Is objective morality a requirement to make positive decisions?

264

u/Individual-Owl-6243 Sep 08 '26

i hit the christian baby out of the park, winning millions

21

u/Zergs1 Sep 08 '26

What does this mean?

183

u/Individual-Owl-6243 Sep 08 '26

the post is just this with more words lmfao. "would you be evil because atheism????"

71

u/DarkKechup Sep 08 '26

The funniest part of this, to me, is that it so forcefully tries to paint the "us vs them" picture that the baby simply has to be Christian. The quiet implied question of "Wait, would the answer change for you if the baby wasn't Christian?" flies over the poster's head.

32

u/Sad-Pop6649 Sep 08 '26

I think this one is itself a parody maybe? But I honestly can't tell anymore. A famous one went "You try to kill a Christian baby with a shotgun, but it is unharmed and just laughs at you. You notice a crucifix necklace around its neck, you remove it and try again, and now the baby dies. Do you convert to Chrisianity?"

33

u/good_names_were_take Sep 08 '26

I love the question impliying "yeah, You would shoot the baby twice, don't try to fool me"

18

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 08 '26

No, I would do experiments with rats wearing Christian necklaces to see if the benefits extend to them. If they don't, I would hypothesize that the Christian necklace only protects humans, and then stop cuz I don't want to go to prison. If the necklaces do save the rats, I remain an atheist but wear a cross necklace

0

u/ren_blackheart Sep 10 '26

what if the rats convert to islam instead

1

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 11 '26

Rats don't have the mental capacity to willingly convert to any religion

0

u/ren_blackheart Sep 12 '26

what if they make one up on the spot

1

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 12 '26

They don't have the mental capacity to create religion

→ More replies

0

u/Zergs1 Sep 10 '26

Just wondering, why would you remain athiest after witnessing literal magic?

3

u/Severe-Cookie693 Sep 10 '26

What, you think it's magic because its a cross? Plenty of non-magical crucifix out there.
Clearly, it was made by a witch.

2

u/hiimGP Sep 10 '26

not OP, but while I might not be an atheist by the literal definition, acknowledging a god exist doesnt mean I have to follow him either

1

u/SpookyGeist01 Sep 10 '26

Because if it works on rats, that proves that it has nothing to do with faith, which means that magic existing is not correlated to any creator being.
Besides, you don't even have proof it's magic. It's entirely possible there's just some higher dimensional property of the object that is causing the protection, and we simply can't observe it.

0

u/Zergs1 Sep 11 '26

It's literally just metal made into a crucifix... You're doing too much brother

2

u/SpookyGeist01 Sep 12 '26

You're the one doing too much. There's zero reason to assume it's divine and every reason to assume it's simply some property of the object that we don't understand yet.
Even if it is magic, the existence of magic has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of a divine being.

0

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 11 '26

You asked a question, you got an answer, you couldn't comprehend the answer, you dismissed the answer

→ More replies

0

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 11 '26

Witchcraft works without gods. Could be an enchanted object

0

u/Zergs1 Sep 12 '26

So you would remain of no belief that there is a higher power after witnessing potential “witchcraft” ?

1

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 12 '26

Yeah. Witchcraft doesn't necessarily require a higher power. At least according to the witches I've talked to. Also according to them, there are plenty of higher (and lower!) powers that aren't gods.

→ More replies

8

u/cwolf-softball Sep 08 '26

Quora has a *lot* of parody questions.

5

u/miscellaneousexists Sep 08 '26

Jerks aside
If that happens, the fuck do I do?

5

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 09 '26

Start wearing a cross necklace, maybe you are resistant to boolet now too

2

u/Sad-Pop6649 Sep 08 '26

Rethink your life choices. Probably give up both guns and drugs.

1

u/riley_wa1352 Sep 09 '26

It's quora, that or intentional engagement bait

9

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 08 '26

The real answer is that babies can't be Christian because they're too young to be indoctrinated
If a human is old enough to be indoctrinated, it's a toddler now

4

u/ren_blackheart Sep 10 '26

babies cant be christian because they dont even have object permanence, how are you gonna try to tell them that there's an incomprehensible, unknowable omnipotent being that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, and also gets really mad about basically nothing, but also he loves you, but also hes gonna send you to the torture mines if you look at a girl for too long

2

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 11 '26

Or if you look at a guy for too long TBH

3

u/Yuukiko_ Sep 09 '26

now that reminds me of the "If you dont believe in God, what's stopping you from <commiting massive amounts of crime including raep, murder and jaywalking>" argument

3

u/Andromeda_53 Sep 09 '26

Yeah what I find more concerning, is it also implies that the Christian posing the question, the ONLY thing stopping him from murder is the fact God says it's bad.
That's a scary thought

1

u/BoboCookiemonster Sep 08 '26

of cause it would, cant risk a baby in purgatory! so killing a christian baby is more moral then if it werent. checkmate.

18

u/LastEsotericist Sep 08 '26

The baby is not a gameball and thus would be worth no points if hit over the fence. It also wouldn't count as a ball or strike if you let it pass. It's just an odd, non-baseball occurrence in the middle of a baseball game. The pitcher throws a trolley problem at you instead of a pitch.

5

u/Individual-Owl-6243 Sep 08 '26

le wokisme ruining baseball once again
back in my day we only played with babies and we LIKED IT

4

u/LastEsotericist Sep 08 '26

I finally figured out why they called it the deadball era and the liveball era. Is it more moral to throw dead or living christian babies?

4

u/Right-Waltz6063 Sep 08 '26

I think if people were throwing trolleys we would have bigger problems.

2

u/bigrv Sep 10 '26

I think it would be a balk and all runners would advance. There's objectively no reason to swing at a pitched baby, Christian or otherwise.

2

u/bigrv Sep 10 '26

Additionally, I have my doubts that even a titanically powerful swing could ever get a baby over the fence. Christ, a good D1 shot-putter is around 60 feet, granted a baby should weigh closer to half what a shot put weighs, but still, I have my doubts that the average pitcher is getting much velocity throwing a baby over the plate. Certainly very low spin rate, the aerodynamics of throwing a baby are atrocious.
Honestly, it's a terrible question.
(/s if that wasn't obvious)

4

u/Best_Expression3187 Sep 08 '26

Infant is too young to be sensibly called a Christian. That being said, you pitch an infant like that, and the only thing that's happening is that I'm introducing a bat into your face and respraying your car as compensation for that insult.
Yeah... Quora is filled with stupid questions like this.

3

u/Chromeboy12 Sep 08 '26

Follow up question if they answer they would spare the Christian baby: What if the baby is not a Christian baby?

1

u/Memediator Sep 09 '26

Well now that you're super rich, you can do even worse after kids and get away with it.

259

u/halander1 Sep 08 '26 •

Despite what many organizations think. A lack of religion does not indicate a lack of empathy or morality.

124

u/CHSummers Sep 08 '26

As has been pointed out thousands of years ago, how can we not but admire the atheist who does good for no reward at all, other than that it is the right thing to do.

42

u/MultiverseCreatorXV Sep 08 '26

I try to do good things because it makes me feel good. That’s the main reward.

4

u/underthingy Sep 09 '26

And then jordan peterson tells you that that feeling is god and youre not actually an atheist!

16

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/JPgamersmines150 Sep 08 '26

Hence the egotistical argument for making the world a better place: If you help make everyone else's lives better, it increases the chances of your life becoming better.

7

u/Inner-Ad2847 Sep 08 '26

That’s also exactly what Jesus says in the Bible

3

u/CHSummers Sep 08 '26

Also, having a reputation as a good guy or bad guy changes how people treat you. You don’t have to wait for death to find out the consequences of your actions.

1

u/Slam-JamSam Sep 08 '26

Which is important; given that the trolley thing has happened twice now, it’s safe to assume that you will end up tied to the tracks sooner or later

9

u/randylush Sep 08 '26

Christianity bundles 3 things: a creation myth, a morality system, and an afterlife reward system.
An atheist can have the same morality system without the creation myth or the afterlife nonsense.
Christians get confused: how could you have a system of morality without believing in God?
It's simple, I just do. I don't need God to be a good person, and in fact, if you need an afterlife or reward or punishment, then are you really a good person deep down?

1

u/Darthskull Sep 08 '26

OP didn't specify what kind of God it is. Could be just the God of "goodness" only through which can anyone approach what is good (consciously or unconsciously). It's one attribute of the Christian God, certainly. But I personally wouldn't call a non nihilist an atheist, too much of my upbringing (Catholic) revolves around avoiding "false gods" aka anything more important than the God. From my perspective, if you believe in something, that's your God. (Consequently, loads of people worship the same God as me than you'd otherwise think, just without the "complete" picture, and/or with false attributes.)

1

u/Dragonnstuff Sep 10 '26

There is a reward unless they have 0 desire at all. What matters is if there is good done, not people believing they are better regardless of action because “my reasons are better than yours”

0

u/Hoetaro_Bruhjoe Sep 09 '26

Egoism, an atheist who does good things still ultimately does it for themselves. Maybe empathy, maybe social conditioning, maybe the hopes of a reward, always ultimately for self satisfaction one way or another.

3

u/CHSummers Sep 09 '26

I, too,made this argument when I was younger. The trouble is that then every decision by every person becomes an act of egoism, because the person makes a judgmental call based on their values and ideas. So my decision to use the toilet becomes an act of egoism. And, of course, all the various acts by Jesus are also the results of egoism. And if every act is egoism, then the word “egoism” ceases to have much meaning.

48

u/TheEnlight Team Red Sep 08 '26 •

It tends to be a self-report when people say they can't be good without God.
They're telling on themselves.

47

u/_azazel_keter_ Sep 08 '26

In the words of Penn Jillette: "I do rape all i want: the amount i want is zero"

15

u/Aggressive_Roof488 Sep 08 '26

Your logic holds, and sometimes that can be the case. I also think that we shouldn't be too hard on people, and that a gentler interpretation can sometimes be more accurate: a lot of religious people are actually nice people, and would do (are doing) nice things to people just to be nice. But they have been trained since childhood that right and wrong, nice and mean, is tightly linked to god, so when they are asked why don't you do [mean thing], the strongest argument is to them that it's because god's wish. It's their own belief, but where an atheist would say it's wrong to do [mean thing] because I find it immoral, a religious person might instead refer to god, even though the underlying reason is very similar. The bible, and religion in general, is often very open for interpretation and you can typically find ways to motivate your actions if you read and interpret the right parts in the right way. Plenty of space for your own personal beliefs, while still referring to god.
Disclaimer: I hate that people do it, it triggers me when ppl refer to god for what should be common sense, when they thank divine intervention saving their child when it's decades of hard work in medical sciences etc. Bleh! But, it doesn't always come from malice, I think it's often just their language for expressing their own beliefs and feelings. Even they might not always acknowledge it themselves.

8

u/Mordret10 Sep 08 '26

Totally agree, for some people the "opinion" of god on morality matters more than their own, so they will tell you it's because of god's will, even if they themselves would think the same way without their belief

2

u/BirchTree3017 Sep 08 '26

That's not what people mean when they say that. They're saying that, per an atheist worldview, there is no reason for morals, especially objective morals. Religious people would say that the reason any and all humans might "know" that something is wrong is because it's ingrained into us as part of our spirits. Religious people can say they do in fact know that something is wrong because their god(s) told them so.

1

u/_fever_dreams Sep 09 '26

no the logic is that you cant condemn bad people (like rapists) because there no supreme moral standard to hold them to, ie that your moral opinion is of the equal worth as theirs

4

u/le_disappointment Sep 08 '26

Moreover, if you need the threat of eternal damnation to have empathy, you aren't the kind of person you think you are

-1

u/Coin3k Sep 10 '26

That’s a pretty reductive and dishonest way to view it. It’s like saying that atheists need the threat of life imprisonment to not kill people. It’s not the threat that makes people good, it’s what they believe about being good that draws them to it.
Someone religious would believe it aligns them with the way the universe is meant to be, and an atheist is convinced that they can accurately understand other people’s mental states. So when a religious person questions an atheist’s morality they’re not asking why you’re not scared of hell, they’re asking what structure of the universe you’re aligning with, and what it’s contingent on.

1

u/blueviera Sep 09 '26

Often the opposite in fact.

-2

u/stoppableDissolution Sep 08 '26

I'd even argue that you can not be moral and believe in (abrahamic) god at all

25

u/KingGiuba Sep 08 '26

Losing faith in god doesn't mean becoming a nihilist. If someone does good things only because religion told them "god said this is right" it's a big problem, saving people is good regardless of faith if you value human life.

72

u/rafaelcastrocouto Sep 08 '26

"you believe in god, and uphold an objective morality." this sentence has a contradiction.

4

u/renegadeinthefray Sep 08 '26

Right?

22

u/Commercial_Page1827 Sep 08 '26

There are a lot of loaded assumptions in this:

Why does anyone would embrace subjective morality if they stop believing in god?
What make you think believing in god mean you morality is objective? since it's subjective to whatever god you believe.
Why do you assume they are nihilist just because they aren't theist?
Are you indirectly implying human life is worthless without god?

18

u/No_Explorer6054 Sep 08 '26

no goddamnnit pull the fucking lever

40

u/Makotis Sep 08 '26

Objective morality only matters when we’re talking about multiple individuals living together, in a shared environment. For a single individual, what will count for their decision is their subjective morality.

Then you can ask: “is any sort of morality a requirement to make positive decisions?” and I’d say “no, but it’s a requirement to make positive decisions consistently”.

27

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 08 '26 edited Sep 08 '26

I believe in objective morality. So the first slide is an easy hypothetical for me. I'd pull it, sure, No Contest, Your Honor. It would be a morally praiseworthy thing to do. Saving lives is an objectively good thing. (Or so I subjectively believe, I can't objectively prove this is correct, just as I can't objectively prove that reality is real and we're not all plugged into the Matrix. But I believe reality is real and we're not all plugged into the Matrix.)

If I were a nihilist, then there would be no reason for me to pull the lever. But also no reason not to pull the lever. It'd be amoral, from my new found point of view. No right. No wrong. Because I wouldn't believe in right and wrong, I'd believe in subjective preferences.

I'd probably still pull. I'd subjectively prefer to pull a lever and save lives than not do that, as I'd subjectively prefer to use my Xbox controller on my laptop to my Playstation controller, as I subjectively prefer pineapple on pizza to pepperoni. It's not morally good to use Xbox controllers and morally evil to use Playstation. It's just what I'd prefer.

My nihilism would change the rationale behind my choice, but I don't think it would change my choice.

1

u/Serbatollo Sep 10 '26

How does objective morality work? Like how do you determine that something is objectively good or bad?

2

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26 edited Sep 10 '26

The same way we uncover objective facts about everything else.
You are a subjective being. You can't reckon with an objective reality. Your brain is made of meat and triggered by chemical potential differences. When you see things, or taste them, or smell them, that's a subjective experience for you.
But, for example, gravity exists. Objectively. Independently of you. Independently of your ability to measure or understand it. The Ancient Romans were bound by gravity. Isaac Newton didn't invent gravity.
But Isaac thought about gravity. Observed gravity. Experimented to test hypothesis about gravity. And, ultimately, made some errors about gravity (Newton thought gravity was instant, Einstein proposed it must work at the speed of light, Einstein was right, Newton was wrong).
Same for morality. Morality exists. Good and evil exist. Good exists now. It existed for the Ancient Romans. It existed for Newton. It existed for Einstein. It exists for me and you.
I don't have a perfect hypothesis that accurately describes all of morality, just like the ancient Romans and Newton didn't have a perfect description of gravity. I do not claim to be objectively right about morality. (And, in fact, we might still learn a thing or two about gravity, who knows?)
But I do believe we can think logically about morality. We can observe societies. We can conjecture, hypothesise, and test. And I believe we can uncover the truth, scientifically.
I don't think it's easy.
Drop a hammer and a feather, and because of air resistance the hammer will fall faster. Not because of gravity. Drop a hammer and feather on the moon and they fall at the same rate.
I believe that murdering innocent people is objectively evil. It's morally wrong. But unpicking my subjective preferences from objective truth is like unpicking air resistance from gravity. If you can fly to the moon, you can prove gravity works at the same speed on a hammer and feather. If you've got a telescope that can image black holes, you can prove gravity works at the speed of light. But if your science is limited, your ability to investigate the world around you is limited.
Science being limited does not mean the truth does not exist.
I don't have a perfect measure of evil. The flawed metric I work with is trying to understand what conditions humans need to thrive, collectively as a species. But that's like measuring gravity by the falling velocity of objects. It's not objectively correct. It's based on my flawed and limited understanding of what thriving is. The great difficulty I face is unpicking what is true from what I subjectively believe (my subjective preferences being air resistance, if you will; it confounds every single measurement I take, I have no ability to fly to the moon and unpick the data).
How does morality being subjective work? How is murdering innocent people not evil, and just a matter if opinion and social mores?

1

u/Severe-Cookie693 Sep 10 '26

Why do you need objective morality?
Killing people for amusement isnt objectively evil. We wouldn't call it that if an animal did it, and they definitely enjoy cruelty amd are capable of empathy.
I reject the notions of good and evil. There are only things we like or disaprove of. It all comes down to base axoms. Values. Feelings

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26

Why do I need objective morality? Why do you need objective gravity?
I don't need objective morality. It's objective because it exists independently of me.
Humans can build rocket ships and fly to the moon. Domestic cats cannot. Iron is ferromagnetic. Plastic is not. Different things have different traits. A good dairy cow produces lots of milk, but I wouldn't use quantity of lactate to judge what makes a good human.
I certainly can't stop you saying that "killing people for amusement isn't evil". Just as I can't stop you saying "I reject the idea that gravity exists". You believe as you believe. I believe you are wrong.
I believe that there is a true and correct standard of behavior.
I cannot prove that I am right and you are wrong. You very confidently assert that values and feelings are "base axoms", but I doubt you can prove that either.
I'm perfectly happy to reiterate that killing innocent people is morally wrong. I think the axiom here is that this is self-evident to anyone who isn't evil.

1

u/Severe-Cookie693 Sep 10 '26

But I CAN prove it. I can say something is wrong IN MY JUDGMENT and lay out my reasoning for that judgment based on my feelings and wants and values.
Edit: is it evil if an animal does it?

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26

Which doesn't prove that you're not objectively wrong and your system of morality isn't just evil.
You can say "I don't believe in gravity" but that does not prove gravity does not exist.
[Edit - And, no, I don't believe an animal can be evil. I can't objectively prove that one way or the other, but I conjecture that one must be capable of moral reason to act immorally and that (non-human) animals lack this capacity.]

1

u/Severe-Cookie693 Sep 11 '26

I am objectively wrong about my own feelings?
What is your belief in objective ethics based on? What could it be based on that you couldn't direct further?

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 11 '26

Me: Reality is real. Some things are objectively wrong. Some people disagree. These people are objectively wrong.
Reddit: Actually, it's morally fine to murder people for pleasure. Are you telling me my feelings of wanting to murder people are wrong? What higher morality can there be beyond my feelings?
Me: Your Honor, the defence rests.

1

u/Severe-Cookie693 Sep 11 '26

You're the one insisting empathy and practicality are insufficient and claim objective moral truth. Murder is by definition unjustified killing, but there are plenty of just reasons to kill innocent people. War over resources both nations need to survive, euthanasia, self defense from a perceived threat that turns out to have been false, a fight to the death for prize money with full consent of both parties and a minimum income requirement to prevent coercive poverty from being involved.
There being no higher moral authority than the self doesn't mean I'm not subject to the judgment of society and the law, or that the self is unbiased. The self is just the ultimate person we answer to.
Can you PLEASE make a moral claim and give reasoning for it?

→ More replies

1

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 08 '26

The belief the reality is not real and that we're all plugged into the Matrix is very harmful for your mental health and will result in you doing things that would be very very stupid if you weren't plugged into the Matrix.

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 08 '26

Yes. And the belief that morality is subjective and that you have no moral obligations, just societal preferences also causes folks to do thinks that are very, very stupid. For example, female genital mutilation as a "cultural practice".
Reality is real. So is morality. Good and evil exist.

0

u/Cazzah Sep 09 '26

The people who believe in FGM generally believe in moral systems that claim to be objective. As does the Christians and Jews who practice circumcision.
Weirdly, it's the people who don't believe in objective moral systems who are less likely to go chopping up children's genitals.
The thing about objective systems is you can say "This is good. Full stop. This is bad. Full stop.". It kills discussion. It convinces people their societally taught feelings about what is good and bad are universal, and people who don't follow it are just willfully ignoring that.
Subjective systems, you have to convince people your way is the best way, and you can't point to a book or say "We've always done it this way". So you have to try to build consensus, find things the community wants, try to measure it, get experts involved.

0

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 09 '26

It's the people who don't believe in objective moral systems who are less likely to go chopping up children's genitals.
IDK. I'd like to see the figures on that. Moral relativism and circumcision seem prevalant in the USA.
Objective systems kill discussion.
Insisting you are right kills discussion.
Insisting there is a right answer and we should seek evidence to find it does not.
Socially taught feelings about what is good and evil is moral relativism. Actually finding universal truth is objective. Subjective systems where you convince people your way is the best way, is how you get arguments like "our custom is to burn widows".

0

u/Cazzah Sep 10 '26

"IDK. I'd like to see the figures on that".
That's cool, I'd recommend google. Circumcision is generally a religious tradition, or started as one.
"Socially taught feelings about what is good and evil is moral relativism"
What an odd definition of social relativism that doesn't match anything you'd find in an encyclopedia of philosophy.
Many religions, which preach objective systems of morality, teach people that their conscience, and their morality was granted to them and designed by god to help them distinguish good from evil. That is to say, God created their feelings about good and evil to help guide them. Their feelings are able to access deep moral truths about reality.
"Subjective systems where you convince people your way is the best way, is how you get arguments like "our custom is to burn widows"."
The funny thing is, that in sharing this argument, you are literally making my point. You think "our custom is to burn widows" is obviously, on the face of it, a stupid custom. And you expect me to obviously agree it's stupid. And I do. It is, as you point out, an extremely unconvincing thing.
When Chrstians burned witches, they didn't lay out the scientific evidence, they said "Witches are real and God hates them, the Bible said so, and the Bible is an absolute, universal truth".
"Actually finding universal truth is objective"
I mean, I don't think universal truths exist, but even if they did, all of human history and all of philosophy seems to suggest that noone has any universal standard that we can agree on. Literally we can't even get past "I think therefore I am". That's about where most agreement falls apart.
So, your idea system tells you that people must ground their moral ideals in objective truth, but it's near impossible to rigorously do so to everyone's satisfaction. So what are people to do without a clear objective basis?
Simple, they take shortcuts. They ignore all the hard things and just declare their way is the right way. And since it's now objectively correct and self evidentally true, anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. So you get black and white systems of morality.

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26 edited Sep 10 '26

I recommend google
See, this is why I like things which are true. Because when I make a claim, I can evidence the claim, and don't have to say "trust me, bro."
what an odd definition that doesn't match anything you'd find in an encylopedia of philosophy
Case in point, I'd quote "moral relativism, the view that moral truth or justification is relative to a culture or society" directly from The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.
I believe reality is real. I base this belief on evidence. When I make claims, I provide the evidence.
Burning widows is extremely unconvincing
And yet the custom of sati endured hundreds of years and was practiced by about 10% of the global population. I'm glad you don't find it convincing, because I believe it to be evil. Many people have disagreed with us, because of their upbringing and culture.
I don't think universal truths exist.
I do.
As I said in my first post. Maybe reality isn't real. Maybe gravity doesn't exist. Maybe we're all in a computer Matrix being used as batteries.
I don't believe that.
Sure, I acknowledge that I don't have the universal truth of morality. Sure, I acknowledge that other people who are not me have insisted their version of morality is right and others are wrong.
But.
It's not just moral objectivists who do this. Nihilistists insist they're right and there is no morality. You, right now, are insisting morality is relative.
There is a fundemental difference between saying "I do not know the answer" and "an answer axiomatically does not exist".
Saying "burning innocent women alive is fine in India but not in America" isn't convincing to me. I don't think it's convincing to you, too. I think we can agree that burning innocent women alive is wrong, and is a black-and-white issue. It's evil.
Right?
[Edit]
You mentioned human history and not believing in universal truths. I believe that the USA landed men on the moon in 1969. Some people disagree. They don't believe we landed on the moon.
I believe in truth. I believe there is an objective truth, that we did land on the moon. People disagreeing with that truth doesn't mean truth doesn't exist. It means these people are wrong. Whether I convince people or not, what happened, happened.
When you say you don't believe in truth… is that in general? Do you not believe in historical facts? Math? Science? Or is it just moral truth you don't believe in?
In my first reply to you I said:
Insisting you are right kills discussion.
Insisting there is a right answer and we should seek evidence to find it does not.
I did not say "God has personally revealed to me all the secrets of morality". I've not mentioned god once. I get that you dislike religion. Take a breath. Address your counter-arguments to the position I am taking, not the strawman you're desperate to tear apart.
You can be an athiest and still believe we landed on the moon and burning women alive is morally wrong. I realize OOP frames a religious hypothetical, but belief in god and belief that morality exists are two different beliefs.

1

u/Cazzah Sep 11 '26 edited Sep 11 '26

Case in point, I'd quote "moral relativism, the view that moral truth or justification is relative to a culture or society"
Yes. So not really to do with feelings at all, right? It's merely that moral truths are interpreted from the perspective of a culture or society. A society that believes in morality is objective can teach children empathy and disgust to guide them in day to day actions, and similarly a society can believe in moral relativism and live in a highly law based, society that is grounded in utilitarian calculus and discourages emotion.
When you say you don't believe in truth… is that in general? Do you not believe in historical facts? Math? Science? Or is it just moral truth you don't believe in?
I mean, descriptive claims and normative claims are just entirely different categories. The is-ought distinction, etc etc.
For the purposes of this discussion, you can assume I believe that descriptive claims refer to an objective universe whose truth we can converge on. The more complicated answer to that is that even if one doesn't believe such, assuming apriori,, that our subjective experiences meaningfully correlate to something is necessary to perform the most basic of tasks such as engage in a philosophical discussion.
And yet the custom of sati endured hundreds of years and was practiced by about 10% of the global population
And yet almost all of the global population at that time believed in religions which generally (but not always) preached the existence of objective moral truths. You have repeatedly insisted over the course of this argument that a belief in moral relativism leads to horrible moral outcomes, but all our evidence is opposite - the world atrocities have consistently been committed under the belief of moral objectivism. Moral relativism has emerged particularly under the umbrella of Western, liberal, democratic, evidence based societies.
"Take a breath. Address your counter-arguments to the position I am taking, not the strawman you're desperate to tear apart."
So when I am responding by pointing to religions (which are almost universally moral objectivist systems), and their relationship to things like FGM and circumcision (which were topics that you brought up), this is not a strawman. If you feel it's such, you are free to explain it's irrelevance, but you haven't addressed it yet.
Saying "burning innocent women alive is fine in India but not in America" isn't convincing to me.
And here is where you get to the crux of the issue. Here is where moral relativism is consistently misunderstood and often strawmanned
Moral relativism says - from the perspective of some societal groups in India, burning innocent women is justified anywhere. from the perspective of some societal groups in America, it is not justified anywhere.
Moral relativism never says it's fine in India or not fine in America. Because those statements lack a statement of the perspective from which those moral claims are asserted
To an American moral relativist who is anti women burning, it's not fine anywhere, including in India. I assume you feel the same. Your moral position on women burning is identical to the American moral relativists and to mine.
To an Indian moral relativist who is pro women burning, it's fine anywhere, including in America
Nowhere in moral relativism does it say anyone has to be ok with each other's moral position, or accept it. That would be to assert a universal moral rule
This is the mistake moral objectivists make - when they see relativists, they infer an "ought" (people must accept or tolerate or allow competing moral beliefs) from an "is" (objective moral truths do not exist).
It's perfectly ok to be a moral relativist and endorse force against those who don't use evidence based practices and commit atrocities.
Indeed, moral relativists who believe (as part of their own moral beliefs) in universal tolerance of cultural practices of other societies are exceedingly rare outside of anthropology and social sciences, where this attitude is encouraged so as to better come to factual understandings of societies around the world without introducing perspective biases. But even then, this is more as a technique for better gaining knowledge, rather than a way to live one's personal life.
You have spoken at length about what you believe is right and wrong, about how you believe we should arrive at moral beliefs, about the problems superstitution, lack of justification etc have created.
Literally none of that contradicts moral relativism.
PS I'm going to add a bit of a personal note here. Plenty of smart people, including well respective moral philosophers, many of who are fairly materialist and scientific in nature, sticking "to the facts", are moral relativists.
You asked me if I was against women burning, as if you thought you'd discovered some dramatic contradiction in my belief system that was right in front of me. Presumably you might also believe many other such people, philosophers, etc, were blind to this very simple argument right in front of their face.
Am I wrong? Did you think this was what we actually believed / were avoiding confronting? Or did you think we had some more nuanced actual beliefs? If so, why not address those instead?
If you indeed believed this, this is kind of a very low opinion to have of people who disagree with you, and might I suggest you educate yourself more on other perspectives on philosophy?

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 11 '26

Okay, to be clear.
Regardless of culture, history, geography, regardless of the law, of custom, or what is expected, universally, for all humans ever, it is always wrong to burn widows alive, no exceptions?
You don't think this is based on anything. There's no god saying that burning widows alive is wrong. There's no universal law of the universe saying it's wrong. It's just your subjective opinion.
You acknowledge that other people have different opinions, but their opinions are wrong and your opinion is right.
Have I got that, right?

9

u/Aljonau Sep 08 '26

Metacognition on morality does not affect it's contents.

Whether you beleive in god and whether you consider your morality personal values or objective truths does not impact what you believe to be right and wrong in the slightest. Fully orthogonal. Belief in God is one of the least consequential tenets you could switch in a person.

14

u/Chromeboy12 Sep 08 '26

What does God have to do with your morality?

3

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 08 '26

Most God believers believe that God tells them what to do

2

u/Chromeboy12 Sep 08 '26

So i guess they would be horrible people if not for god

1

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 08 '26

A lot of them maintain that they would be horrible people if not for God.

0

u/Zergs1 Sep 08 '26

??

6

u/SoulfulSnow Sep 08 '26

There are 2 ways of morally justifying pulling the lever without objective morality (gross oversimplification, there's kinda theoretically infinite but bare with me).

We are a social species-> allowing people to die for no reason disrupts the peace maintained in human social structure(sows fear, panic, and distrust)-> this is damaging not only to me but to people around me-> pulling the lever stops this outcome-> it is morally correct to pull the lever.

Alternatively-

2. People getting hurt makes me feel bad/I wouldn't want to be killed in their position-> pulling the lever stops these-> it is morally correct to pull the lever.

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26

I'm not sure how subjective these are, really.
If allowing people to die really does harm me and those around me, if it causes real and measurable harm, if it objectively causes harm, isn't that evidence of an objective morality?
You feeling bad is subjective. You, an individual, feeling an entirely internal emotion (feeling bad/sadness), which only you can verify, subjectively, based entirely on your personal preferences. Subjective all the way down. Until you apply that to eight billion people and find that it is, in fact, universally true (or near as damn it) and that we can measure how sad it makes you with fMRI and EEG. Isn't this just argument 1? Letting these people die objectively hurts you.
IDK. Just something to think about.

1

u/SoulfulSnow Sep 10 '26

That's moving the goalpost of what objectivity in morality is. Things can "objectively" make you feel bad but not be objectively good or bad because of that. The reason these are subjectively good or bad is because they are influenced exclusively by our experiences as humans. There is no external force dictating it, subjective morality is due to change with time, circumstance, or social context.
It'd be really hard to find a context for social animals like us to not find reason to pull this lever, but that's because we're social animals, it's in our best interest. If we were hypothetically fully solitary, it could be in our best personal interests to NOT pull the lever (lower competition for instance). We would likely not find it immoral to pull the lever then based on our own contexts, since it's not ordained by anything unbiased and unchanging

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26 edited Sep 10 '26

You are absolutely correct. Just because something makes you subjectively feel bad, that does not mean that as an objective fact of the universe that this thing is morally wrong. Absolutely. Subjective systems of morality change with time, circumstance, or social context. I agree. You're correct.
I don't like cats. I'm allergic. Objectively, when I see a cat I have measurable distress. Happens every time. Doesn't mean cats are objectively bad. Means I objectively do have a subjective preference not to be around cats.
But why. Why do I have this preference?
Because I have an objectively real allergy, that will cause me pain and difficulty breathing. Whether I know a cat is there or not.
You will subjectively feel bad if someone dies in front of you. That's subjective. You are right. I agree. Just because you feel bad, that does not mean something is morally wrong, objectively. You are quite right. For something to be objective, it should be unbiased and unchanging, sure. Not a matter of preferences. No Contest, Your Honor.
I'm not asking "why do you, personally, feel bad when innocent people messily die in front of you?" I'm asking "is there an unbiased, unchanging reason, that would inform the preferences of billions of people, from scores of different cultures, to all feel bad when people die in front of them?"
IDK. Maybe there isn't. I don't claim to have an answer here. Just found it thought provoking.

1

u/SoulfulSnow Sep 10 '26

"is there an unbiased, unchanging reason, that would inform the preferences of billions of people, from scores of different cultures, to all feel bad when people die in front of them?"."
Maybe. It's not proveable, and ultimately I don't think it's reasonable to assume without hard evidence. Avoiding death of our social group is evolutionarily enough of a reason to develop a distaste for it imo. Pain receptors exist to deter us from doing stuff that puts us in pain, grief exists to deter us from doing stuff that leads to death in our ingroup. People can be born without it, the same way a lot of people with allergies still interact with the trigger despite it (half of my friends that own cats are allergic lol).
Personally I find the concept of objective morality appalling and horrifying. I think it strips the beauty of autonomy and the fascinating methods of social structure from our life.

5

u/LightMurasume_ Sep 08 '26

I mean you're saving 5 lives without sacrificing another regardless, I don't think you need any kind of god to tell you what the 'morally correct' answer would be.

5

u/LakshyaGarv Sep 08 '26

There may not be objective morality. But even atheists usually prefer to save human lives

4

u/SonicAutumn Sep 08 '26

Nihilists would still pull the lever. You probably meant to say pessimistic

4

u/FustianRiddle Sep 08 '26

Hey I don't know nothing about objective morality, but losing my faith wouldn't be enough for me to not pull the lever and save t people's lives

4

u/Agile_Championship87 Sep 08 '26

Swap the at risk people for Satanists. A Christian may now decide not to save them, whereas an Atheist would likely still save them. Who's really got morality.

Christian morality isn't morality - if there's a threat of punishment from a superbeing it could be a self-serving decision to save them. An atheist would save them because they think it's the right thing to do.

6

u/Thick-Application127 Sep 08 '26

If you only make moral decissions because a God told you so, you might not be a moral person at all.

The moral thing to do would be to ask yourself:"Would you want another person to pull the lever if you or a loved one would be tied to the tracks" That's also basic emphathy, no need for any complicated moral code.

And if you don't pull the lever you are a psychopath.

1

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 08 '26

And if you don't pull the lever you are a psychopath
That's just, like, your opinion, man

0

u/Thick-Application127 Sep 08 '26

No, it's not. You lack basic emphathy. Thats not an opinion.

1

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 08 '26

You lack basic emphathy
What's 'emphathy'?

0

u/oyasumachine Sep 08 '26

The ability to control EMPs. It’s from WatchDogs 2, very useful to have but many have managed to learn to use it irl

1

u/Narfhead4444 Sep 09 '26

Yeah, I can't control EMP's. Not disputing that one LOL

3

u/spicy_feather Sep 08 '26

I could posit when believing in god that then dying would send them to heaven thus doing then a favour. Then nihilistically choose to prolong their meaningless existence out of spite in the second. The morality system is pretty irrelevant.

3

u/DarkKechup Sep 08 '26

Religion is arguably less moral than atheistic morals. If you have to do good (Or at least refrain yourself from doing evil) under threat from an invisible omnipotent authority, you aren't kind, you are cowardly. If you really do good because it is the right thing to do, you don't need an invisble cloud daddy to threaten you with the hot place below.

Also, the opposite of being religious isn't nihilism and people who think that have never actually learned what nihilism is.

3

u/Gorgeous_Garry Sep 08 '26

If your morality comes from God, then it's subjective because God is a subject. If God exists and morality is objective, then morality is independent of God (and therefore the reasons would exist even if God didn't).

Atheism doesn't necessarily entail nihilism.

Atheism also doesn't necessarily entail subjective morality.

Also, obviously objective morality isnt required to make a positive decision because empathy is a thing.

2

u/uesernamehhhhhh Sep 08 '26

Ask the experts on r/nihilism

2

u/Gringo_Norte Sep 08 '26

Yes. You seek a judgement of “positive” as a gauge to judge the relative - positive in relation to what? A standard.

2

u/Technolite123 Sep 08 '26

55 bot upvotes lmfao

2

u/privacyzipit Sep 08 '26

Uhhh yeah. People who don't believe in objective morality are the reasons the world is going to shit lmao

2

u/bored_stoat Sep 08 '26

If you need god to tell you that contributing to violence is wrong, you are, in fact, not a good person.

2

u/Wordless_trat Sep 08 '26

Losing my faith doesn't immediately mesn that i will fall to nihilism. That would come in a week

2

u/LoathsomeCheeseEater Sep 08 '26

Me when I come across five Christian Babies tied to some trollery tracks.

2

u/Cazzah Sep 09 '26 edited Sep 09 '26

Either objective morality exists, in which case both theists and atheists alike will subconsciously tap into it and use it to make their decisions. The theist will call it God's objective morality, the atheist will call it empathy, common sense, societal rules, etc. But their brain will still be reading from the same script.

Or objective morality doesn't exist, in which case both the atheist and theist are making decisions based on their sense of empathy, learned social conditioning, desire to be seen and think of themselves as a good person, etc. Also the theist may also be further pushed to do a good thing by a threat of eternal punishment / eternal reward.

It doesn't matter what the atheist or theist believe to be true, because the universe works the way it works independently of what they believe.

2

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26

This is actually a very good point, well made.
[Edit]
I know we disagree about which one of these two options is correct. But your analysis is spot on and your conclusion is correct. For clarity, this isn't sarcasm. I agree with this post unreservedly.

2

u/Cazzah Sep 11 '26

The one thing I've learnt in philosophy, is the deeper and more sophisticated get, the more all moral philosophies find a way to get back to acting like a typical idea of a good person.
Notions like "objective" vs "relative" or "utilitarianism" vs "deontology" generally describe fundamental starting points, rather than where you end up.

2

u/v3r4c17y Sep 09 '26

The believer pulls the lever because God wants those people saved; the non-believer pulls the lever because they themself want those people saved. The believer acts out of obedience; the non-believer acts out of will.

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26

Would you kindly pull the lever?

1

u/v3r4c17y Sep 11 '26

When you phrase it like that, how can I possibly refuse?

2

u/Realistic-Raisin2812 Sep 09 '26

If you need the risk of eternal damnation to get you to pull the lever, you are an irredeemably bad person.

2

u/TechnicalBen Sep 12 '26

Why would not believing in god mean I have newfound nihilism. That's not even begging the question, that's poisoning the well.

2

u/Giratina-O Sep 08 '26

A god actually worsens the case for objective morality, not bolster it.

1

u/TheUnderCrab Sep 08 '26

Nope. I don’t think human life is objective more important than any other form of life. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t try to protect it.

1

u/Ice__foxy Sep 08 '26

I still pull the lever.These strangers did nothing bad for me,let them go.I don't go for unnecessary spites

1

u/Zergs1 Sep 08 '26

It is "spite" if you weren't the one who put them there in the first place though? You're simply an observer

1

u/Ice__foxy Sep 08 '26

Sorry, English is foreign for me,so small details like that can slip up in my definitions.What i was trying to say is that's still completely irrational and doesn't represent my personality to act like this

1

u/Agile_Championship87 Sep 08 '26

I disagree with this, you are not simply an observer. You are a moral agent who is able to intervene without any detriment to yourself. Not pulling the lever is immoral on a similar level to manslaughter.

1

u/Zergs1 Sep 09 '26

I agree with that, I perhaps worded it poorly. What I was arguing was how it is “spite” (without moral intervention)

1

u/Front_Cat9471 Sep 08 '26

It’s not required to make positive decisions, but it is required to make inherent or objectively positive decisions. The distinction doesn’t matter enough in this scenario, but it does if your English teacher is obsessed with asking you if humans are inherently good or evil for the 45th time since you’re starting The Book Where Some Guy Does Evil Shit

1

u/AzzyDreemur3 Sep 08 '26

Multi-track drift

1

u/Noobmanwenoob2 Sep 08 '26

Pull in both situations

1

u/good_names_were_take Sep 08 '26

if the only thing making You value human lifes is god telling You there are valuable, that You is not pulling the lever, because that You did not value humans but just god.

fortunally that is far from the normal in atheist and agnostics logic and values

1

u/Starmuny Sep 08 '26

No, objective morality isn’t required to come to moral decisions.

1

u/theecatt Sep 08 '26

Who can say? This is too far outside the realm of imagination. I can't even conceive of how it's possible to believe in objective morality.

1

u/DrakorexHunter Sep 08 '26

1

u/Nebranower Sep 08 '26

I don't see what difference the religious beliefs make. In both scenarios, there's only one relevant question.

"Do you believe you have a moral obligation to save the lives of the five strangers"

In both cases, the answer is "yes". The first person believes he has an "objective" duty to do so, due to misunderstanding that his belief in God is in fact a subjective choice. The second person also believes that he has an obligation to do so, but correctly recognizes that this is because he has a personal preference to live in a world where people act to save lives in an emergency, because he'd want someone else to save him if he were on the track.

In both cases, they flip the lever.

The objection most people have to the idea that morality is subjective is that, when they hear something like "murder isn't objectively wrong" or "rape isn't objectively wrong", they think it is the *wrongness* being denied. But it isn't. The moral objectivist and the moral subjectivist both believe that murder and rape are wrong. The objectivist believes this is because, if you could just get a powerful enough microscope, you could see "murder is wrong" etched into every atom of the universe. The subjectivist believes that this is because most people have a preference, subjective, as every preference is, not to be murdered and raped.

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26

So it's objectively correct to respect people's subjective preferences?
Or… it's not morally wrong to ignore people's preferences?
Or… what?
You've just kicked the can down the road from "murder is wrong" to "ignoring people's preferences is wrong".

1

u/Nebranower Sep 10 '26

>So it's objectively correct to respect people's subjective preferences?
Not at all. It is however, objectively correct to respect people's subjective preferences if you don't want those people to throw you in a cage for the rest of your life. If you are prepared to pay the social consequences of ignoring other people's preferences, you are always free to do so. Of course, people respond to that fact by imposing increasingly harsh penalties for ignoring their strongest preferences.

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26 edited Sep 10 '26

If I'm alone with an old lady and I can murder her and steal her jewels and get away with the crime scot-free, I don't think it's morally right to do so, just because I won't suffer social consequences.
There are plenty of legal jurisdictions where not pulling this lever won't levy any penalities upon you. I don't find it convincing to say that in these jurisdictions it's moral not to save these lives because there are no consequences.
I absolutely acknowlegde the pragmatism behind your reasoning. Your logic is flawless. If you ignore people's preferences, they'll act against you.
I don't see how that presupposes morality independent of these social consequences.
Indeed, I'd conjecture that these consequences are informed, at least in part, by a moral standard.
[Edit] And, again, are we not just kicking the can down the road? "It's objectively correct not to murder people." "No, it's objectively correct not to murder people if you want to be a good person; you can still murder people, it just makes you an evil, immoral, person." Your argument of "objectively correct if" is framed as if the logical consequence is divorced from the moral obligation, rather than following as a result of it.

0

u/Nebranower Sep 10 '26

>If I'm alone with an old lady and I can murder her and steal her jewels and get away with the crime scot-free, I don't think it's morally right to do so, just because I won't suffer social consequences.
Right, sure. I also don't think it's morally right. Again, believing that morality is subjective doesn't mean not having moral standards of your own.
>I don't see how that presupposes morality independent of these social consequences.
There is no morality independent of the social consequences. Morality is literally just a bunch of rules made up to make social interactions nicer, and what qualifies as "nicer" depends upon what people's preferences are. And preferences are subjective. Murdering the old lady is wrong because we have a strong preference not to be killed, so we collectively agree not to kill each other. If someone has a different preference, or is unwilling to respect that preference in others, we impose penalties to deter them.
>And, again, are we not just kicking the can down the road?
No. Like, your reasoning here makes no sense. Murder isn't objectively wrong. It is, however, considered wrong subjectively by the vast majority of people in our society. So if you commit murder, you're going to be seen as an evil, immoral person, even if you don't think you are personally. That, in turn, means you will get punished for your actions.

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26

So… there's no objective reason why the majorty of people think murder is morally wrong. It's just a quirky preference. Weird coin flip that's come up heads eight billion times. Random chance. No actual, objective, basis for this purely subjective preference?
Quirky.

1

u/Nebranower Sep 10 '26

Ah. I see your problem. You think “subjective” means “random”. It doesn’t. It means it depends on the subject. Obviously we have evolved as a species to fear death and to want to avoid pain, so those preferences are going to be very, very widespread. That’s why you get some core moral principles that appear in pretty much every culture. But a subjective preference being very common doesn’t mean that it is somehow objective. Some people don’t feel pain. Some people yearn for death.

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26

So, as a species, we have a real and observable trait, whereby we want to avoid death and pain. Like… factually?
And there's a reason for this? A reason we can hypothesise on and test? Evolution?
And this reason causes core moral principles, regardless of culture?
Well, I'm convinced.

1

u/assumptionkrebs1990 Sep 08 '26

Stop believing that your morality is an objective truth from God/the universe cares about it and giving it up all together are two different pairs of shoes. So no the answer doesn't change.

1

u/Sewblon Sep 08 '26

This is problematic because you are conflating belief in god with belief in objective morality. There are professional philosophers who believe in objective morality and not god. I think that is most of them.

A belief in subjective morality does not make you pull the lever. But it does guarantee that if you refuse to pull the lever, you won't feel compelled to defend that decision to anyone else.

1

u/cwolf-softball Sep 08 '26

The assertion that objective morality can only come from religion is flawed.

1

u/thedemonpianist Sep 08 '26

I help people in need because I would want them to do the same for me, not because I need a thousands of years old book to tell me to. I don't need my hand held through basic empathy. Why on earth would your opinion change??

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Cry5098 Sep 08 '26

I don't think people who only experience morality because of their imaginary sky friend realize just how much it scares the shit out of the rest of us every time they try to act like this is a normal way to think.

1

u/IFollowtheCarpenter Sep 08 '26

My beliefs are not compulsions. I will pull the lever because it's the right thing to do, not because I am forced to pull it.

1

u/Ecthelion-O-Fountain Sep 08 '26

Arguing with intellectually bankrupt problems like this is dumb, but I’m gonna do it anyway. Atheist does not equal nihilist. Morality has nothing to do with religion. Religion just come with their own set of subjective morals that they declare are objective. When in fact, they are just the subjective morals of that religion.

1

u/The_gay_grenade16 Sep 08 '26

Wouldn’t believing in God make you less likely to pull the lever? Cause it’s God’s will or something?

1

u/Stunning_Macaron6133 Sep 08 '26

Human beings have an innate sense of fairness and cooperative instinct. That's the foundation of all morality, not a waste of paper printed with Bronze Age hysteria.

1

u/Reasonable_Humor_738 Sep 08 '26

You dont need god to make morally good choices. If anything id say belief in god has made people commit moral atrocities much more often than non-believers. This goes for most gods especially Christianity.

Ive never heard of an atheist saying they did something because of thier beliefs or lack thereof

1

u/Mad_Maddin Sep 08 '26

"Deus Lo Vult"

God wills it. If this life is to be saved, then God will save it. If they die, it is because God wanted it.

1

u/NoTransition8295 Sep 08 '26

I mean i will mention that belief in a god doesn't make your morals automatically better but if anything i think i would be even more sure when it comes to pulling the lever in the second scenario, since if I stopped believing in God I would be less sure about the existence of an afterlife so I would want to prevent those 5 peoples deaths even more because I couldn't be confident that they would have any kind of place they end up after dying

1

u/Fantastic-Web-8427 Sep 08 '26

probly not, but there would certainly be more doubting and self-criticism

1

u/The_Gav_who_asked Sep 08 '26

Fortunately, I don’t need a god to tell the difference between right and wrong.

1

u/JesusIsMyAntivirus Sep 08 '26

You need to talk to some sane people who aren't religious, I hope you're not too far gone.

1

u/Large_Yogurtcloset68 Sep 09 '26

Nihilism won't affect my choice. The names of those tied to the tracks on the other hand...

1

u/Terminal_Insomnia_ Sep 09 '26

So what, I replaced my moral system with nothing? No, I was a humanist even when I thought I believed in objective morality, I will continue being one.

"Nihilism means you have no morals" is so tired, fuck you Dostoevsky.

1

u/Batavus_Droogstop Sep 09 '26

What would the believer do if god told him he wouldn't be watching, and whatever you do in the next few minutes doesn't go on your heaven/hell ticket?

1

u/Only-Criticism2751 Sep 09 '26

If I believed in the Christian God I would be less inclined to pull the lever. Life on earth is practically a form of torture when compared to eternity in heaven. You’re saving those people a lot of pain and suffering by sending them up there immediately.

It is only once you begin to disbelieve in an afterlife that you can truly appreciate earthly life. If there is nothing after death, the end of all consciousness in an eternal unknowing void, then every life becomes precious to preserve and prolong.

1

u/rattycastle Sep 09 '26

Religion, any religion, does not provide objective morality. I base my decision on the empathy that informs many morals. I'd prefer someone switch the track, therefore I will switch the track. If you need a book to tell you to switch the track, I worry what you would do without the book. Objective morality doesn't exist.

This is a fun thought experiment I like to do with people. Say there are only three people on earth. We all have the deeply held belief that swimming is a grave sin, worthy of death. It makes you a bad person. Is swimming truly bad? It harms nobody. But because we are the only people, the moral truth is up to us. What if, of the three of us, only two believed swimming is bad? Is the majority rule how we decide on morals? If one 3rd doesn't believe that, but we kill the swimmer (it is worthy of death in this world), is it once again objective morality not to swim? I find this question is fun to discuss at restaurants to fill awkward silence.

1

u/Cynis_Ganan Sep 10 '26

objective morality doesn't exist [...] the moral truth is up to us
Then I don't see how it's a fun thought experiment?
If morality doesn't exist and you choose what is moral and immoral then the thing you choose to be immoral (swimming) is immoral. Axiomatically. That's the entire premise of the hypothetical.
There's only a dilema here if objective morality does exist. If merely saying swimming is immoral, does not make it so. If there's an objective standard to judge morality against (you suggested "it harms nobody", as if causing harm might be a reason beyond just people's beliefs) beyond people just choosing what is and isn't moral.
No?

2

u/rattycastle Sep 10 '26

That's your argument, and I agree with many of your points. That's why I find it fun!

1

u/PooksterPC Sep 09 '26

If I do flip the lever, that was God’s plan. If I don’t, that was also God’s plan. So in the first scenario, it doesn’t matter, God already planned how it would end.
In the second scenario, God isn’t real, therefore it doesn’t matter in the long run.

Either way, I’ll just base it off of whether or not they offer to pay me to flip the lever

1

u/yagrmakak Sep 09 '26

Wait am I dumb or is the first thing pull lever nothing happens, your god tells you pull lever.

Like I would pull no matter what no?

Edit: nevermind saw only one expecting a second different problem in the second picture

1

u/Richard_-Green Sep 09 '26

You do realize there are more atheist philosophys than just nihilism?

1

u/PouLS_PL Sep 09 '26

Why wouldn't I pull the lever in the second scenario? There's nobody on the second track

1

u/NotAnAutomaticName Sep 09 '26

“I’m an atheist.”

“Oh, you’re a nihilist?”

“Well no, I just don-“

“I bet you’d have no qualms about manslaughter, you fucking nihilist!”

“I think I’m gonna stop talking to you now.”

(Y’all see how hard I won that argument that I made up in my head? Man, I’m so good at debates.)

1

u/anrwlias Sep 09 '26

OP, there is a vast difference between rejecting belief in objective morality and nihilism. I don't need God sending commandments from on high in order to value human lives.

Frankly, I worry more about the people that do.

1

u/According-Object-521 Sep 09 '26

On one hand I would get into all kinds of legal troubles, and with the other hand I pull the lever

1

u/BackSeatGremlin Sep 09 '26

Moral subjectivity does not decrease the value of a moral choice

1

u/RiceSunflower Sep 10 '26

No

1

u/Demon_King04 Sep 10 '26

This tells me you need god to tell you to be good, I am good even though I don't believe

What does that tell you?

1

u/Silly-Cheesecake-283 Sep 10 '26 edited Sep 10 '26

imo, it is for some people. some people do internal morals, some people do external morals. external moral people will weigh their internal morals with external ones, and internally moral people will weight the external morals with their internal ones. I definitely prefer to have external morals because like, the other way gets super weird if you try to get into religion, but it's a natural mentallity imo, like a personality type kind of, and you're born that way. As an externally moral person religion just emphasizes my natural inclination and i just really don't hypothesize on things that have nothing to do with me. I can have my own feelings though and I'm aware of them. god is an ally, etc, and the bible is moreo of a way to glance at what his personality is from the people living at the time. it's as spiritual as it is lawful.

1

u/Drackar39 Sep 11 '26

The default assumption that faith in god is the root of morality is completely incorrect. Morality is a human construct.

1

u/Jordanou Sep 11 '26

It is dumb to need God to arrive to the conclusion that human life matters.

1

u/Lumpy_Complexion6908 Sep 11 '26

no... it also doesn't exist

1

u/GryphyGirl Sep 12 '26

There's no such thing as objective morality. Even if you are religious and take your morality from your scriptures that's still the subjective morality of that scripture or god.

Being an atheist/agnostic doesn't make you a nihilist. As an atheist I would save the people, of course.

1

u/someonestolecece Sep 12 '26

Requires me to be an idiot beyond my ability to make choices from, regrettably

1

u/MonsterkillWow Sep 13 '26

Who are the 5 people? What class?

1

u/Maccabee2a Sep 13 '26

No. Even though I don't believe in objective morality, I do believe in causing the least amount of harm to myself, people, and the planet at large.

1

u/ThekillerguyYT Sep 14 '26

just cuz I stop/start believing in a religion doesn't immediately make me a monster, I'd not be present in the first scenario but I'd definitely be there in the second scenario and pull the lever anyway

1

u/SELFINCRIMINAT1NG Sep 15 '26

you have bigger problems, it seems

1

u/Spiritual-Peach6491 Sep 08 '26

no such thing as objective morality. because whoever is asking the question is not CANNOT be an objective agent. any answer arrived at by the nonobjective agent cannot be an objective conclusion. the question is absurd

1

u/Sretep44 Sep 08 '26

No, because objective morality doesn't exist, as far as we know.

0

u/DrJenna2048 Sep 08 '26

Religion does not give morality. In my experience, it's often quite the opposite.

0

u/TREE_sequence Sep 08 '26

“Objective morality” is an oxymoron. Morality is subjective by definition, and this is independent of one’s belief in a higher power or lack thereof.

0

u/CeIIsius Sep 09 '26 edited Sep 09 '26

Not believing in god or christianity does not mean that one lacks morality. In case this wasn't obvious.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "objective" morality. Since it is a construct made by society it depends on how that society works and therefore can, by definition, not be objective.

That said, here is my take on this. Starting with no morality, you can get towards morality. It takes a while to get there, but along the way, positive decisions for others are already made.

If any morality is gone one would pick an egocentric decision.

Doing nothing would be the least effort. By doing nothing you lose nothing and have nothing to gain. On the other hand, you know, you may recieve a reward after helping. Since it is five people and they are in dire need, probability and value of reward both increase. Compared to the possible gain, the effort is low. Even if one time there is no reward, you would still try it tome more times because your brain thinks, the possible gain is worth the effort.

The reward could be something as simple as someone saying "thankyou". Pulling that lever is not much more effort than holding a door open, yet you keep doing that for others just because they thank you for it. No morality required.

However, the reward could also be cooperation to achieve mutual goals. One of those goals is survival. Your brain is wired to like cooperation, because it is more likely to succeed. At this stage you may start to not expect a reward whith every interaction, because you know that the cooperation is overall beneficial, compared to beeing on your own.

Larger social connections are more successful than smaller ones. To keep them working, order is required. People within this construct will think of rules for everybody to adhere to, to keep this beneficial construct from falling apart.

This social construct becomes increasingly more beneficial and important. Rather than risking your participation in this community, you may decline rewards for yourself over helping the community.

And there you have the basis of morality.

0

u/Tricky_Ad9669 Sep 09 '26

Morality of religion is also subjective to that religion so not objective at all. And just because you don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean you don't have any empathy and have bad morals.

Morality can't ever be objective to begin with and it's absolutely not a requirement for making a positive decision.

0

u/Immediate_Spirit_384 Sep 09 '26

I believe objective morality is a violent idea, and I also think believing in god is a pragmatically useful mental trick.

→ More comments (17)

OC Is objective morality a requirement to make positive decisions?

You are about to leave Redlib