Karma reasons for concrete message



    Global Moderator

    Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +485/-5

Objective moral values exist and are self evident...It is wrong to kill innocent people (Agree or disagree? or give your own primes)

(Apparently) universally shared moral values exist, sure.  But does that necessarily make them objective?  Or merely subjective values that are common to all because we all share a same physiology?  I quite agree it is wrong to kill innocent people....usually.  But I would kill one innocent if by doing so I could save four.  Whole civilisations have been quite happy killing the "innocent" to appese their gods, so not even "do not kill the innocent" can be considered a universal truth.  As plethora pointed out, only by twisting and stretching the definition of "innocent" could that be considered universal. 

Further: you noted earlier that it is shared provided "he is morally healthy"....in other words, if someone apparently breaks the universal and objective moral law, then they must be broken in some way (according to you) rather than being the exception that destroys your rule.  I quite agree that they do not share the common morality......which seems to reinforce the fact that morality IS subjective.  I've yet to see you actually SHOW that any morality is truly objective, just that within your circular argument it "must be so".

Mind you, that said, even your circular argument breaks itself......

It is wrong to kill innocent people (Agree or disagree?)
God is perfectly good and Holy and is the transcendent and eternal law giver and anchor for morality (God by nature is perfectly good). (Disagree or Disagree ?)

Responding "agree" to both those questions would require that god must in all circumstances follow his own moral law, or els by definition could not be the "anchor for morality" and hence showing that morality is not objective.  I could cite cases where I believe the Biblical god has breached the alleged objective morality of "wrong to kill innocent people".....I'm sure you would respond with a spin-doctoring of "innocent", but that would then require that you go back and re-define "innocent" before you can use that as an example of "objective".....you may want to do that now?  The only alternative, so far as I can see, is to assert that there is a different moral standard for god and for man.....but then that hardly makes morality "objective" either.
Changed Change Reason Date