Who will be the 47th President of the United States of America?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
this debate pretty much explains why religion's entire thing is imposing their beliefs onto others

to the point of saying they know what is the actual objective good and bad of the world

it's actually kinda fucked up when i think about it
 
There are a lot of debates about this issue, but morality be a consequence of social interaction does not go so far as to deny the existence of objective morality.
Not a consequence of social interaction, a consequence of social pressure. The pressure to keep the species alive and well.

There is no such thing as "objective morality".
Morality might not exist outside of human relationships, but it is a reality of the human experience, so to us it is an objective fact. Morality is part of the human experience, just like religion.
To us, morality is simply a social pressure and a result of our sociological context. Nothing more. Its not "objective", its in fact completely related to our experience.

Morality differ from one person to another.

For example, for me, you supporting far right bullsh*t is bad, its morally wrong. And yet, for you it's the right thing to do. Morality comes from the the world and our own experience. In that way, it can't be objective.

What is important in reality is not morality. What are important are the facts:

Is it morally bad to support far right ideas ? Depending on the person, not necessarily.
But
Are far right ideas bad for the wellbeing of humankind ? Objectively yes.

That's why I do not look at morality but I always look at the facts and their impact on society to tell you that you are bigoted.

:sweat:
 
I love how Houshoku thought I would cave in to his religious logic. Morality and religion are not dependent upon one another. Even if you want to argue if objective morality is a thing or not, it is possibly to argue for such a concept without throwing religious beliefs into the mix.
 
define the word "objective" and you'll see what I mean
I'm talking about moral realism that means ethical sentences like "kill is wrong" express propositions (this means that these sentences can be true or false) that refers in some level to objective features of the world
Post automatically merged:

Not a consequence of social interaction, a consequence of social pressure. The pressure to keep the species alive and well.

There is no such thing as "objective morality".

To us, morality is simply a social pressure and a result of our sociological context. Nothing more. Its not "objective", its in fact completely related to our experience.

Morality differ from one person to another.

For example, for me, you supporting far right bullsh*t is bad, its morally wrong. And yet, for you it's the right thing to do. Morality comes from the the world and our own experience. In that way, it can't be objective.

What is important in reality is not morality. What are important are the facts:

Is it morally bad to support far right ideas ? Depending on the person, not necessarily.
But
Are far right ideas bad for the wellbeing of humankind ? Objectively yes.

That's why I do not look at morality but I always look at the facts and their impact on society to tell you that you are bigoted.

:sweat:
social pressure is still a kind of social interaction
 
It doesn't matter if you believe you can fly. You can't. Gravity will give you a wake up call. Reality is objective. This is delusion.
it doesn't matter if you believe god exist up in the sky

you can't see him, you can't touch him, you can't prove his existence

so therefore "his morality" is not objective in our world

it's actually funny you used a scientific definition for gravity to defend your religious "objective" morality, lmao
 
Top