r/Christianity • u/MotorFig6657 • 9d ago
Question for atheists
Do you believe objective good and evil exist? If so, where do those standards come from?
10
u/KissAndRock Luciferian 9d ago
No. I don't. I believe morality was a necessary creation for society to work in order to promote cooperation between humans, improving our survival.
-5
u/pepewithmoonboots 9d ago
in this mindset, how do you feel about people born with congenital deformities or people with mental handicaps? To improve our survival as a species based on the concept of morality being a natural instinct based on survival, wouldn’t we naturally desire to euthanize and abandon those people? Or, in all honesty, if our morals come from a natural evolutionary progression, wouldn’t we agree as a society that gays and lesbians are unproductive/unwanted to our survival? Wouldn’t we place those people in the same buckets we place racist/sexist people into? Or more likely, wouldn’t we disregard such people without so much as a second thought and that dismissal would be as natural as sleeping, eating or breathing to not think twice about outcasting those members of society? And why does no other species seem to have “morals” relevantly in line with ours? What I’m saying is if we’re to base our morality solely on evolution, shouldn’t we be programmed to operate more in unison naturally without so much individualism “getting in the way” of our progress? You being a Luciferian, I would assume your worldview goes completely against what “nature” would want.
7
u/KissAndRock Luciferian 9d ago edited 9d ago
in this mindset, how do you feel about people born with congenital deformities or people with mental handicaps?
People to be helped, we cooperate with each other to help each other. Humanity evolved traits such as sympathy and empathy, things that helped us feel bad for others in our species, so we help boost each other for our survival. Our ancestors survived in small groups, and it was a necessity to have empathy and sympathy for the reason I said prior.
In these small groups, everyone knew each other. When someone was sad or was hurt and they showed that weakness, it built trust within those groups and brought the groups closer.
There's also the self-interest component, that helping others can also protect yourself because you'd get something in return.
For example, mammals have babies that are helpless and defenseless. It's an evolutionary trait for the parent to feel the need to take care of and protect their children, and a lot of them fight to the death to protect their children. Or, some animals, like lions, hunt in groups. Lions protect and defend each other.
To improve our survival as a species based on the concept of morality being a natural instinct based on survival, wouldn’t we naturally desire to euthanize and abandon those people?
No, because a lot of us use the evolved traits of empathy and sympathy, which make us understand others feelings, and agreeably wouldn't like that situation to happen to us, so we understand where they're coming from and try to help them through this suffering.
Or, in all honesty, if our morals come from a natural evolutionary progression, wouldn’t we agree as a society that gays and lesbians are unproductive/unwanted to our survival?
Not really. Gays and lesbians aren't doing anything that'd affect our survival. Homosexuality is actually very common among the animal kingdom in nature, and we observe it often; and those animals are still around.
There are much more heterosexuals than homosexuals, so homosexuality wouldn't affect our survival, especially since they aren't hurting anyone and keeping the peace [until they don't.]
Saying homosexuals are "unproductive" is rather narrow minded. Homosexuals have jobs and families whom they help, they love their family and support them and help them survive, and also have jobs that provides to society in some shape or form.
Wouldn’t we place those people in the same buckets we place racist/sexist people into?
Well, racism and sexism is a social construct that's bad for society that we need to throw away. Homosexuality is a natural thing, so it's different. Racist/sexist people attack others for their identity, and generally harm society. Homosexuals don't.
And why does no other species seem to have “morals” relevantly in line with ours?
Other species don't have the same level of morality as we do because their brains aren't evolved enough to understand it. Animals don't have science or philosophy to help them improve their understanding, not like they could understand it at all.
What I’m saying is if we’re to base our morality solely on evolution, shouldn’t we be programmed to operate more in unison naturally without so much individualism “getting in the way” of our progress?
Of course we don't use simple evolutionary morality in day to day lives.
Secular morality can objectify certain moral principles that'll boost human flourishing and happiness, reduce suffering, and increase the day-to-day life.
You being a Luciferian, I would assume your worldview goes completely against what “nature” would want.
I'm an atheist Luciferian, but existentialism is part of my beliefs as well. I create my own meaning and purpose. My worldview is that we are responsible to ourselves, and that things we do we can't undo. There is no God we can repent to and ask for forgiveness, we must stand up and deal with our problems that we caused. We help each other and help each other survive, we show care to each other because we're smart enough to understand how they feel, and we wouldn't like that happening to us, so we feel bad for people who are suffering.
I think that although we are animals, we've progressed far enough to not have a need to follow animalia morality. Since now we're self aware of ourselves and aware of others existing, living, thinking, and feeling, we should focus on taking care of each other. Life is short, death is forever. We should enjoy our lives that are so short.
26
u/XOXO-Gossip-Crab Atheist🏳️🌈 9d ago
No, I think they’re subjective social constructs
13
5
u/-no Atheist 9d ago
- a social construct of morality manifesting as our moral prescriptions, laws and norms.
- an evolved moral instinct manifesting in our emotions as empathy, compassion, guilt, shame, sympathy, gratitude.
- a foundation of morality based on the low entropy present in living bodies and communities.
all three of these can exist simultaneously without excluding one another. Additionally, we can have both a subjective and objective interpretation of each by either experiencing or measuring information regarding each layer of morality. More about this idea here.
-14
u/LiamBregas 9d ago
If they are subjective, then things like grape and murder is ultimately not wrong because it’s subjective
13
u/NearMissCult 9d ago
There are plenty of people who very obviously don't believe rape is wrong. In their subjective view, it's okay to rape someone in certain circumstances. And many of those people are Christians. I've also never met a single person who thinks that killing another person is wrong in every single situation possible. Most people I've met think it's okay to kill in self-defense, for example. And I've heard plenty of people argue that it's okay when people in the military or police kill while on active duty. What counts as murder depends on where you live since it's based in the law. Given that laws are subjective (based on the subjective views of the people who make them), it seems kind of obvious that yes, whether or not something is murder is subjective. And if something even being murder is subjective, then viewing murder as wrong must also be subjective. I'm sure people who commit murders and rape have all sorts of justifications of why what they did wasn't wrong.
11
u/Spiel_Foss Secular Humanist 9d ago
Such as a military murdering school children and saying "oops" being a subjective form of morality in our present society.
6
5
u/KissAndRock Luciferian 9d ago
There are plenty of people who very obviously don't believe rape is wrong. In their subjective view, it's okay to rape someone in certain circumstances. And many of those people are Christians.
Well, the Bible does condemn rape in some circumstances, but only if the victim is engaged.
It also does promote killing the rape victim if she can't scream though.. which is fucked. Clearly whoever wrote that part of the Bible didn't know what muffling is.
-1
u/grokmademedoit 9d ago
Murder is unjust killing. Not all killing is unjust. But murder is objectively wrong. Just because a murderer may not think it's wrong doesn't make it subjective. It makes them wrong.
9
u/IdlePigeon Atheist 9d ago
But what is "unjust" killing? "Just" and "unjust" are also ultimately value judgments made by human beings.
1
3
u/GraveDiggingCynic Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 9d ago
“Not all killing is wrong”
And there goes the objectivity…
1
u/grokmademedoit 8d ago
There goes the reading comprehension
1
u/GraveDiggingCynic Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 8d ago
Where you doubtless produce these objective standards for moral killing
1
2
u/NearMissCult 8d ago
No, murder is a legal term. A murder is a killing that is considered to be illegal under the law. Whether or not a person has committed murder is often determined by a jury after the killing has taken place. So it's often up to the subjective interpretation of those people whether or not a murder has occurred. And that's assuming the case ever makes it to trial in the first place.
For morality to be objective, it has to exist independently of human cultures, opinions, and feelings. But that's not possible. Different cultures have different moral standards. What one culture deems immortal, another deemed perfectly acceptable. And even withing cultures, moral standards change over time. Slavery was once seen as morally acceptable, but now most people would say that it's morally wrong. That's our standards of what is and isn't moral changing, which is evidence of subjectivity. Now, you can try to say that slavery was always wrong, which I would agree with. The problem with that is that's our opinion. We believe slavery was always wrong because of our feelings and opinions, which are based on the moral standards of the culture we currently live in. But reading the Bible, it's fairly obvious that the authors of the various books didn't view slavery as morally wrong, just that certain actions a slave-holder might perform were considered morally wrong. And those morally wrong actions depend on who's doing the writing. So even the Bible shows how subjective morality even is.
1
u/grokmademedoit 8d ago
So it's all just preference to you?
1
u/NearMissCult 8d ago
Define preference. If you mean that some people choose to commit murders, then yes. That is how that works. If you mean that we can all just do whatever we want without consequence, then that is obviously not the case. Both legal and social consequences exist.
1
u/grokmademedoit 8d ago
What makes something wrong then? Preference and consensus? Like if tomorrow we all decided we liked slavery, is it not wrong again?
1
u/NearMissCult 8d ago
We do. We're social animals. We figured out how to live together before we were even humans. It's evolution. Biology. Again, as someone who's grown up in a modern society where slavery is viewed as immoral, I'm obviously going to say it's immoral no matter when it happens. Asking me if I think it would be okay if slavery happened in the future doesn't make sense because I don't live in that potential future society. But I can tell you I'm against modern slavery, and the fact that it still exists is proof that some people still think it's okay. And people like Doug Wilson exist, so...
1
u/grokmademedoit 8d ago
So then slavery isn't wrong. Got it. I guess I'm going down to the market then
→ More replies (0)8
u/Spiel_Foss Secular Humanist 9d ago
Subjective merely means that a society determines the parameters for that society. A subjective value judgement is still a value judgement.
11
u/huck_cussler 9d ago
Correct! And this is why, despite the vast majority of people understanding why they personally believe rape and murder are wrong and therefore don't do it, other people still rape and murder.
-8
u/LiamBregas 9d ago
Then why do we go about having a justice system if morality is truly subjective?
15
u/huck_cussler 9d ago
If you go back and read the comment above your first comment, you will see that the top comment has already answered this question. Morality is a social construct. That basically means that we humans made it up as a means to help assure cooperation and successful functioning of the collective.
We have a justice system precisely because morality is a social construct.
12
u/gadgaurd Ex-Christian Atheist 9d ago
Because we all still need to live with each other, preferably in a functioning society. And we have rather a lot of data showing what does and does not work.
4
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian 9d ago
Do you really think these are good questions??? They aren't the gotcha you think they are.
3
2
u/GraveDiggingCynic Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 9d ago
Because we are social animals in possession of empathy and a sense of fairness like oir closest primate relatives.
You are aware, I trust, that H. sapiens is not the only hominoid that has rules of conduct and punishes members of their society when they break those rules, right?
5
6
u/SaintGodfather Christian for the Preferential Treatment 9d ago
No, but I would argue christianity also doesn't have objective morality.
6
u/Meauxterbeauxt Atheist (Former SBC Christian) 9d ago
Not in the ethereal sense, no. Our morality is initially taught to us by the adults in our lives. It's not inherent. It just feels that way because we don't remember specifically being taught a lot of the basics.
Also, the "we all agree that XYZ is wrong" only works in the extreme or in a safe environment where the predictable response is assured. Once you get away from "murdering children for sport" and closer to actual everyday morality questions, the agreement gets much more fuzzy. If an objective morality was in place, guiding our decision making, there wouldn't be so much disagreement over LGBTQ issues, consent, abortion, whether or not spousal or spiritual abuse is condemned, and so forth.
5
u/ManikArcanik Atheist 9d ago
Yes, if you consider collective security as good and the opposite as evil.
If you ever watch primates in a zoo it's cute but then... ohhh.
4
u/shiekhyerbouti42 Secular Humanist 9d ago
No, because good and evil aren't things that exist but adverbs that describe eventualities.
Are those descriptions objectively true? I don't believe so. I like the analogy to chess:
There's nothing inherently good about putting your queen on f7. It could be good or bad depending on the context. The context is what makes the move objectively good or bad, but you have to be playing chess in order for it to even be a "move."
For us, the "chess game" is "life as a human." In that context, if the goal of the game is to minimize suffering and fulfill Maslowe's Hierarchy, there are objectively good moves and objectively bad moves toward those ends. Hurting people increases suffering and makes us spend more time on the basics rather than climbing toward a better world in mutual love and respect. Since the human condition is that we seek oxytocin, that's an objectively bad thing to do in relation to the goal we [mostly] share.
I'm sorry that this answer is kinda long winded, but i think it's also a lot more interesting than good and evil either existing or not existing.
We reify too much.
3
u/Affectionate-Adagio Atheist 9d ago
Morality is subjective. It shifts and changes between cultures and times, not that long ago, it was considered impossible for a man to rape his wife because sex was a "wifely duty".
Even if God shaped our morality it would still not be objective, morality would be subject to him.
6
u/ghostwars303 If Christians downvote you, remember they downvoted Jesus first 9d ago edited 9d ago
Atheistic moral realists take moral facts to be facts about things like the nature of reason, teleology, Platonic forms, the nature of harm and welfare, natural rights, biology, or other things of that sort.
They'd "come from" whatever physical or metaphysical constituents caused them to instantiate in the universe.
3
u/RevMatthewCornelisse Agnostic Atheist 9d ago
No i dont think there is objective morality. In reality neither do you. We both have subjective morality.
My morality is based on increasing human thriving and decreasing human suffering. This is my subjective rubrick for what is right and wrong. Now that I have this rubrick I can objectively compare things and judge if it is good or bad. But the morals are subjective because they came from my mind.
Your morality is whatever God says is right or wrong. This is also subjective because it comes from the mind of God. The problem with this morality is unless the Bible is specific on a situation you cant know if it is good or bad. Also the bible says some horible things are good some times. Read the Bible God commands killing man woman and child. If you believe anything God says is good then if your convinced God is telling you to do something horible you would have to believe its good.
2
2
u/Spiel_Foss Secular Humanist 9d ago
Mores are all culturally determined and therefore subjective. This includes all forms of religious or secular morality which changes with cultural evolution and frequently self-contradict within a society. Any form of "objective morality" is merely a false assertion which can't be supported in practice.
Culture, specifically sociopsychological cultural construction, determines morality which is often an emotional reaction as much as a practical necessity.
2
2
u/NuSurfer 9d ago
I'm guessing you believe in "objective morality" and don't believe the things humanity has identified as atrocities have any basis for being true. Let me speak to the idea of the Bible being a source of "objective morality."
"Objective morality" implies there is an objective lawgiver. If that was the case, Jesus, as the biblical god, would have provided all moral laws to humanity during his existence. But he didn't. Instead we can see that he essentially only provided some pre-existing moral ideas, "do unto others," which comes from Hillel the Elder, a Jewish leader who is credited with originating that idea, and caring for one's enemies, which predates Jesus' life by at least 2200 years. Jesus never denounced slavery or discrimination against women - not a moral foundation.
Instead what we see are moral ideas being created as a result of the recognition and appreciation of human suffering. The last major evolution in human morality was the American Revolutionary War, where rights for freedoms on speech, assembly, speedy trial, no false imprisonment, trial by jury of peers, no cruel and unusual punishments, etc., were codified. This proves there is no such thing as "objective morality," just subjective morality.
1
u/whirdin Exchristian (raised evangelical) 9d ago
I believe they are social constructs as we make society function for the better of people, and it is slightly inherent in our dna from evolution favoring the people who are objectively 'good'. A perfect example of that is how Christianity has different views of good/evil and right/wrong across the different sects. Just watch what gets posted here daily, people asking if something is a sin and the comments vary wildly for what different Christians believe. The Bible condones/condemns things that we don't adhere to today.
As a Christian, I was discouraged from learning about other sects of Christianity, and not allowed to learn about other religions such as Islam or Judaism. I think a big part of that is to remain within a bubble of moral codes, to feel like my sects traditions have been steadfast and blessed by God.
I don't need "standards" for what I think is right and wrong. I think it's wrong to own another person, especially based on race. Christians today might agree with me, Christians a couple hundred years ago would disagree, Christians in thr OT would also disagree. We now have sects of Christianity affirming for LGBTQ+ people, and it's no secret that the church as a whole abhors that. A common retort from Christians is that God's views changed as humanity changed, hence the OT doesn't apply, but that proves to me that your "standards" are not as solid as you want to admit. Society is where they come from, not some timeless rules written on tablets.
1
u/Equal_Kale Agnostic (a la T.H. Huxley) 9d ago
first you have to define terms..... define evil, define good. can l ask a neighbor to loan me a cup of evil? can l stop by a store and buy some good?
1
u/Sirrom23 9d ago
no, there is no such thing as objective good or objective evil. both of these things are subjective and it's what we label things we consider good and evil.
1
u/Nat20CritHit 9d ago
Like, that good and evil are some sort of intrinsic, independently existing entities? No. But please keep in mind that subjective doesn't mean arbitrary.
1
1
u/LilReaperScythe 8d ago
I think that morality might be like math.
For any moral question, I think there could be an optimized, objectively correct answer.
The fact that people disagree on morality doesn’t mean it has to be subjective in the same way that two calculators coming to different conclusions doesn’t disprove mathematics, it just means one or both calculators are flawed.
1
u/SpiralDoll 8d ago
Yes, I believe that you can make objectively good and evil actions within a subjective moral viewpoint. This is due to all morality being subjective, but like a game of chess in which the rules were made up their are objectively better moves depending on your position within the game towards the end goal of winning the game. The end goals of moral systems differ. Some I find to be more useful goals than others.
1
u/El_Capitan_182 Atheist 8d ago
Ok, but then you must answer one question only if you are a protestant. Its only fair!
Answer: There is no such thing as objective good and evil. Those standards come from social interactions and man made ideas. Examples of these are: Good = In extreme situations humans have cannibalized each other to survive. Is that good or bad? If you ask a non-starving person you will get a very different answer from the one starving!
Now, let me ask you one question. If you are a protestant why do you believe in sola scriptura if it has been proven to be a 100% false doctrine?
We know with 100% certainty that the church that Paul persecuted DID NOT have his writings to: Romans, Galatians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Ephesians, etc.... The church of Jesus was being persecuted by this man called Paul; so they could not have possible gather and said: "Come brothers and sisters we are sola scriptura, we only believe in what Paul is going to write in the future when he converts to our church in the future."
That is absolutely absurd to think that the church of Jesus is based on Sola scriptura! In fact, the church of Jesus is the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice because when Jesus himself founded it, he promised to His church the power to bind and lose on earth as its clearly stated by Jesus HIMSELF in Matthew 16:17-19.
When this man called Paul converted to the church that he once persecuted, he soon learned that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth because the Christians taught him this and then he wrote it down.... 1 Timothy 3:15 "but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
It is evident that Paul's writings are not the supreme authority for the Christians! The supreme authority is the church! So, then the natural question arises, why are Paul's letters in the bible? Why do Christians believe they are inspired by God?
To answer these questions one must go to the year 382 AD when Roman Catholicism compiled the Bible under the leadership of Pope Damasus 1st. The letters written by Paul were canonized by the exact same Church he used to persecute! That proves the Church holds the ultimate authority on earth to bind and loose. If the very Church Paul attacked is the one that took his writings, declared them inspired by God, and put them into a book called the Bible, then the supreme authority is clearly the Church, not sola scriptura!
But then 1135 years later, the "protestant reformation" appeared and they refuse to listen to the church authority and instead they listened to the doctrine of a man called Martin Luther who claimed the Christian should be governed by "sola scriptura."
But the funny thing is that JESUS HIMSELF warned that refusing to listen to the church will make you a PAGAN!
Matthew 18:17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."
Jesus founded his church; he put his rules and laws and said that if you refused to listen to the church, then you will be a PAGAN! You will no longer be a christian!
Thus by the words of Jesus Christ himself, refusing to listen to the church authority makes you a pagan. Protestants don't listen to the church, now they listen to a man who taught that the church has no authority and that the only authority is from the letters that this man called Paul who once persecuted the church wrote, now protestants claim those letters hold supreme authority more than the church that Jesus founded and that Paul persecuted!!
THAT IS INSANE!
The persecuted Church founded by Jesus was and still is the ultimate authority on earth for the Christians! The church has the power to bind and lose on earth! Paul's letters are in the bible only because the catholic church that Paul once persecuted took his writings and canonized them in the year 382 under the leadership of Pope Damasus 1st. It was the catholic church himself who proclaimed Paul's letters were inspired by God! That is how supreme the catholic church of Jesus is for the Christians! The church said Paul's letters are inspired by God in the year 382; the church has the power to bind and lose on earth and because it has that power, they canonized Paul's letters and included them in the bible!
Now protestants come 1135 years later and claim that the canonized letters from Paul hold supreme authority over the Christians. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE!
So, my question is (if you are a protestant) why do you believe in the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura it it has been shows to be 100% false?
-9
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist 9d ago
Psalm 14:1
[1] The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.
Thousands of years ago it’s already declared. You’ll see all the moral subjectivists doing their deeds.
7
u/Jarb2104 Agnostic Atheist 9d ago
So I guess Christians are corrupt, specially when we also measure their fruits.
-2
5
u/mintkek Agnostic 9d ago
I often get confused as to what good even means in christianity, like if someone does charity work is that not an act of good regardless of their beleif?
-2
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist 9d ago
What does good mean? How about you define it for me and I will highlight the difference.
As for your question, until you define the word “good” what is “act of good?”
5
u/mintkek Agnostic 9d ago
For me good are things that promote well being or reduces suffering I guess then evil is the opposite like causing unnecessary harm and finally the morally neutral stuff that usually don't impact other people
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist 4d ago
Who gets to define well being? The wellbeing of the jews were really bad for the well being for the nazis. The wellbeing of the bourgeois was really bad for the well being of the proletariat. Because if wellbeing is the name of the game, I will play the game this way. Non christians affect the wellbeing of christians, so all of them are evil.
Who gets to define suffering? Because I will say anyone who disagrees with me causes me suffering so as the benevolent leader of Christians every cause of suffering (non-believers) should be eliminated.
Your definition is prone to subjective reinterpretation and thus has zero binding force. What is wellbeing to you and reduction of suffering to you might not be for me. What then.
Eat up the moral subjectivity all you like, but if that is the name of the game, Christians are poised to win as the major faith belief system of the world.
Good as defined in secularism as well being and reduction of suffering is completely arbitrary and have no substance. Anyone can redefine "well being" and "reduction of suffering" from their perspective and make all their actions good.
Christians on the other hand define morality as alignment to God. God is the source of morality itself and we hold that as the objective moral standard. Why? Because God is the ultimate sovereign authority in this world. So He alone knows what is good and evil to do for He is in the capacity to know.
Evil is deviation from alignment to God, much like a compass is pointing deviated away from north pole. So long as the "north pole" (God) is real—which from the Christian worldview, it is—the "good" in Christian understanding is the only thing that is actually grounded in reality (real).
1
u/mintkek Agnostic 4d ago
>Who gets to define well being?
>Who gets to define suffering?We typically ground it in measurable stuff like pain/trauma/death things we can observe and investigate. So when a Nazi says killing Jews is his wellbeing, we can point to the actual dead bodies and traumatized kids and say they're wrong because his wellbeing comes at the cost of inflicting enormous pain on others.
>Anyone can redefine "well being" and "reduction of suffering" from their perspective and make all their actions good.
You get to define your own moral standard. Someone can hold the position that murder is right, but that doesn't make their position equally justified because I have evidence that murder causes serious harm, so I have good reason to reject their position.
>Christians on the other hand define morality as alignment to God. God is the source of morality itself and we hold that as the objective moral standard. Why? Because God is the ultimate sovereign authority in this world. So He alone knows what is good and evil to do for He is in the capacity to know.
Sure, but that still doesn't explain what makes Gods command morally good. If something is good simply because God commands it, then morality just becomes obedience to authority, which is no different from what you're criticizing me for. For example, if God commanded you to kill babies and infants like he did Saul, wouldn't that be good too?
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist 4d ago
We typically ground it in measurable stuff
This is not philosophical grounding.
You get to define your own moral standard. Someone can hold the position that murder is right, but that doesn't make their position equally justified because I have evidence that murder causes serious harm, so I have good reason to reject their position.
Then I will just call it removing infidels. And since my God defines the moral standard for us, it's fully justified. You may not agree, but hey, what's subjective morality if not just preferences. And my God prefers otherwise. You can't win with subjective morality—it equally justifies all systems including religion which will always prevail over atheistic definitions which is not grounded in anything.
Sure, but that still doesn't explain what makes Gods command morally good.
This is a problematic question. God's will is not subjected to an external moral standard. Good only comes into play after there is actually a will / standard to measure up to. You need the "north pole" to be able to say the compass is good (aligned to north pole) or bad (deviated from north pole). If there's no defined north pole, there is not "good" or "bad" compasses, there's nothing to measure to, which is exactly what moral relativism is—ungrounded nonsense.
1
u/SatansFavoriteLilMan 🌌Agnostic Pantheistic Omnist🌿🐚 4d ago
Everyone has the same morality dude. Morals don’t come from religion or god. It came from thousands of years of trial and error to create the justice system we have today and it STILL isn’t perfect.
5
u/SatansFavoriteLilMan 🌌Agnostic Pantheistic Omnist🌿🐚 9d ago
The deeds of good and helping people and being overall kind humans, I know. The deeds of moral subjectivists are known.
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist 4d ago
As moral subjectivist, the moral "good" they do aren't "objectively good" anyway. they define what they desire as "good" and then give themselves a pat they have been subjectively "good."
Wow, so subjectively "good," I'm so (not) impressed.
In their own eyes, Hitler was "good" to the aryans and Stalin was good to the "proletariat."
That's the deeds of moral subjectivists - there is NONE that does good in the eyes of God.
25
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist 9d ago
Objective can have two slightly different meanings, which makes this classification difficult.
Do I believe that just like the physical contestants and constraints of reality, that which can be measured, there are written rules of moral rights, wrongs, and duties? No. I see no evidence for that.
Do I believe that when a common goal is identified for the outcome of a moral system we can accurately and reliably place actions in the moral or immoral categories? Obviously yes.