How is morality objective?

Neither option would make killing innocent humans a moral good.

>It is always wrong to kill innocent human beings
Proofs?

what if i'm a masochist

I'm not the one claiming morality is relative. If you disagree with the statement that it is always wrong to kill innocent human beings you must demonstrate how this is not true.

So everything goes in one of two categories? Are there not gradients? Are things not considered better or worse than another? Can we not ask if killing one innocent human is better than letting five innocent humans die? The very fact that this question has to be asked, and has no clear answer, is proof enough that objective morals do not exist.

So is that all morality is then, just gut-feeling?

In the trolley problem you're merely choosing the lesser of two evils. Both options are evil to different degrees and neither options makes killing innocent humans a moral good.

There exist a real solution of trolley problem. Even child knows what we adults decided to forget...
youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4

We can know morality with our gut but that's not how we define it. It's the relativist that relies on the guy to define morality.

You didn't listen to what I said. Nothing fits in your narrow definition of "good" and "evil." Everything's on a scale. What is evil now can do much good in the future. What seems good now can lead to evil later. Morality is infinitely more complicated than two boxes of "good" and "evil."

How does the non-relatavist define morality?

Think about what you're saying. According to your logic, me choosing not to kill innocent human beings is potentially evil.

As a Christian I would appeal to god. Moral truths imply a moral truth giver which is god. This is very simplified but it is wrong to kill innocent human beings because they have souls. A relativist has no standard to appeal to, for them morality is ultimately up to the individual and that can be a problem because some people think stupid shit.

Yes. According to what may happen in the future, it could be. Keyword is "could." I'm glad you understand now.

God is also relative because he arbitraly decides what is moral and what is not.

Even in a Christian worldview, I don't understand how God can make morality objective. It's still God deciding what is moral and what is not. We're just following the most powerful being's way of life. It's just the might makes right philosophy on a divine scale.

It's not an arbitrary thing because god is perfect good. I'm just going to drop it there because I'm not interested in getting into a theological discussion.

> because god is perfect good
Which is arbitrary because what is good and what is not is a moral truth based on God's opinion.

Yeah I had a feeling that's what you meant. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt but you really did end up being that stupid.

Some goofy protestants might disagree but god doesn't choose what is good because he is goodness itself. This is why can't lie or do evil acts because it would go against his nature.

Moral systems are civilization scale evolutionary adaptations.

Also, define objective.

Have fun in the cave, I guess.

That means he has no agency, he can only choose certain options. He can't go against his nature, meaning he is little more than a FORCE of nature. You may as well worship gravity, it has just as much moral agency as this god you worship.

God not being able to contradict his own nature doesn't not imply that he has no agency. It just means he can't make a squared circle and he can't lie.

That is exactly what that means. It means your god has no free will. If he has the ability to lie, but doesn't, you can make that argument. But if he can't lie at all, then he's an automaton, following his programming.

> not worshipping gravity

God damn black holes are some scary shit.

You're conception of god is as like another human or "super human" rather than what he truly is, which is being itself. Sometimes it's helpful to anthropomorphize but not here.

In the very first line you already messed up and put god in the category of creatures. He is not A being he IS being. The first cause must be omnipotent, eternal, non-physical, and perfect. He created space and time so he can't be bound by it.

What exactly is being?

Existence or reality.

> omnipotent
Just powerful enough to cause everything (in creation).
> perfect
Competent enough to cause everything (in creation).

Nothing implies the first cause must be perfect and omnipotent to be first cause.

So you're arguing for a Spinozaist God?

Pure actual (the first cause) must be omnipotent because to not be able to do something would be unrealized potential and an imperfection of any kind would be an unrealized potential, so pure actual must logically be perfect and omnipotent

Absolute God isn't the only possible first cause. Faulty demiurge that exists outside time and space also should be considered.

Why is unrealized potential a bad thing in this case? Reality isn't perfect, why should its creator be?

I don't even know how to respond this is so stupid. Where do you get the idea that unrealized potential a bad thing? If that's what you got out of that post I'm not even going to bother with you anymore.

A bad thing as in this detracts from the proposal of the first cause being imperfect, you fucking asshammer. Why is Veeky Forums populated by such a bunch of autistic retards? It's like you have no capacity to read between lines or something.

Pure actual isn't the first cause.

It doesn't matter if there is unrealized potential or if there is not. The cause is the first cause, if all that is caused is caused by it. There is no requirement here to cause more than already caused.

If your position is that a first cause must cause all *possible* to cause things, than you should claim existence of inifinity of possible worlds. The world where Hitler is son of Jesus must be one that not only as real as ours but also caused by the same God as ours, etc. If there is no such insane world it means that unrealized potential still exist.

This is why pure actual is more specific than just the first cause.

Pure actual by definition must be perfect. If it's not perfect then by definition it's not pure actual. I can't explain it any more simply.

There is no logical requirment for the first cause to be pure actual.

The argument from motion is not incompatible with this idea of infinite universes. I would ask you guys to study this picture but you would probably just fuck that up too.

Potential can't actualize itself so there logically must be a pure actual at the beginning of the causal chain.

You can't hide from simple logic behind the meme picture, user. The argument here is not about the existence of the first cause, but about the perfect nature of it that requires infinity of possible worlds to exist. Every world that isn't real and every acts that weren't done imply non-perfect nature of pure actuality. If God can could you right now than you should agree with us that he done exactly that or else it would be unrealized potential. If God could create some other worlds than he should do that. That isn't reductio ad absurdum, but just another interesting attribute that should be considered to be logically coherent on par with omnipotency or perfection.Their most direct logical consequence.

> Potential can't actualize itself
This is why that potential was never actualized if the first cause was only partly actual.

This shit sounds like nothing short of inane word games. These concepts, actual, potential, they're not actual things; they're just ideas. Pure actual did not actualize itself, the universe created itself as a causeless, and purely physical event. But this isn't a satisfactory answer to you because you can't handle ambiguity.

So are you saying that you need a reason to not kill people? If that's the case, then you belong in a mental asylum.

The guy who made the picture doesn't understand infinity at all.

This is how that guy pictures infinity
"take a finite chain with god at the beginning. Remove god, now add infinite step after the first nonexistent step"

Of course, this is stupid.

What it actually is

"Take a finite chain, go at the beginning, add infinite steps going backwards".

As every single thing is explained by the previous and there are always previous things, the whole chain has an explanation.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

What you posit is an ethical dilemma.
Is it okay to kill one person to let 5 innocent people live?
If murder is wrong then no it is not.
You still have to take responsibility for your actions despite the circumstances and killing an innocent person is still killing an innocent person, or murder.
It is better to let nature run it's course as that way we are blameless.

God is omniscient, so we should submit to his perfect intelligence in regards to moral matters.
In my opinion his morality is based on rationality, which agrees with the human mind.

No such thing as morality without social and historical context. This is a fedora-level question.

With infinite steps, are you not going to end with a zeno's paradox?
Where you could not even get the whole execution of the chain, wanting each step to execute itself in maybe small but non null time?
I always thought the zeno's paradox proves that the world is not infinite, or at least infinitesimal, but I would say not finite at all. At some point the arrow have to move an atom forward two times sequentially, and it stops the mathematical infinite decomposition of space.

It makes sense to me that the mathematical concept of infinite is creating the paradox in its own model of the world, more than the world being actually a paradox but somehow exists.
I'm not even talking about continuous infinity, which is even more a mathematical model only. For me, an irrational number is only a variable for a finite decimal number allowing you to handle multiple models in one with a free accuracy until you want to actually compute something. But that's not the world.
I guess I'm stupid too.