/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17574395]

>If there is no God, everything is permitted.

Is this true? Or can objective morality exist without god?

[Anonymous No.17574405]

>>17574395
Yes, but not in the way you're thinking.

[Anonymous No.17574406]

>>17574395
The thing is, normies don't understand humanist neo-secular blahblahblah, but they DO understand God.
Maybe in a society with only intellectuals, the bullshit theories of these humanists would work. But then again, someone has to do all the work and not just sit around philosophizing about donkey turds all day.

[Anonymous No.17574423]

>>17574395
What the hell is this crap. Fucking meme shit. Die.

[Anonymous No.17574449]

>>17574395
even if there is God everything is permited

[Anonymous No.17574473]

>>17574395
no it cant otherwise you could have different cultures do whatever they want without recourse.

[Anonymous No.17574476]

Some things might be true. Some things might be permitted.

[Anonymous No.17574515]

>>17574473
Like in real life

[Anonymous No.17574518]

>>17574406
Basically this.

[Anonymous No.17574579]

>>17574395
> Humanism and natural rights theory are viable secular explanations for objective morality
No, they are not.

[Anonymous No.17574602]

>>17574395
Depends on what you mean by God. Can there be morality without a personal law-giver God? Yes, but it’s not the same kind of morality, it’s far more egoistic (read Spinoza)

[Anonymous No.17574613]

>>17574395
Doesn't morality stem from the empathy that we inherited from natural selection?

Those who refused to live in a society were not able to pass their genes to the next generations, while the ones who did pass their genes lived with other humans in a society, thus they evolved mutual cooperation and empathy, giving rise to the set of morals we have.

[Anonymous No.17574726]

>>17574395
we're all retarded apes, but damn it right wingers are the worst time and time again. Thanks for reading my shitpost.

[Anonymous No.17574746]

>>17574613
No. That’s a common thing you hear from atheists but it makes no sense. Not only is evolutionary accepted as some objective absolute, which is nonsense, but it could just as well be evolutionarily advantageous to have might is right morality as any sort of empathetic morality. It’s good for my genetic evolution if I totally dominate others, rape women, and wipe other men off the face of the planet. Where’s the Darwinian appeal to evolutionary morals in that case? It would make it subjective.

[Anonymous No.17574780]

>>17574395
Even if there is a God, everything is permitted.

[Anonymous No.17574817]

>>17574395
Objective in a general sense, not really. Just valid localized systems of behaviour which you could rationally violate if it served the individual interest. +You misunderstand the viewpoint on the right. They're not talking about objective morality, it's just utilitarianism i.e. 'optimal* behaviour whereas the guy on the left talks about something being fundamentally true, woven into a divinely ordered universe if you will.

[Anonymous No.17574835]

>>17574613
>Doesn't morality stem from the empathy that we inherited from natural selection?
>this makes sense in atheist brains
what a bunch of retards.

[Anonymous No.17574844]

>>17574746
A community working together for the benefit of everyone has a better chance of survival than a set of individuals who only look after themselves.

You wouldn't be capable of dominating over others during our hunter-gatherer times, you would have to be capable of overpowering a community that works together.

[Anonymous No.17574846]

>>17574406
Even that wouldn't work because there is nothing more faggoty intellectuals love more than deconstructing prevailing morals and wisdom so they would quickly destroy the secular foundations of morality for the brief masturbatory pleasure it would provide.

[Anonymous No.17574856]

>>17574395
Yes, see the transcendental argument

[Anonymous No.17574858]

>>17574395
It wouldn't matter because regardless of if you think morality is objective or not, God's still gonna yeet your soul out of existence if you accidentally sacrifice your unborn child to moloch because you were too scared to tell Jake or lose your legal career over maternity leave and so you got an abortion but turns out that contract you signed was written by the same nephilim bred hellspawn who switched your plan b with a tic tac after you and your roommate thought it would be cute to ask slutty questions with a oujia board. Any way you look at it, at that point you're just fucked.

[Anonymous No.17574871]

>>17574395
Religion has to be the biggest forced meme of all history. The fact people are still discussing some sort of anthropomorphic God that gives a shit about morals just baffles me.

[Anonymous No.17574928]

>>17574406
Natural law is metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.17574939]

>>17574613
>Doesn't morality stem from the empathy that we inherited from natural selection?
>Those who refused to live in a society were not able to pass their genes to the next generations, while the ones who did pass their genes lived with other humans in a society, thus they evolved mutual cooperation and empathy, giving rise to the set of morals we have.
This is an ultimate cause for the evolution of that empathy, it is not a rational argument in its favour. Basing your morality on evolutionary empathy would see you work hard to help your family members and tribe (kin), but also work against those outside your tribe, a hybrid of cooperation and competition with competition very much emphasised between disparate groups, essentially some form of nationalism.

[Anonymous No.17574942]

Objective morality can only exist in absence of a transcendent creator deity. This is, strictly speaking, why Islamic philosophy has historically rejected the idea of objective morality, as Allah can change his mind about what is and is not moral at any given time (this is actually how Abrogation in the Quran works). It's also why thinkers like Aquinas go to great pains to construct elaborate systems whereby Yahweh is simultaneously infinitely distant from the world but also that which the world is ontologically reliant upon (so he can have his cake and eat it too).

If you're just falling for the Evangelical meme that you need permission from the Jews to do literally anything and the only valid argument you can use is one grounded in the Torah, you're a retard. If you want actual moral philosophy that isn't just "my creator deity says", look into Confucianism.

[Anonymous No.17574982]

>>17574928
>natural law
>metaphysics
I don't know if you are a complete retard who don't know what "natural law" and "metaphysics" mean, or just someone who thinks natural law shows how most people are retards and thats why religion is everywhere still to this day.

[Anonymous No.17575000]

>>17574871
reddit

[Anonymous No.17575021]

>>17574406
Or we could just genocide retards and have a eugenics program to raise the average IQ. The Chinese have an atheistic society an an average IQ of 105, and they are on their way to become the next superpower. They also don't give a fuck about these gay (((morals))) that are holding the West back.

[Anonymous No.17575029]

>>17575000
If all of reddit suddenly became Catholic you'd turn atheist in an instant. You're a pathetic posturing faggot.

[Anonymous No.17575069]

>>17574449
fpbp

[Anonymous No.17575144]

>>17574871
no the biggest forced meme is language

[Anonymous No.17575147]

>>17575021
See you in Hell, Chang.

[Anonymous No.17575167]

>Or can objective morality exist without god?

All you have to do is read Jeremy Bentham for an answer in the affirmative.

[Anonymous No.17575187]

>>17575029
you enjoy projecting your own contrarianism on others? interesting.

[Anonymous No.17575206]

I was preoccupied with relativism in college. I thought surely that aliens or some other type of thinker who developed independently from human sociocultural history, if showed up in our world, would have comparable ethics and easily appraise the bullshit in our society. But that envisionment wasn't even even objective morality. It still relies on subjective perception. It does seem, for truly concrete rectitude, that God is needed even if "god" is just a stand-in for any force or compulsion with roots external from the mind. I need to think/read about it more

Pic not unrelated, it is an objective that liberty and its associated dignity is a more interested, proserous, and morally whole virtue than that of safety, the prioritization of which we can say is wrong

[Anonymous No.17575226]

>>17575167
>utilicucks
every time

[Anonymous No.17575241]

Nothing objective can exist without God. Everything would be a human construct. However some may argue that we can base it off of evolution and biology. But if this is the case, morality could change with time. Even if it weren't changing, it still assumes that mental states are objectively material and not subjective. But we don't even have evidence to support this at all. Therefore, for morality to be objectively coherent, we must have an objective primary source for it, that is, God.

[Anonymous No.17575243]

>>17575021
Whatever indigenous conept of morality the Chinese have is collapsing under Christian pressure. Apparently they will have around 300 million Christians in the country by 2030 which means that this is already over.

[Anonymous No.17575271]

>>17574395
>>If there is no God, everything is permitted.
Whenever someone says this they're essentially saying they'd rape and murder if they weren't under threat of eternal suffering. It's a tacit admission of one's own maliciousness. You shouldn't need to be threatened into not doing bad things, you should have your own personal moral compass.

[Anonymous No.17575274]

>>17574942
>It's also why thinkers like Aquinas go to great pains to construct elaborate systems whereby Yahweh is simultaneously infinitely distant from the world but also that which the world is ontologically reliant upon (so he can have his cake and eat it too).

And this is wrong because...?

[Anonymous No.17575344]

>>17575271
>if they weren't under threat of eternal suffering
This isn't the reason at all. The fact that something is immoral under God is not because he threatens you with eternal hellfire but because the immoral action in itself is in defiance against God's own nature. Most people don't commit murder because they are afraid of eternal hellfire but because there is something innate within them which knows that what they are doing is immoral. Now to say that everything is permitted is merely saying that without an objective standard, any individual person or "intellectual" can come up with a reason as to why this or that action is moral or immoral. What we come to here is we find subjective opinions, not objective ones dependent on God(objectivity). We then will find that any action even murder can be moral since it is now correct to say that your own personal moral compass is correct and everyone else is wrong. Everything is now permitted under your(subjective human construct) worldview instead of God's(objective).

[Anonymous No.17575370]

>>17574982
You're a huge fucking retard you know that?

[Anonymous No.17575373]

>>17574844
>A community working together for the benefit of everyone has a better chance of survival than a set of individuals who only look after themselves.
Until it doesn’t and still, you’re placing an arbitrary limit on the supposedly objectively empathetic morality at a vague notion or “community”. This appeal to Darwinian selection doesn’t hold up logically.

[Anonymous No.17575379]

>>17575271
This isn't your own argument. This is what Hitchens told you. This anon >>17575344 is correct. If you believe in God, acting in a way that is an affront to His nature is enough to create sadness within the individual. The men of Mt Athos do not become monastics because they are scared of hellfire. They want to be as close to God as possible.

[Anonymous No.17575385]

>>17574395
>viable secular explanations for objective morality

[Anonymous No.17575401]

>>17575385
Secular explanations of morality are vastly superior to any and all theist explanations

[Anonymous No.17575418]

>>17575401
Atheists are still grappling with the is-ought problem my friend. I'm not even a theist, but a Nietzschean. Keep pretending your beliefs are objective though, you're all just as dumb as theists to me. You replace one spook with another.

[Anonymous No.17575448]

With or without God anything is permissible via cause and effect. However, without God existence itself has no meaning or purpose whatsoever, which is an even more boundless prison than restricting certain actions.

[Anonymous No.17575540]

>>17574395
An almighty deity that will burn you for eternity if you don't follow his orders > some faggot's opinion

[Anonymous No.17575549]

>>17575021
Do you think history started in the 20th century? if IQ meant literally anything we'd be speaking Chinese already.

[Anonymous No.17575550]

>>17574982
Where is the natural law? Do you see it? Can you point it up for me?

[Anonymous No.17575557]

>>17575550
out*

[Anonymous No.17575580]

>>17574406
You can philosophize about donkey turds after work just turn off the tv

[Anonymous No.17575581]

>>17575418
>Atheists are still grappling with the is-ought problem my friend.
Brainlet here. Im somewhat aware of this is-ought problem. Are you saying that secular morality can't cross the gap from the way things are to the way things should be? I guess theists don't believe in such a gap because morality is divine and already "is"?

[Anonymous No.17575607]

>>17575549
IQ means a lot if you can create a meritocratic society. It took China maybe 30 years to achieve superpower status after doing that and historically China was of course either first or second in terms of civilization and that over thousands of years. Compare that to Sub-Saharan Africa which did not manage to invent the wheel, they had to import that technology.

[Anonymous No.17575610]

>>17575581
Read Anscombe's paper "Modern Moral Philosophy" and MacIntyre's "After Virtue". The anon you're talking to doesn't have any idea what he's talking about either.

[Anonymous No.17575635]

>>17575607
Yeah but China has always been a society of super efficient insects where the average level of achievement is higher than everywhere else but the level of outstanding individual achievement is much lower. And in fact China had a much harder time Westernizing than the likes of Japan and Russia, by far the two most successful non Euro countries to do so.

[Anonymous No.17575642]

>>17575610
None of them have provided an objective secular morality.
>>17575581
Yes. But theists also like to use teleological arguments, which rely on a projection of the human psyche into reality/nature itself, and then reasoning from this projection.

[Anonymous No.17575694]

>>17575550
Natural law (in scholasticism/Aquinas) is the participation in the eternal law which is dependent on God's nature. All humans have an idea of this eternal law given by God to be innate in their own nature. An action or will is in accordance with natural law insofar as that action or will obtains a good which perfects that individual's own nature and is in accordance with God's nature. If the action or will is against the individual's own nature, it is in defiance of the natural law and God and is therefore immoral.

[Anonymous No.17575735]

>>17575642
>None of them have provided an objective secular morality.
I'd be surprised if they did. They are Catholics after all

[Anonymous No.17575816]

>>17575694
Very good, but this is metaphysics. If you reject the notion of God, you have to reject natural law. I think I didn't say anything special but the atheist anon went insane.

[Anonymous No.17575840]

>>17575635
I'm not saying that IQ and whatever else they have going on in biological differences is ideal from a governmental perspective. European history tells us that competing small entities create the best systems. The Chinese propably are ruled too easily, but don't misinterpret that as a lack of innovative spirit or whatever, there's no indication of that whatsoever in Chinese history.

[Anonymous No.17575857]

>>17574406
>normies don't understand humanist neo-secular blahblahblah
yes the fucking do, are you retarded? have younot seen blm feminism and that shit?
>>17574395
incredibly good meme, saved.
>>17574423
seething leftoid got BTFO
>>17574579
that's the joke idiot
>>17574613
hahha what are you even talkign about? niggers didnt even live in society. and no society at all favoured those that had "empathy"
>>17574726
maybe it was too mush for you to understand this meme
>>17574871
based, but also new morality

[Anonymous No.17575872]

>>17575226
No, I'm not talking about utilitarianism. I'm talking about Jeremy Bentham. You know, the person.

Before textbooks bastardized how certain people are perceived, I think that various writers would have been read for what they actually thought and wrote more.

Jeremy Bentham loved the idea of God, because he thought it was perfect for morality. So if you're not going to believe in God (even though God demonstrably exists), then at the very least take a page out of Bentham's book and be a heavy agnostic (wanting to believe in God but not seeing that he exists).

[Anonymous No.17575885]

Why do people use this quote like it's Dostoevsky's words, when it was just one of his mentally unstable characters' ramblings.

[Anonymous No.17575910]

>>17575816
Yah that wasn't me. I don't know how he could say that natural law didn't deal with metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.17575924]

>>17575271
>, you should have your own personal moral compass
Ok. Enough of this thread. It can't get more idiotic.

[Anonymous No.17575945]

>>17575021
Be careful, imagine 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 years from now (in a sense, because the passing of time won't exist in the after life) you have been suffering maximally, infinitely, in every way, and all you can think of is how you lost the complete filling of the emptiness in your heart, infinite goodness, just to gain a few comparatively infinitely small benefits on Earth. Sometimes I have this fear, of how horrible it would be to truly have NO HOPE. Imagine you win the lottery but accidentally lose the ticket or something and you have to go back to your fast food job and continue barely surviving. Imagine how that regret would eat you alive. I mean much smaller regrets eat me all the time. Be careful man.

[Anonymous No.17575959]

>>17574395
Top Left and Bottom Right see it as a good thing

[Anonymous No.17575960]

>>17574449
This. Just look at the world and its history. Everything has been permitted to happen by God. What are his morals?. Nothing for which individual human action and suffering is relevant.

[Anonymous No.17575971]

>>17574473
This is right as well. Regardless of this >>17575960 there are some balances and energy dynamics that can't be escaped.

[Anonymous No.17575974]

>>17574449
Based and Buddha-pilled.

[Anonymous No.17575975]

>permissible

A meaningless term.

[Anonymous No.17575989]

>>17575960
You can write down whatever you please on your math test, but random scribbling and incorrect answers aren't permitted. That is the sense in which the question is asked, and that is how the world is. I wonder what kind of test we'll all turn in?

[Anonymous No.17575990]

>>17574613
This is the explanation of the device.

>>17574746
>>17574835
This is the device at work.

[Anonymous No.17575998]

>>17575960
Permitted in this instance means that an individual or God is okay with the action. He signs off on it so to speak. He may allow man to have free will but he does not permit or consent to that action as being moral and correct.

[Anonymous No.17576010]

>>17575998
Then why would he program men with immoral urges to begin with, and then give them free will?

And also why would he cause children to be born with parasites that burst out of the eye sockets, and bone cancer? If God exists, then he is the God of all that happens in this world, and everything that happens in this world is permitted.

[Anonymous No.17576045]

>>17575998
>>17575989
If the problem with certain actions that make them immoral are their result (eg. pain), then God allowing that result to take place evidences a total separation between his morals and ours.
If God is OK with the result taking place because what really matters to him is to evaluate our actions in relation to these results, then clearly the first "immoral" agent is him. Why would you seek to please such a guy?

[Anonymous No.17576054]

>>17576010
These urges are not in and of themselves evil. For example, the urge to procreate can either be utilized in a moral or immoral way. The desire you have to eat can either have a consequence of you being glutinous or it can be utilized in a way which you can satiate and remove yourself from hunger.

In regards to your hyperbole of kids being killed by parasites, I would argue that humans being killed by nature is not evil. Since natural disasters and the like are not evil by itself. Just as a thunderstorm is not evil, it is there for some purpose or end (in this instance to water the grass maybe).

[Anonymous No.17576071]

>>17574406
>Maybe in a society with only intellectuals, the bullshit theories of these humanists would work.
Except, there are still going to be genuine smart people, there are still going to be self-aware individuals with a heart.

If society did on a whole grow to believe that, ignoring the need for a lower manual class, then it would be so radically destructive for the West.. it is unimaginable.

[Anonymous No.17576072]

>>17576010
The truth probably is that God can't be explained from human experience alone. So the declaration that he is "love" or "benevolent father" evoke totally erroneous images in the minds of people. Certainly we might get to see it all come together some day, but my guess is that theists and atheists will find they've been equally wrong about the nature of God.

[Anonymous No.17576088]

>>17576010
>Then why would he program men with immoral urges to begin with, and then give them free will?
I'm not exactly sure, you should look up what the catechism says as I am certain the answer to your question is readily available and that there are experts who eagerly await approach by questioners such as yourself.

But to say something, I think it might be something like this: "Ice deserves no credit for being cold, nor fire for being hot; it is only those who have the possibility of choice that can be praised for their acts. It is through the temptation and its strain that the depths of character are revealed" - Fulton J Sheen in his book Life of Christ

>And also why would he cause children to be born with parasites that burst out of the eye sockets, and bone cancer? If God exists, then he is the God of all that happens in this world, and everything that happens in this world is permitted.

First of all I repeat the same thing I began with in the last answer, which is this information is readily available from extremely wise men. Once again I will say something: sin is the cause of evil, all true evils that we face are due to the fall of man. Some things, perhaps, are only perceived evils, as well, and not true evils, but perhaps a hammer on the anvil to make us better through trial. It is important to keep in mind as well the context in which we currently reside - a comparatively infinitely small window of time in which we essentially make a single choice which determines our fullest realities in the next life.

[Anonymous No.17576094]

>>17576054
>I would argue that humans being killed by nature is not evil. Since natural disasters and the like are not evil by itself.
But nothing is "by itself." In legal terminology, these events are referred to as "acts of God", which is what I meant. They do not just "occur" randomly, they are caused by the first cause, God.

[Anonymous No.17576121]

>>17576045
>If the problem with certain actions that make them immoral are their result
No, the problem with certain actions that make them immoral is not their result but rather the actions themselves being inherently immoral. The incorrect answer on the math test is wrong the moment it is written down on paper, not once the teacher grades it.

[Anonymous No.17576125]

>>17576071
>If society did on a whole grow to believe that, ignoring the need for a lower manual class...
The technology of the future is already phasing out the labourers.
>Except, there are still going to be genuine smart people, there are still going to be self-aware individuals with a heart
The brain is superior to the heart.

[Anonymous No.17576130]

>>17576088
You mix your answers with assumptions from your religion (eg. sin) that can't be considered proven or valid concepts outside of it. Try to stick to natural language and logic.

[Anonymous No.17576135]

>>17575945
Given that hell isn't real, he's probably fine

[Anonymous No.17576139]

>>17576125
>The brain is superior to the heart.
Retard-tier distinction. You would have neither brain nor heart if you did not have your being first.

[Anonymous No.17576141]

>>17576121
>inherently immoral
The explain what that is without reference to the results.

[Anonymous No.17576158]

>>17576121
>>17576141
btw, if your explanation is "the bible says so" or something similar, I will at least know the level of discussion we are at.

[Anonymous No.17576159]

>>17576072
So why do Christians then claim to have an understanding of God to the point where they believe that they are acting as it wants them to if it cannot truly be understood by humans? Doesn't that seem kind of convinient to you?

[Anonymous No.17576175]

>>17574939
As in, what the majority of humans do actually do?

[Anonymous No.17576181]

>>17576045
Theologically, God allows us to have free will because the only way we can freely accept his goodness and beatific vision is by accepting him by our own will. If he were to impede on this process by which we accept and choose him as our final end, it would make the purpose of his creation unintelligible. How can the created choose the creator without the created having the choice to choose? We must realize that God does not create or command what is immoral or moral. To choose to do immoral acts is to will away from God since God is morality and the truth itself. This is the conception and explanation you would have under a Scholastic framework. As you can see no longer does he judge or evaluate certain actions and define them arbitrarily as the Euthyphro argument states, but our mere act of committing immoral things is an action that is placing our will contrary to God and away from Him. The only way we can come closer to God and experience heaven and the beatific vision is to live in accordance with his essence, not some arbitrarily created morality.

>>17576094
In this case there would be a distinction between primary and secondary causation. I also think the tree of knowledge story would come into play and if you are to believe it, ultimately the defects of nature imposing an "evil" on us would be man's own fault. Of course you could say how could the sins of our parents be also ours? An analogy of a man's inheritance being taken away by the state is a good one, as it directly ties into his offspring as well.

[Anonymous No.17576191]

>>17574395

>arguing about bullshit efforts to rationalize monkey behavior

You're monkeys you dumb anons. You don't need a reason to do what you do. You don't need a philosophical justification for being moral. You're a biological machine whose programming is determined by its emotions, which are themselves mechanisms to cause you to perfom survival enhancing behaviors. Oooh ooooh, aaaah aaaah, me like banana. That's all of us now and forever. Fairy tales about God and fairy tales about comrades and natural rights theory are no different, just stories designed to hijack monkey brains. Accept that and have some love and kindness for your fellow brainlet monkeys.

[Anonymous No.17576192]

>>17576139
Are you talking about the soul? No such thing - it's all brain chemicals.

[Anonymous No.17576197]

>>17576159
Unenlightened people mistake their own will (needs) for that of their creator. It doesn't mean being confused about it is worse than nihilism though.

[Anonymous No.17576198]

>>17576181
>we have free will so that we can choose to accept him
So there's no punishment for not accepting right? We won't suffer or be tortured or anything like that if we don't right? Because if you do suffer for not choosing God, you don't actually have free will

[Anonymous No.17576201]

Why is everything not permitted with God?

[Anonymous No.17576209]

>>17576192
Yes anon, when all of human history has talked about the soul, they were just talking about brain chemicals, and the actual experience of the soul is just like a 2d extraordinarily simplistic slit of paper, depth being an illusion of experience, which can be understood entirely by those chemicals.

[Anonymous No.17576211]

>>17576197
How do you know that if God is unknowable tho

[Anonymous No.17576213]

>>17576191
>thinking you can explain the mind by mechanical causes
Two words: Leibniz Gap

>>17576192
>t. Paul Churchland

[Anonymous No.17576227]

>>17576130
I'm just answering your questions. These things can indeed be considered proven or valid outside of it because Catholicism does not require one to depart from reason. I actually could do what you ask and switch around the language, I will do it real quick:

Free will and evil urges are a test that cultivate true goodness due to the element of choice and trial.

Evil comes from man making immoral choices and in addition some evils are merely perceived as such, but actually aren't. Also this life is meaningless compared to the next due to its finitude and because it lacks evident reality (things become abundantly clear in the afterlife).

There are still assumptions there, obviously, I am not here to start the human journey from scratch with you. Again, I am just answering your questions.

>>17576141
Doing something bad for bad reasons, doing something good for bad reasons, or doing something bad for good reasons (but not out of ignorance). For example eating junk food because it tastes good when you are not in need of food is bad because 1. you are overeating and 2. you are doing something primarily due to pleasure.

[Anonymous No.17576248]

>>17576198
Under the framework of all good being dependent on God, rejecting God means to live without him. Living without God means to live without goodness, so of course you suffer.

[Anonymous No.17576253]

>>17576181
>goodness and beatific vision
>choose him as our final end
>the created choose the creator
>God is morality and the truth itself
This is the problem with theologians, that they can't differentiate rational discourse from poetry. You can recite these rhetorical figures all you want and feel warmth in your bosom, but they are not describing any discernible reality.

[Anonymous No.17576266]

>>17576227
Your abstract definition is circular, and the example references the results, my man.

[Anonymous No.17576269]

>>17576248
Right, so it's not a free choice at all. Thanks for clarifying

[Anonymous No.17576277]

>>17574395
Moral nihilism is the end point.
Morality is just the subjective categorization of actions and consequences as "good" or "bad" and they can never encompass all possible scenarios.
This is also where religion falls apart.

Either way, maximizing freedom and liberty is the only way forward. This will bring evolution back in the line but in a new perspective. Instead of intense Darwinian selection being killing off the weak, the weak will kill themselves. We've reached unprecedented times in human history, where in most cases we are the only ones who are responsible to off themselves.

[Anonymous No.17576285]

>>17576266
In my example the reason you should not overeat is clear, because it is unreasonable and against the natural order to do so, it is disordered. I admit I should have added this to my answer, but I have to say you are not trying that hard here.

I fail to see how the outcome of an action is the source of its morality rather than the contents of the action itself, you're free to make your case.

[Anonymous No.17576286]

>>17576209
>>17576213
Yes, but compared to philosophy at least science has a way of finding information, and can come to new conclusions about reality. You may be turned off by this and think it impossible to make that leap forward but if it weren’t for this arrogance we’d still be doing rain dances. People who want to understand mind but don’t give thought to studying the brain are nothing more than 21st century Plato’s cave dwellers.

[Anonymous No.17576300]

>>17576211
Because if God created this world and he allows events that are evaluated negatively by human standards, comprehending his nature and motivations is beyond our reach. A theologian might say we (the finite, partial) get to understand the infinite by "grace" of the "infinite", but then again this exact term (grace) and its workings can't be explained. Even the effects of this "grace" are divergent if you look at the different religions throughout history.
As I said before, theologians have a big problem in that they lack scepticism about language and get intro poetry too easily.

[Anonymous No.17576301]

>>17576286
That is partly true, but the reality of being is not just defined by abstract chemicals.

[Anonymous No.17576311]

>>17576209
Unironically.

[Anonymous No.17576334]

>>17576301
>Paul and Pat Churchland believe that the mind-body problem will be solved not by philosophers but by neuroscientists, and that our present knowledge is so paltry that we would not understand the solution even if it were suddenly to present itself. “Suppose you’re a medieval physicist wondering about the burning of wood,” Pat likes to say in her classes. “You’re Albertus Magnus, let’s say. One night, a Martian comes down and whispers, ‘Hey, Albertus, the burning of wood is really rapid oxidation!’ What could he do? He knows no structural chemistry, he doesn’t know what oxygen is, he doesn’t know what an element is—he couldn’t make any sense of it. And if some fine night that same omniscient Martian came down and said, ‘Hey, Pat, consciousness is really blesjeakahgjfdl!’ I would be similarly confused, because neuroscience is just not far enough along.”

We’re only at the beginning stages, no point in making sweeping claims about what something as mysterious as the mind is or isn’t.

[Anonymous No.17576365]

>>17576334
The question of the exact nature of the mind comes after the first question which is that of being.

t. Heidegger

Also that's a retarded quote, "bro what if it is materially explainable under my preconceived materialistic notions but we couldn't even understand it yet!" Wow, truly brilliant. The only sweeping statements are in effect yours here, this entire thread your posts (and this current post of yours) undoubtedly go completely in the direction of a materialistic modern scientific explanation. Whereas people like Heidegger and Plato have always been the only ones looking to the soul itself (inb4 "chemicals make it function!".

[Anonymous No.17576367]

>>17576286
>Yes, but compared to philosophy at least science has a way of finding information, and can come to new conclusions about reality
The study of the natural world (science in its modern definition) is one part of Philosophy, lol. Also philosophy is tested by reason to be correct or incorrect, and new correct ideas can certainly come around unless you think all that could be correctly thought has already been written and conveyed effectively.

[Anonymous No.17576374]

>>17574449
This. I could go on a murder spree and God probably wouldn't stop me. I'd probably pay for it after dying, so I don't.

[Anonymous No.17576389]

>>17576374
Read Gorgias if you don't think actions are good or bad regardless of the afterlife.

[Anonymous No.17576392]

>>17574395
Objective morality's existence or non-existence is entirely independent of God. There is no good argument to the effect that morality's objective existence depends on God existing.

[Anonymous No.17576402]

>>17576266
Please respond to >>17576285

[Anonymous No.17576445]

>>17575418
There is a moral imperative in certain sensations (pain requires no philosophy to know to avoid it, only when greater pain is a future possibility does it makes sense not to avoid immediate pain). This basis is the sole basis of any reasonable morality, anything else does not rise to the level of morality at all.

[Anonymous No.17576448]

>>17576192
Brain chemicals are telling you it is all just brain chemicals.

[Anonymous No.17576452]

>>17576374
Worse, if I have become convinced God endorses it, anything can become righteous. There are many such cases of murder where the murderer states that the voice of God compelled him.

[Anonymous No.17576461]

>>17576448
YES

[Anonymous No.17576467]

>>17576452
Some people get it right some people get it wrong, simple as.

[Anonymous No.17576470]

>>17576365
Science is imperfect and can be straight up dogmatic at times, but pursuing this line of inquiry—improving our materialist explanations—are the best shot we have. I mean we could just throw our hands up and call it a day, and ponder questions of being, but I have a feeling that when new ground is broken over these problems it won’t be the work of a Heidegger scholar. But if that’s what makes you tick, more power to you.

[Anonymous No.17576478]

Objective morality doesnt necessarily exist with god

[Anonymous No.17576491]

>>17574395
>can objective morality exist without god?
Ask a four-year-old when they're complaining about something shitty that they do themselves. Universality is a basic bitch concept and not some complex arena to wrestle in for the rest of your life.
Do as you would be done by, there's bigger mountains to climb than fairness. Too much of ideology is psychopaths trying to fabricate a licence for treating others badly.

[Anonymous No.17576501]

>>17576402
>>17576285
It's really simple. We do not eat for the sake of eating.

[Anonymous No.17576513]

>>17576285
>against the natural order
this natural order idea is useless, nature is full of examples of all behaviours without a hint of ethics. We choose how to treat each other, arguing from or to a natural order is sophistry.

[Anonymous No.17576528]

>>17576467
>some people get it wrong
Yes, everyone who claims their morality is from God

[Anonymous No.17576545]

>>17576452
Which is why I believe that morality is specifically laid out in the Bible or declared by the Pope/council/whatever.

[Anonymous No.17577021]

>>17575271
>moral compass

[Anonymous No.17577028]

>>17575418
>Nietzschean

[Anonymous No.17577068]

You need to be a special type of retard to think objective morality doesn't exist. It's not even worth explaining--all you need is an absolutely minimum level of introspection.

[Anonymous No.17577074]

>>17576470
You assume we haven't already found immortal truths about our being.

[Anonymous No.17577096]

>>17574395
you can do an half assed job.
Ayn Rand for instance created a secular objective system of morality.
As you know she's very popular in here.

[Anonymous No.17577097]

>>17575243
wtf are you talking about
I'm chinese and our country even banned christmas

[Anonymous No.17577120]

>>17577097
have fun with your Diocletian, the more the Christians are persecuted the more vicious they become.

[Anonymous No.17577252]

>>17575271
>le dawkins retort
you're out of your depth and you don't understand the quote

[Anonymous No.17577258]

>>17575344
this

[Anonymous No.17577293]

>>17576192
the human framework as reference to analyse both the outside world and its own faculties cannot be considered to be objective under any metric

[Anonymous No.17577298]

>>17574395

In a world WITH God, anything is permissible.

[Anonymous No.17577304]

>>17577298
go home zizek, you lisping fat cunt

[Anonymous No.17577306]

>>17574395
False premise. Morality is subjective, but serves an important biological purpose, namely making humans (and other less sophisticated social animals) able to live together effectively in groups.

[Anonymous No.17577332]

>>17575910
People are that retarded. See this thread.

[Anonymous No.17577335]

>>17577306
>able to live together effectively in groups.
as well as kill, enslave and rape those outside a given group
evolutionary reasons are a feeble explanation for the development of the concept of morality

[Anonymous No.17577342]

>>17577306
Antinatalsim and nihilism would like a word with you mr "subjective morality"

[Anonymous No.17577366]

>>17575271
Incorrect. That argument is used against athiests to show them in THEIR world view there isn't anything wrong with those things and you saying you are appalled at someone saying it is inconsistent with your own world view. Christians also have a natural law as well as scriptural law and law of grace. There is no "absolute law" from an athiest prospective so they're asking YOU why rape and murder aren't completely fine and why you have a reaction to the possibility to begin with. They know why you do but you're the one lapping as having morals when you have no actual bases for them.

[Anonymous No.17577390]

>>17577306
>morality is subjective
that is precisely what the quote is warning against. A man-made, subjective morality can be warped into creating any kind of "moral" system, whether it be a declaration that torture is unethical to a declaration that blue eyed babies should be killed at birth
Divine law, however, even if misinterpreted and twisted by people, remains objective and universal. A true christian need not be afraid of death or the ills of the world, as he need simply to have faith in God even whilst on the cross, and believe in the eternal bliss that is heaven. Concordantly, a truly atheistic individual, divorced from both divine and secular law (the latter owing much to the former btw) needs only to bypass human "justice" to enact his will, whatever that will may be. Think Stalin and the Communist regime. Where the only morality left is the one dictated by someone like Stalin, what other avenues are left? In that sense, truly everything can be permitted

[Anonymous No.17577398]

>>17576513
Which is why ethics goes out the window when survival is on the line. Survival instinct is king. Morality and ethics are valiant attempts to override in the moment individual survival impulse with longer term group survival strategies. It's a terrible strategy for an individual to act ethically in a dire situation, but contributes to the greater survival of the species. If the men go down with the ship and the women and children escape you've saved wombs and only one man, perhaps even one of the children can repopulate. This is exactly why religion conjures up authoritarian figures or vague mystical forces. All are attempts to attribute wisdom to something greater than the individual. Morality, ethics, religion, it's all downstream from the collective consciousness. It is the voice of the collective consciousness. The reality is that humans are not very well equipped creatures to survive in nature without a group. Collectively and with our IQ advantage we are fucking terrifying apex predators. Solo we are bushmeat. Our environment literally beat the message into us that it is cooperate nicely as a group or fucking die/be an incel and a genetic dead end.

[Anonymous No.17577414]

WHAT THE FUCKK IS IT WITH ALL THE CHRISTKEKS ITT FFS
YOUR SKYDADDY ISNT REAL
GET OVER IT

[Anonymous No.17577437]

>>17577414
>>17577414
your seething is delicious

[Anonymous No.17577460]

>>17577335
The groups got bigger. People still did all of the above without batting an eye until world wide communication created the illusion of one big group. Nowadays a man born in Spain is a Spaniard, his genetic makeup is irrelevant. The expansion of in group definition lead to a greater number of people counting in the in group category. In the autistic pursuit of glamorizing positive in group behaviors and contrasting them against despicable negative out group behaviors there was a complete detachment from reality into idealized fiction. Morality autists carelessly dispensed with the "negative" out group behaviors because they believed them to be cognitive dissonance. In reality embracing a pure positive idealism and the fiction of one universal group sets the stage for domination by dark triad psychopaths. Instead of the negative traits being willingly utilized against the out group the snake lives in the group and terrorizes its own cucked kind. It is our unwillingness to accept our evil natures as serving a purpose and possessing utility that is modern society's downfall. Our unwillingness to engage with or acknowledge an entire natural part of our being leads to strange and unfortunate results largely from being preyed upon.

[Anonymous No.17577481]

>>17577460
Sounds like a natural consequence therefore its moral.

[Anonymous No.17577486]

>>17574395
Secular humanism is no different than religion. Instead of serving god; you serve man and his morals. These views are functionally the same. Morality is a function human behavior. It only exists insofar I involuntarily serve it it. Men need no morality.

[Anonymous No.17577493]

>>17576545
So the genocide of the Amalekites was moral? You prove my point.

[Anonymous No.17577514]

>>17577390
Your claim to have an objective moral system does not change that fact that it is still a subjective moral system. You can't escape subjectivity by simply arbitrarily claiming an authority. "Divine Law" is what ever a specific person becomes convinced that it is, and as mentioned in another post, if people become convinced the "Divine Law" involves wiping out the Amalekites, then not only is it carried out, but it is carried out with the moral sanction of objectivity that is bestowed by this objective moral source, effectively turning even the most horrific act that any reasonable moral person would unequivocally condemn into an absolute moral injunction. The only rational basis for a moral system is the reduction of harm and any argument inherently is in service of this, even theists, although they become twisted because they believe the ultimate harm is straying from "God's Will", which, again, they arrive at through subjective means.

[Anonymous No.17577518]

>>17577493
That wasn't good though. God allows a lot of immoral shit throughout human history this is stated by him himself.

[Anonymous No.17577527]

>>17577518
God did not "allow" it. He commanded it. Does God command immoral acts?

[Anonymous No.17577530]

>>17577527
Yes.

[Anonymous No.17577531]

This Universe is an infinite, immense work of fiction, whence why all is permitted.

[Anonymous No.17577550]

>>17574395
Both of them are retarded humanist. Humans are animals just like any other animals and will be extinct in the near future.

[Anonymous No.17577553]

>>17577514
>simply arbitrarily claiming an authority
God isn't an arbitrary authority,
>Divine Law" is what ever a specific person becomes convinced that it is
objectively incorrect. If one becomes convinced that God wills the extermination of the human race he is not carrying God's will. God's objectivity is not dependent on the subjective interpretations of people not acting out according to His will.
>moral sanction of objectivity that is bestowed by this objective moral source, effectively turning even the most horrific act that any reasonable moral person would unequivocally condemn into an absolute moral injunction
that is no different that enacting a statute that condones such things. It is the fault of man alone, not God's
>The only rational basis for a moral system is the reduction of harm
incorrect, harm and suffering are necessary elements of existence.
I'm not a Christian by the by. But it is clear that if you do have faith in God, then you are granted a universal and stable moral system. Modern human rights derive from natural law after all, and indeed attempt to fulfill the same purpose in an increasingly secular world. Yet the current claim is that they stem from the "inherent human dignity" found in every person (which is just a reformulation of being created in God's image), as they are at a loss for finding an actual foundation for universal morality that does not rely on God.
Without God you cannot escape subjectivity, that is a fact.

[Anonymous No.17577617]

>>17577335
On a personal level, people feel compassion for other people. Committing violence against other people typically involves dehumanizing them prior to attacking them, which is true even in primitive tribes.

[Anonymous No.17577665]

>>17577553
>God isn't an arbitrary authority,
Which God? Different people claim thousands and thousands of different Gods, most with entirely mutually exclusive laws, thus making faith in any particular one arbitrary,

[Anonymous No.17577707]

>>17577665
it's obvious that for a christian it will be god, for a muslim it will be allah, etc
if you have faith you believe wholeheartedly in an a priori creator of existence, there is nothing arbitrary about that, you simply believe. It is a leap by definition from which only truth can follow, otherwise you don't have faith at all
this is not even close to a refutation, it's a dawkins-tier middle school talking point

[Anonymous No.17577754]

Even with god everything is permitted.
There are plenty of people who simply accept that they will go to hell for the horrible acts they have committed in life.
It's not like god lifts a finger to stop them either.

[Anonymous No.17577779]

>>17574613
I think you can reduce that statement to morality stemming from natural selection. All moral behavior is eugenic and immoral dysgenic.

[Anonymous No.17577788]

>>17577481
That's the only true "morality". It is the system of beliefs that ensures the maximal survival of the collective. Autist twisted morality is an attempt to align the demands of the collective with incentive for the individual. The competing demands cannot be reconciled without leaps of fancy and invitation of unforeseen consequences.

[Anonymous No.17577823]

>>17577779
See >>17577460
Immoral behavior is not dysgenic at all when it is applied exclusively to the out group. It is dysgenic to not engage in immoral behavior towards the out group or else you risk the out group terrorizing your in group by behaving immorally. It is a prisoner's dilemma writ large that all groups must cultivate the ability to act immorally defensively, offensively, or both for survival. Not that immoral behavior should rule supreme over moral behavior in dealings with out group members, but that the inverse does not come to pass.

[Anonymous No.17578214]

>>17574395
No, but that is fine. I don't need morality to be external to myself.

[Anonymous No.17578278]

>>17574449
I wanted to say this

[Anonymous No.17578311]

Ethics are like numbers, they could exist independent of God if God wasn't a precondition for anything existing

[Anonymous No.17578588]

>>17575872
>then at the very least take a page out of Bentham's book and be a heavy agnostic (wanting to believe in God but not seeing that he exists).
How will that change the situation in a practical sense? Will he behave differently if he's an agnostic and not an atheist?

[Anonymous No.17578611]

>>17577068
>It's not even worth explaining
Just "feel" it bro, just think about it! I don't need to explain shit, it just exists bro!
The absolute state of you retards.

[Anonymous No.17578652]

>>17577823
>It is dysgenic to not engage in immoral behavior towards the out group or else you risk the out group terrorizing your in group by behaving immorally
While it's true that there's a risk of retaliation, there is also a risk in general, since even if you are peaceful and not hurting anyone there are still groups which will want to hurt you.
You can't come to morality through analyzing evolution so that it fits your views. You're just begging the question in an elaborate way. You can make evolutionary arguments for various different things (some of which are opposed when compared to one another), this doesn't mean that you're objectively right.

[Anonymous No.17578778]

>>17577823
>Immoral behavior is not dysgenic at all when it is applied exclusively to the out group
Of course not, I wouldn't call it immoral then. But there's a line that can be crossed, where the behaviour towards the outgroup colours the lives of those in the ingroup. For example if you went around torturing your enemies it would disgust your ingroup, becoming dysgenic.

[Anonymous No.17578816]

I don't see this statement as a grand declaration but an analysis of an increasingly secular West and the conditions under which a new morality could be based. Social moralism is replacing traditional light-the-candle ethics and democratizes the clergy to individual twitter followers.

I mean yes, elites can, and are, forcing a new morality on us, much like they enforced establishment religion.

[Anonymous No.17578852]

>>17574449
God once decided to genocide two cities because he didn't like what they were doing. Clearly this must have been even worse than what happened in Congo, the first world war and concentration camps, because he sat those out.

[Anonymous No.17578942]

>>17578852
Yeah

[Anonymous No.17578950]

>>17576334
Elimanitivism Materialism is literally self refuting.

[Anonymous No.17579107]

>>17578950
Absolutely BTFO. How will they ever recover?

[Anonymous No.17579227]

>>17576501
I agree. That doesn't address what I said.

[Anonymous No.17579243]

>>17576513
You don't seem to know what the natural order idea is.

[Anonymous No.17579703]

>>17574395
It seems to me that all morality without god needs a heuristic to achieve a level of objective morality; reduction of human suffering, maximizing happiness etc.

god sidesteps this by justifying their seemingly arbitrary morality with an appeal to a higher power authority.

[Anonymous No.17579715]

If you obey God because he will otherwise punish you, then government punishing you will do too.

[Anonymous No.17581117]

>>17574406
Just make your parents proud

[Anonymous No.17581149]

>>17578588
He would, because he sees the practical necessity of God, and how it enforces a objective moral principle by which men lead their lives.

In that sense, he made moral science take a huge step forward, at the same time that Nietzsche was plotting to return it to the dark ages.

[Anonymous No.17581177]

1)There is a being which created universe
2)...
3)Therefore you are morally obligated to do X

There is a step missing.

[Anonymous No.17581194]

>>17575187
>I know you are but what am I?
really christcucks?

[Anonymous No.17581236]

>>17574395
>Objectivity
Spooked. I am the owner of my morality and I may discard it at my leisure. Your "objective" morality holds no power over my actions unless you hold more power. But I'll then bide my time to break your hold over me.
This current "American" "system" and "societal norms" greatly benefits I. Free college, free food, and easy sex. Try to change it to not benefit I and I'll crush it and you.

[Anonymous No.17581274]

God is secular morality because he doesn't exist. A bunch of people just agree on the concept and use it as inspiration for their own personal morality. In practice all morality is subjective.

[Anonymous No.17581288]

>>17575206
It's called laundry lmao

[Anonymous No.17581315]

>>17576213
leibniz gap was just a technological limitation, we can already reconstruct images from brain signals of cats iirc.

[Anonymous No.17581409]

>>17581315
This. It's like saying that you can' read data by looking at the SSD, so it must have some metaphysical dualism.

[Anonymous No.17581498]

>>17574395
the problem with moral debate between the religious and nonreligious is that one party believes in an absolute judge that litigates innocence in the afterlife. the secular cannot believe in any absolute morality since there is no being that ultimate rules it, only principals established.

[Anonymous No.17581555]

>>17574395
Yes. No.

[Anonymous No.17581685]

>>17576135
He'll being an eternity without God who is the source of all things good and noble and beautiful would be exactly like that.

[Anonymous No.17581692]

>>17577707
>Because they believe it's objective, that makes it objective, even though this creates conflicting "objectives"
You have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.17581851]

>>17581498
You're basically erasing almost all religions except for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to present a false dichotomy. There's many religions and philosophies that don't involve some sort of judgement in an afterlife.

[Anonymous No.17581929]

>>17574449
Yes. If god exists, anything goes.

[Anonymous No.17582550]

>>17574395
>Is this true?
Impossible to know. Ancient civilisations were all theistic, even in the smallest of tribes. The modern era lives with an echoing morality of the past, but chasing after false gods of techno-industrial society and falling prey to a need for comfort that softens the muscles and the brain. Atheism among the common folk has only recently become widespread but simply because it requires no thought.

[Anonymous No.17582604]

>>17574395
Morality is cringe, but there are multiple ways in which to organize society that are sane and mutually beneficial, like for example not making a precedence that murder should be permissible, as I would prefer not to be murdered and it is a reasonable assumption that most people feel the same way.

[Anonymous No.17582627]

>>17582604
>as I would prefer not to be murdered and it is a reasonable assumption that most people feel the same way.
And why should we care about this, instead of murdering wantonly?

[Anonymous No.17582657]

>>17582627
Because the vast majority of people, not wanting to be murdered, will band together and take measures to prevent such an occurence.

[Anonymous No.17582697]

>>17582657
So it's fine if we stick to murdering outsiders, right?

[Anonymous No.17582711]

>>17582697
That would set the precedence that murder is an acceptable action, the very notion of an "outsider" is a result of moralistic thinking.

[Anonymous No.17582802]

>>17574395
Proclaiming a God is saying you have absolute certainty around your moral framework. You jump over the chasm of subjectivity by claiming divinity.

Making an absolute claim based on a bunch of soft metrics, like "reducing suffering" a la Harris are just completely retarded. I see no reason why I should feel empathy towards the human race. I cannot experience their suffering, or their pleasures, so why not be a complete machiavellian? Why not reward my friends and punish my enemies? Thats how all successful organisms in nature operate. How is the Christian ethos of praying for one's enemies anything more than a spandrel?

[Anonymous No.17583348]

>>17576334
that quote is fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.17583363]

>>17574449
Based.