesn't actually negate the fact that you're the one unable to give a coherent response, right?

You're really not very bright. Maybe you should lurk a bit longer before trying to engage in arguments.

Topkek

You can't have objective morality either way, see: Euthyphro dilemma

If God is the all-mighty, then goodness is his creations. Not the other way around. Not Platos best work desu

>have objective morality
>have
If morality is objective, and thus dictated by a higher power, then you can't "have" it. Just because you reject a God's morality doesn't mean that you can have your own subjective morality. It also doesn't mean that you will be punished for rejecting God's law, assuming that you understand why and you are doing so for the right reasons. Ignorance of cosmic truth probably won't help though.

Just because someone creates a thing doesn't mean it can't be used in different ways by other people. Your argument is just that "God made it and God is good therefore God is the arbiter of good" which is circular and about as mental gymnastic as the worst possible SJW bullshit

even if god existed, morality would still be subjective because a party being more intelligent and powerful than you still has its own interests that are different from yours, intelligence is irrelevant. morality is by definition subjective.

Not if God is all-mighty though. What your saying only applies to the Pantheon, or some other hierarchy

Unless moral law can be defined in a similar manner as natural and mathematical law, which would remove the "interest" part of the argument.

What if... Everything that happens is right? And the only wrong is what we decide is wrong? What if death is not bad and is merely apart of the process of some bigger game.

>Not if God is all-mighty though.
>I don't give a fuck how big the bully is, doesn't make him right.
Your mind is blinkered as fuck.

but it couldn't be because in the end it's just feels-based. a rock does not know morality. morals stem from human psychology and their ethics can ultimately be reduced to emotions. if you follow the trail backward enough into someone's rationale, you will eventually hit "because I care about this thing for no rational reason, evolution just made my brain have compassion" or whatever emotion shaped their morals. for example, why does somebody believe murder is bad or "immoral"? in the end, it is because they believe this it is better for society to abhor murder. so why do they care about what is good for society? because their emotions implore them to feel compassion for other human beings and want team human to do well. but this is emotional and irrational, it's just a programmed evolutionary tick that you cannot prove "correct" with math.

why not?

i dunno lol

Since the name of God is I AM it doesn't really matter whether I AM the source of objective morality or I AM not the source of objective morality

Dominos bread twists are my god

Not quite m8. God made everything, therefore, God is the arbiter of good. Cut a step out. Not circular, sound logic if you accept the conditional premises

What if...first grade logician in da HOUSE!!

Second grade actually. That's two grades above you my dude

To your first point, fair enough. Though, I would say it would come back to God

>God made everything, therefore, God is the arbiter of good
No. That is a false presupposition. I can make something out of clay, that does not make me the arbiter of good clay. If I made something out of nothing. that would not make me the arbiter of something.

I'm not saying that morality is mathematic, I'm sayi my that if there is an omnipotent god, then the moral law dictated by said god will be as structured as the law we can theorize in the sciences- not measured in the same way,but however.

it would still be subjective though. whatever that god described in his moral law, the mere logical possibility of a disagreement with that moral means that it must be subjective. if there's some edgy teenage kid who thinks "nuh uh, everything sucks! anti-natalism now" then he has his own subjective morality that is different from god's subjective morality. god's is not more "correct" simply because it is more informed, moral preference ultimately boils down to personal preference/emotion as I posted here

Your shit analogy should also include clay itself and everything in exiatence. If God exists and created everything, then morality would be well within Thees domain.

Coherentism isn't objective
Wrong. Try again STEMsperg
You are deluding yourself. Try again STEMsperg

>In fact if the only reason you DO do something good, is because "God would want me to," then you're not actually a good person.
becuz i sed so hur le science
Conventionalism isn't objective you absolute retard

>If I made something out of nothing. that would not make me the arbiter of that something.
>Hey guys I made a helpless being that I get to torture to death, it feels excruciating pain and existential angst but it's ok because I made it from nothing!

Wrong again. An infinite being beyond and within existence would be an objective being.

Finally someone here thats get it!

When someone refuses to eat and survive, they are attempting to break our physical laws regarding metabolism and hunger which have been set and enforced by the universe. We set, as a society or through religion, moral law which is enforced either through jail or in religion's case through divine punishment (in this life, the next life, or the afterlife.) Assuming that one particular religion or spiritual path was correct in their beliefs surrounding moral law, then objective morality would exist.

>Assuming that one particular religion or spiritual path was correct in their beliefs surrounding moral law, then objective morality would exist.

Exaxtly. This isnt hard guys.

but that definition would be independent of God's existence: take, for example, Kant's deduction of the kingdom of ends. if God created the universe with objective morality, it must be logically deducible.

Hence why we don't all follow the same objective morality.
What even is you point here?

Why is living inherently moral?

>they are attempting to break our physical laws regarding metabolism and hunger which have been set and enforced by the universe.
what are these laws of hunger of which you speak, would you show me where has the universe written these down?

ive got a big cock! lol!

If one doesn't have some form of sustenance, they will die. If they don't believe that gravity restricts them, and they try to fly while they jump off a building, they will die. This is a part of physics and mathematics and make a up the physical law of our universe as physical beings. Moral law may be structured the same way, assuming that there is an omnipotent force which dictates that. Or maybe moral law is something that can be resisted in a way which will lead to freedom.

Pic from a previous thread on this

>morality
>mfw

Right, point 4 is the only way to have objective morality, but I disagree its arbitrary--as he asserts. We have no idea why God does what he does, which also makes an objective morality difficult to know; however, the introduction of God into the equation combined with what is, remedies the is/ought dilemna.

>We have no idea why God does what he does
Its literally arbitrary unless its something that binds God in which case that being wouldn't be God. There is no restraint on Gods actions.

Literally no one advocates unrestricted omnipotence in 2017.

Can you have morality when believing in God?
If it's "God's will" how much would you let happen?
Are you capable of an ethical decision based on choice rather than conforming to your creed?

Nope, religious people discard their own morality, to follow that of their religion, they don't have morality, they have faith that the morality spoon-fed to them is "better" than what they would come up by themselves

yes. Read the Analects.

Yes
Law

Morality is subjective and universal. You literally cannot refute this, but you can try

woman detected

Even if you knew for certain that God exists, which isn't possible to know, alligning your morality with God's wishes still would not be provably objectively correct.

As a Christian, I wouldn’t even argue that there is such a thing as “objective morals.” As an ancient text, the Bible condoned a lot of behaviors and institutions we consider horrifying, like slavery and genocidal settler colonialism.

On the other hand, saying there is no such thing as an objective morality is not the same as saying that there is objectively no such things as morals. All societies struggle with itself to define what is good and moral and just, and even then there is no consensus. Within a society or civilization, there will always be diving lines between races and classes and the sexes as to what constitutes moral behavior. That’s normal.

How so?

God, would be the subjective being that created us, however, everything he created would be the objective world and morals to us

You are clueless. Get woker user. Pseudamentary levels right now

Morality has nothing to do with being "nice" to each other. People who are nice to other people get taken advantage of all the damn time.

You forgot that beliefs based on faith can be objective if and only if they agree with me.

>paradime

You can't, but the problem is that believing in God doesn't get you an objective morality either.
If you don't believe in God, your moral principles would likely be based on something like the golden rule: "treat others how you want to be treated" or "anything that brings unnecessary harm or suffering is bad". This works to an extent because most people generally agree on basic morals: don't murder, don't steal, etc. The problem is that there's always going to be room for disagreement because what counts as "unnecessary suffering" is always going to be arbitrary.
The problem is that believing in a god is no less arbitrary. Instead of basing morality on what minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness, all you're doing is living by the principle of "God decides what's good or evil, regardless of whether those rules improve or diminish well being". And the obvious problem with that is that there are hundreds of different religions with hundreds of different interpretations of God and morality. Even if you're going to say that the Christian God is the one true God, your interpretation of morals are going to depend on whether you think the Bible should be taken 100% literally or not.
Sorry about the wall of text and sloppy writing. I hope some of what I wrote is coherent, English is not my first language. I'd love to hear any thoughts on what I said above. I was raised Christian and am now agnostic, so I'm not super biased either way and am open to hearing other opinions.

without God the world is meaningless, unless I guess you create your own value? Still skeptical about this, yet regaurdless, there is at least no objective meaning or morality. The golden rule would cease to be a rule after a few generations. Chaos/tyranny would ensue

As for belief in God, you are wrong, morality would just be based on Gods subjective choices, however, those choices would be the whole objective world to us, so objective for our purposes. In this paradigm life can be valuable, because God would have given us life, and we get better well-being. No objective morals without God.

Choosing which faith is the obvious problem, but I do think science is actually helping--slowly--remedy this dilemna, because if you believe in God, then an is can be an ought and we can start to learn how to be. For example, we have the innate drive--via evolution--to live, so life must be a value, and so on. Though, I do concede that not all of what is, can be an ought. Still working this bit out in my mind desu

Go to bed, Peterson.

You mean Nietzsche. Jp just popularized this idea

I meant that Peterson should stop doing research on Veeky Forums.

>without God the world is meaningless
Imagine being this cucked in the head.

Buddhism

Make an argument m8. I concede one might be able to make ones own meaning, though, without God where would the meaning come from?

Is fuckin retarded! And the buddha was a dead beat dad!