@ any Non-religious people, what do you base your sense of right and wrong on?
Is there such thing as an objective right or wrong?
If not, then what authority do we have to say that someone else's sense of right or wrong is not as good as ours, or vice versa?
Other urls found in this thread:
There is no ultimate moral compass. Only what is considered acceptable by the majority.
If there was a universal agreement on what was right and wrong people wouldn't do the things that the majority of people frown upon.
my sense of morally comes from what I personally deem is ethical. I'm sure it's influenced by my surroundings and experiences, like everyone else. Religion is just one of the many ways someone develops their sense of morality.
I do not believe there is an objective "good" or "evil". I like to think that everyone has their own reasons for doing things, and no matter how trivial or bizarre their actions might seem to us, they are justified in their own minds.
As for your final question, I'm a firm believer in community consensus WITHIN REASON when regarding morality, as an individual's moral compass is often heavily dictated by their peers and elders.
>@ any Non-religious people, what do you base your sense of right and wrong on?
Raised a by a Catholic familt so still hold most of its values
>is there such thing as an objective right or wrong?
No
>If not, then what authority do we have to say that someone else's sense of right or wrong is not as good as ours, or vice versa?
If you believe you have the right answers I guess you have the authority to do so
This very closely aligns with my beliefs. I don't know that things are objectively right or wrong, but I know that I can tell you with certainty that it is wrong to kill another person.
Despite not believing in any gods I like to look at morality through the Bible. Removing God from it leaves plenty of great core values. For instance, "Thou Shalt not Kill." Almost everyone would agree that killing is morally "wrong." The Bible has many respectable ideals despite my not believing in it's core basis.
I worship kanye west bitch. Not some fairy tale character. Get at me ho ass.
if you need the fear of eternal retribution to stop you from being evil it means your a terrible person . and no there is no such thing as objective right or wrong. objectivity is impossible and right and wrong do not exist. Consequences of actions are the only thing that matter good and bad are just words we use to indicate the nature of the effects of those consequences. no person has any authority to say that a persons action are good or bad or pass any judgement over others however as a society and in groups people are prone to illogical decisions and as such you have the state of our current society.
>/thread
you cannot say anything with certainty
I also agree strongly with his first sentence. People who use that as an argument against non-belief clearly don't know what they are saying.
No objective right and wrong. Morality is a construct to facilitate the survival of self-aware life forms. Useful for this purpose.
Personal moral code defined by my own experience of reality, which includes my upbringing.
cheers mate
Well this is a bit of a semantic argument, but I say that in the sense that I believe that to be factual. I guess you're right about the state of morality in the universe (but if you can say with certainty that you can't say anything with certainty, isn't that paradoxical? I believe that question might be undecidable with your outlook), but I feel very comfortable saying that believe something to be certain.
doesn't this mean that the nazis that killed jews were justified, they were just following the majority?
it is somewhat paradoxical but in the same what i am uncertain that i cannot be certain but i most certainly think i cannot be, however like descartes is most famously known for " i think therefore i am" but even that seems to a tautology
empathy and sympathy mixed with
seems to be***
they believed themselves to be completely justified
Except in self-defense....
>If you believe you have the right answers I guess you have the authority to do so
isn't this a circular argument? (idk what else to call it)
"I believe you have the right answers because it already agrees with my current beliefs
Quick definition of ethics: If everyone did it, would everyone benefit or would everyone suffer?
For instance, if everyone thought that they were in a position to interpret god's intentions, would it make the entire world a retarded shithole full of idiots?
(hint: yes)
God
You're secretly a religious peanut.
...
Any person will do "wrong" if given the chance and the "right" circumstances.
Both religious and non-religious people have raped, pillaged and killed in the past. This should not be forgotten.
No, there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. The important question here is, if you tell someone you have the authority to believe you are better than them in some way, what makes you think they will bother to listen or even care? If they want to kill you, they're going to try and kill you regardless of what authority you claim to have. This is where objective morals fall flat on their face, and makes people weak-minded.
That's only half of one definition of ethics (Kent's definition).
*Kant
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY!
So, isn't it impossible to prove that killing someone is wrong?
Know ones perfect so know one can be completely sertin on anything... I wonder who would be? if only a perfect being of some sort existed... Oh well I guess humanity will eventually go into chaos because everyone will have strong opinions on what is what and people will kill each other because disagreeing is a punishable by death....
I'd rather not get killed or have my stuff taken. Other people would rather not get killed or have their stuff taken. If we avoid killing each other and taking stuff, society as a whole will be better. It's not that complicated.
i am not that user. but it is unwise and wrong to say that it is always wrong to kill people. I would argue that if a majority of people accept a human on human killing as just or ethical, it is indeed just or ethical, simply based on majority rule. Death penalty being an example, passion killings (man walks in on daughter being raped, immediately kills rapist), and others are usually brought up and no one really questions the validity of the murder, even though that's what it is. Murder.
oh sorry, to answer your question yes, it is impossible to prove that killing someone is wrong. Hell it's hard to even define "wrong"
Then life happens and people screw shit up for others, it can get quite complicated like people that like killing and stealing and don't want to stop... And people think we don't have a sinfully nature
Extremely easy to define wrong, God doesn't just make rules for no reason... And I see nothing wrong with them
That's why we need police. That doesn't change the fact that we can collectively decide what is and is not moral by looking at the impact different acts have on individuals and society.
cool, time to go kill grandma
pack it up boys, we're done here!
The only way you can say that it is or is not wrong to kill someone is to make a decision based on some ethical/moral code. Some codes would say that it is good. Most would say that it is bad.
Have you ever eaten shellfish or worn mixed fabrics? Do you ever cut the hair on the sides of your head?
the flourishing of conscious life
humanism
/thread
I'm a Theist, no specific religion
Then do it for us. What is your definition of a "wrongful" act?
So you believe in a higher power but without specificity?
Ok, and? How do you determine right and wrong?
humans suck
exhibit a: Sup Forums
God Proving a point that we can never be perfect on our own... You can thank Jesus for fulfilling the law... Now those are now guidelines for a healthy life, it's now down to two laws...(obviously God knew we were going to have a bad memory in the future), love God with all yourself and your neighbors too, it shouldn't be so hard to do this but alot of people hate God so there sinfully nature is at full blast most of the time, and yes I know there's atheists that can be great people but what then is there excuse for not believing in Jesus there nothing wrong with him, oh ya I forgot poeple rather stick there dick in a guy asshole to get temperary pleasure then etenal life... Real smart
I base my sense of right and wrong on what is good for society as a whole and also the golden rule AKA treat people as you would like to be treated.
I'm a libertarian for the most part but I believe my rights end when they start to infringe on somebody else's rights.
Most laws like don't steal, don't kill, don't commit adultery etc. exist because they are bad for the tribe. Shit like that makes society break down due to conflicts. You shouldn't need an imaginary man in the clouds to realize that shit is bad for a healthy society.
No, because something being morally impossible is not the same as being physically impossible.
Morally, it's completely subjective which means it isn't black and white.
Physically, we can at least claim something might be impossible due to some more logical and rational observation that the rules of nature favor far heavier than any majority of humans combined could possibly contest against.
Don't need a Jesus to not be a piece of shit.
>do I want to get stabbed?
No
>don't stab people
Okay
>do I want to be robbed
No
>don't rob people
Okay
Jesus did not fulfill the law. Jesus said that until the Earth is gone not lone letter will be removed from god's law.
The Earth is still here. If you have eaten shellfish, worn mixed fabrics, cut the hair on the side of your head, if you don't make a woman sleep in a different building when she has her period, don't give burnt offerings etc. then you are fucked.
Matthew 5:18 is the verse I'm speaking of in case you are wondering.
>For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Last I checked the Earth was still here. But you know, it's only a direct quote from Jesus, so it's probably open to interpretation...
I don't make the rules God does, Easy don't take someones life unless that person is clearly going to take another's, there's a difference between killing and murder, killing is justified to defend life, murder is not, i mean come on can you honestly say that's not a perfect law, someones coming at you with knife it would be justified to shoot... But hey even then you could choose to disharm him
It's call the Golden Rule
you ass sucking piece of shit
Merry Xmas
God also said it's not only OK to own slaves, but beat them nearly to the point of death. You can beat them so hard it takes days for them to recover.
Exodus 21:20
>Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
What was that slave doing to be beatin
So the master's get punished for beating them to hard, isn't that a good thing
does it matter?
It wasn't a particular slave. This is from the part int he bible when God is directly dictating his laws to Moses on the mountain top. It is the same time when he tells Moses the 10 commandments. So this is just as legit and important as the 10 commandments.
Christians just love sweeping shit like this under the rug. Most "christians" don't know jack shit about their religion and haven't even read the bible.
Wrong... Maybe you met a rare Jesus follower then I will look into to this
I have no ability to differentiate between good or bad. So naturally because of my ignorance I consistently make the world a worse place due to my poor understanding of the Lord and his desires. I hope one day to become closer the Jesus or the Buddha and fill myself with the unending energy that only spirituality can bring a man. I'll use it to cash in majorly.
What part is wrong? Exodus 21:20 is where he says it is OK to own and beat slaves to near death, because they are your property.
Exodus 20:1-17 are where he spelled out the 10 commandments. The part that says it's OK to own and beat slaves is like 1 page after the 10 commandments and it's the same fucking conversation between God and Moses.
>I will look into to this
"Christian" opens his bible to Exodus for the first time, while claiming it's "wrong" that Christians don't read the bible.
religion didn't invent morality, it was just a tool to teach people about it. you're not wrong for following the basic principles of most any religion, which (before you get into the smaller chapters) boils down to 'live and let live'.
Ever heard of the Stanley Milgram experiment?
>sertin