5d ago

Hot take coming through

Something something leftist infighting

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

83 comments

Yes, of course it does.
- How? Why?
  
  Because the argument is based on what morality is. And this is a question about what it is.
  
  And you think if it is preference it cannot be morality? My friend, morality is societal preference, at least in part.
  
  Such an account of morality is indeed insufficient for some people. But this is the argument: you have to accept moral subjectivism if you reject God.
  
  I hate to break it to you, but you are also subject to moral subjectivism, you're just less honest about it. Your moral frameworks are just as much a matter of consensus, just of the theocratic. You are not immune or superior, you're just less honest with yourself. You still follow the subjective morality defined by man, just under the guise of higher authority.
  
  I understand that I follow morality. The question is, what is morality. If you are correct, it is subjective. If you are wrong, it isn't. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
  
  That you present deific morality as some alternative to the uncertain subjectivism of reality when it is not an alternative and it does not live outside of it. It is nothing more than delusion born of hubris because it is easier to reject reality and say "no I'm right!" than it is to accept the complicated nature of existence. You aren't providing an answer to the problem, you're hoping that if you cover your eyes hard enough the problem will stop existing.
  
  What is it if not an alternative? Morality is either objective or subjective. You believe it is the latter, but how can you be so sure you are correct?
  I am simply saying that it is a very unnatural way to think about morality, and this is why my argument works. Some people, I believe, would rather say that God is real than that morality is subjective. You can say the opposite of that, of course, but this is how philosophical arguments work.
  I don't see the problem you are referring to.
  
  Because my morality of doing what is best for society includes rejecting ignorance, and what is believing in that which lacks evidence if not ignorance?
  I see no value in living my life in a constant state of "okay but what if," especially when there is absolutely nothing to suggest or imply that the specific what if in question is any more founded than believing that the universe was created by a giant crab's vagina who only wants just to eat our own hair. It is definitional absurdity, and condoning it would be immoral, in my estimation.
  And the important distinction between the case at hand and philosophical arguments is that those are that of theory, not practical application. If you want to talk about god in terms of the abstract, go ahead to your heart's content; that's a fascinating field with no shortage of questions to explore. But when you start to put those ideas in practice the real world with completely unfounded yet still concrete assumptions, that actually becomes a fucking problem for society.
  
  But you seem pretty certain morality is subjective, which is not only unproven, but goes against our intuitions.
  You seem to think I am comparing objective religious morality with subjective secular morality. This is not the case. I am comparing two accounts of morality, according to one of which morality is independent of subjectivity, and is singular, and according to another all moral views held by all people are subjective.
  Your morality is based on "doing what is best for society". But are you capable of constructing a rational deductive argument with sound propositions that proves that this is, indeed, what morality is? If not, in what way is your morality better than religious morality. Both are "preferences", according to you, that are not based on rationality.

83 comments