<p>
</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t. If you believe in right and wrong it must apply to everyone. It doesn’t make sense to say that right and wrong apply differently to different people or that individuals can choose their own standards. Would it be ok if someone decided that it was right for them to murder arbitrarily?</p>
<p>^ Whether it is okay or not depends on the morals and perceptions of the person determining whether it is so.</p>
<p>I remember in ToK class reading the question “Does god write down the moral laws? or are moral laws out there and god just lets them be clearly known?”</p>
<p>which brings up, well, if god says killing and stealing are okay and that hugs are a sin is that right? we’d think no (people would argue that god would never say that but let’s assume god did) so it must be that morals are out there on their own, being all morally and making us feel bad.</p>
<p>I think killing and stealing are pretty objective morals that most successful societies follow. At least within themselves, they figure it’s morally wrong to kill and steal from the next door neighbor but those rival villiagers totally don’t count as people that morals apply to (because they said something about your mom).</p>
<p>I figure love and hate exist, at least exists enough.</p>
<p>I don’t think we’re sinners, but I’m not christian, or atheist, agnostic sounds like a ■■■■■ decision, satanism sounds hilarious but dumb. I just kinda figure both belief systems about some kind of god are wrong, just all wrong, we’ll probably find out there’s 4.2 gods and it’s all ridiculously complicated.</p>
<p>This is more directed towards atheists, agnostics, and satanists.
Former Christian, former agnostic, current atheist.</p>
<p>Do you believe in Morals?
Absolutely</p>
<p>What do you think about morals?
Morals are subjective; they change depending on your personal views and experiences. They differ for everyone. However, I think that there is one (and only one) basic, basic foundation of morals (that is perhaps maybe instinctual??) that everyone should have in the world we live in.</p>
<p>Do you think there is right and wrong? If so, what is the basis for deciding if something is right or wrong?
What’s the basis? Your morals. Yes, I believe that there is a right and wrong for each individual person, however that same right and wrong is different for everyone.</p>
<p>Does love and hate exist?
Um, duh???</p>
<p>Are humans ‘‘sinners’’?
Yes, if by “sinner” you mean someone who does wrong. In a different society/parallel universe, the BASIC rules/morals that the world lives by may be different, but in our society it isn’t (if that makes any sense to you).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you don’t think it’s morally wrong for a person to murder as long as that person believes that it’s morally right? Or really, they could do anything?</p>
<p>That’s not morality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think it’s wrong. But someone else might disagree. I do not believe in an objective measuring stick to tell us who is closest to the “truth”, so how do you determine which morality is correct?</p>
<p>
For the non-religious, morals are instilled through the perception of others who may be religious or who have acquired their morals through their surroundings. </p>
<p>At second 1 of one’s life, morals do not exist. This can be attributed to that infants’ minds are not fully developed yet; however, even when fast-forwarded a few years, a toddler might steal from a cookie jar, unless (and sometimes despite) the parents demand otherwise.</p>
<p>
The only people who would view the muderer as immoral are, self-evidently, those who believe that murder is immoral. Though they may be in the majority, I still do not believe there exists a truly objective measuring stick.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may not be a way of objectively deciding. But that doesn’t mean both people are correct. The idea that morality isn’t fully and objectively known is completely different from the idea that morality is subjective, which is not at all different from the idea that morality doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>I think ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ is the best argument against relativism ever devised. It would take too long for me to write out here, but in short, relativism proposes that “Everything is permitted.” A proposal, which, taken to its logical result, results in murder for greed, psychopathy and suicide.</p>
<p>
But it doesn’t mean that you can tell the murder sympathizer that he is incorrect, either. The idea is that morality is objectively unknowable because it isn’t objective. It is subjective. And morality, in the way that you’re thinking about it, DOESN’T exist. It’s not like the laws of physics where it’s out there and we just don’t understand it yet…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TCBH is right. If anything, subjective morality would be defined more along the lines of “it’s okay to kill if in self-defense with no other choice, but murder for fun is a no-go” as opposed to absolute morality which might say “killing is wrong in all circumstances, regardless of context or intention.”</p>
<p>I personally don’t think that religion inspired morality. I doubt that people just went around killing people for fun, and then all of a sudden religious inspiration struck and brought them out of savagery. More likely religious leaders simply used morality as a focal point of their doctrines, and as their influence grew, more people began attributing their morality towards the teachings of their religion. As for where morality came from, I believe that it was an inevitable product of interactions among many other people. Eventually, killing to be pack leader and stealing from others in the group became something undesirable to the majority, and so they needed to agree on what was fair and establish boundaries and ruling hierarchies and the such. The groups that could stick together survived, and so their youth learned these methods and acted upon them. </p>
<p>If anything, I would go so far as to say that religion emerged and spread the way it did because of their desire to maintain a set of already-established morals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose that’s fair.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And it’s fair for you to say that morality doesn’t exist (though I doubt you really believe it). But I’m just going to point out that the idea that it’s objectively unknowable doesn’t at all lead to it being nonexistent (not that you were necessarily arguing that).</p>
<p>@bman and aero, if morality doesn’t exists then i’m not sure why you would be angry if someone physically/verbally attacked you, lied to you, stoled from you, etc. Your anger is a result of an unjust act.</p>
<p>
We have satanists on CC?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>jasoninNY? I guess he’s just an immoralist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that morality doesn’t exist. In fact, I stated that I believed that morality existed even before religion became dominant. Besides, my anger would be a result of a violation of my own desires, namely not to be punched in the face, not necessarily on whether my thoughts were justified as moral or not.</p>