Is there actually such a thing as objective morality? Are right and wrong real things that all people at all times are obliged to obey or are they just matters of opinion? Was Adolph Hitler evil? If so, why and where did the standard he is judged by come from?

The moral argument for the existence of God tries to show that moral values must be objective and universal to make any sense. And if moral values are objective, the source must be a transcendent, personal being who is concerned with the actions of human beings. This is one of the most powerful arguments for God’s existence because all of us have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and the way things ought to be. The question is how to account for why that is.



RELATIVISM
There are two basic ways to view morality: as relative or as objective. The most widely held view in our culture is called relativism. Relativism holds that societies or individuals decide what is right and wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person to person. There
are no objective, universal moral truths—just conventions for behavior created by people and that are subject to change. There are three different forms of relativism: cultural relativism, conventionalism, and ethical subjectivism.


CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Cultural relativism is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they all have different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality. For example, some cultures, like Mexico, declare abortion to be abhorrent and have passed laws prohibiting it. Other cultures, like the United States, permit abortion as a legal option open to any pregnant woman for any reason. Still other cultures, like China, have actually required abortions under certain circumstances. Cultural relativism says that because
each culture is holding to its own view of morality, and because these views differ, there must be no objective morality.

There are several problems with this line of thinking. One is that observing how cultures behave is just that: observation and nothing more. At best, these observations are simply statements of fact. Morals are not descriptions of the way things are. Morals are prescriptions of the way things ought to be. Just because things are a certain way does not mean they should be that way. When Popeye says, “I am what I am” he is making a statement of fact, not a moral claim. If he said, “I ought to be what I am,” he would be making a moral claim.

Another problem with cultural relativism is its premise that different answers to a given question means there is no right answer. Just because Mexico, the United States, and China disagree on the issue of abortion does not mean there is no right or wrong approach to abortion. If two golfers disagreed on how many strokes one of them took on a hole, it does not mean there is no incorrect answer. Either both are wrong or one of them is right. They cannot both be right. When people disagree about morality, it does not mean that there is no objective morality.

Finally, let’s say someone disagrees with cultural relativism. If the cultural relativist is to remain consistent, they must agree that the fact that there is a disagreement means that there is no wrong view of moral theory. But as a cultural relativist they are claiming there is a correct view of moral theory and that other views are incorrect. As a result, they cannot live their own philosophy.

On the other hand, if the cultural relativist claims that the opposing view is a wrong way to think about the issue, then again they show they are not actually a relativist. Thus, cultural relativism cannot give an account of the basis of morality.




CONVENTIONALISM

The view that each society decides what is right and wrong for itself is called conventionalism. In contrast to cultural relativism, which says that there is no right or wrong answer, conventionalism claims there is a right and wrong, but it varies from society to society. The majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal.

If conventionalism is true, the results are counterintuitive and very hard to live out. For example, let’s say a law was passed that made having blue eyes illegal and that the penalty for having blue eyes is death. There would not only be nothing immoral about the law, but it would in fact be immoral to have blue eyes!

But we don’t need to invent absurd hypothetical situations to see what a conventionalist society would look like. Conventionalism was the philosophy of Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Thus, when the Nazis declared Jews to be sub-human and deserving of death, there was no recourse for the Jews. The law by definition was “moral.” The large community of countries who protested were ignored. After all, what grounds did they have to critique German society? As a result six million Jews were systematically killed. And the defense given by Nazis tried at Nuremberg was conventionalism. “It couldn’t have been wrong, it was the law,” they said. “We were only following orders.”

One of conventionalism’s problems is that it leaves no room for society to be reformed. If society defines morality, then a person who protests against the laws of that society is, by definition, immoral and criminal. If a society were to change a law it would not change from immoral to
moral or from unjust to just. The law could only change from one rule to another, it would simply be different, not better or worse.

Think about what this means: if conventionalism is true then people like Gandhi, Jesus, and William Wilberforce would be among the most egregious criminals that ever lived! Their crime? They thought society could be changed for the better. The criminalization of such
moral reformers is, of course, wildly counterintuitive and helps show the bankruptcy of the conventionalist view.

Ultimately, conventionalism is about power, not morality. Whichever way the wind blows, the will of the majority is what is moral. Like a gang of bullies forcing into submission those who would dare oppose them, conventionalism forces its preferences on everyone by defining itself into power. And like cultural relativism, this fails to account for morality.



ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM

The most widespread form of relativism is ethical subjectivism. In this view, individuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only. Morality is nothing more than personal preference and opinion. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.”

One of the major problems with ethical subjectivism has to do with language. Conversation about values and moral topics becomes completely incoherent. No longer could anyone say something was right or wrong with any meaning. The best you could say is, “I choose not to do that because it is wrong for me,” or “I do not prefer that.” An ethical subjectivist could not meaningfully call the terrorist attacks on September 11 evil or wrong. And they could not call the rescue workers good or heroic and make any sense. When an ethical subjectivist makes a statement about the morality of an event or action they are not talking about anything other than their opinion of it, not about the thing itself.

The fatal flaw in this view is that it is clearly self-refuting. Again consider the statement, “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.” The statement makes no sense. It says that truth claims only apply to the person making them. The problem is that if this statement is true it applies to everyone, which, of course means the statement is false!

A very effective way to expose the bankruptcy of Ethical Subjectivism is by using examples of obvious moral clarity that apply to all people at all times in all places. “Torturing babies for fun is wrong,” is a well-known example. When confronted with this statement, an ethical subjectivist
would then be in the unenviable position of having to argue against it. They may not personally think it is right, but they could not say it is wrong and be consistent. Just imagine what kind of people this system produces. In this system an ethical subjectivist must walk past a rape in
action since they cannot condemn it for anyone but themselves. An ethical subjectivist must allow trespassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists to burn it as long as the trespassers, thieves, and arsonists don’t believe their acts are wrong. But nobody lives this way. Or do they?

One way to judge a moral system is to look at the kind of heroes the system produces. Take the objective moral stance of the Judeo-Christian view. The heroes are many and mighty: Jesus, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr. immediately come to mind.

But what kind of hero best exemplifies ethical subjectivism? Lived consistently, it produces moral monsters, people who see no need to care about others, and are unaccountable to anything but their preferences. Jack the Ripper. Ted Bundy. Albert Fish (one of the inspirations for Hannibal Lector). Ed Gein (the inspiration for Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the Buffalo Bill character in Silence of the Lambs). These are the heroes of ethical relativism.




OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Morals are not opinions or personal, private decisions. And they are not descriptions of behavior. They are prescriptions for behavior and motives that have the force of a command. They have a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative and applies to all people in all places at all times.

One way we come to moral knowledge is directly. We know it through intuition. This immediate knowledge is important because some things are only known in themselves. No investigation of facts or reasoning is required. This is precisely what is demonstrated by clear case examples like, “Torturing babies for fun is wrong.” Nobody has to investigate this claim before they can take a moral stance on it. Our intuition enables us to recognize it as self-evident. Just because we have a moral intuition does not mean we do not have to develop it, however. Even though we have an intuition for logic, we still have to cultivate a reasonable mind to better act on that intuition. The same is true with moral intuition; we have to cultivate our minds to be sensitive to it and to act on it.


There are several ways to show that all people, even self-professed relativists, actually believe in objective morality at their core. As we have seen, one way is through clear case examples. These examples don’t have to be confined to outlandish claims like the torture example. Often
conversations present opportunities to make this point in a much more personal way.

Christian thinker Francis Schaeffer was a master at this. He once had a conversation with several students, one of whom disagreed with Schaeffer’s moral objectivism. The student claimed there was ultimately no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. Another student who was listening decided to put that belief to the test. He picked up a teakettle full of boiling water and held it over the first student’s head as if he were about to pour it onto the student. He then said, “There is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty.” The first student realized that in his worldview he could not object to the threat and got up and left the room disillusioned. What makes these kinds of situations so powerful is that they are opportunities to take the conversation out of the abstract and put into the everyday world we all live in. In this light, the force of the objectivist position is undeniable no matter how hard someone tries to resist it.

Another way of exposing objectivism in a relativist is to discover their passion and relativize it. Let us say, for example, a relativist believed deeply in animal rights. A moral objectivist could tell the relativist how he is trying to find a new shampoo and just tested out a couple brands
by rubbing the shampoo into the eyes of a dog to see if there was any adverse reaction. The relativist will betray what they say they believe and object to these actions. And rightly so. But by objecting they demonstrate the reality of moral objectivism: moral laws are not personal opinions.

So, objectivism stands as the only coherent view of morality and the only way that can be consistently lived out.

At this point in the argument, all that has been shown is that there are very good reasons for believing that objective morality exists. Two questions now arise: “Where did morals come from?,” and, “Why should we obey them?” To find the source we should look at the characteristics of morality. Morality is:
• Prescriptive
• A command
• Universal
• Objective
• Authoritative


Prescriptions and commands are forms of communication, and communication happens only between minds. Also, because morals deal with purpose and will, the source of morality must also have purpose and a will. Because morals are universal and transcend individuals, societies,
and time, the source must be universal and transcendent. Since morals are authoritative they must come from an authority, and authority can only be held by a person. Finally, this person must have the power to impose his moral will on us and provide us with an ability to know their moral will through intuition. Thus, morals come from a transcendent person who has the power and authority to impose a moral law on us. And we call this person God.

Another indication of where morals come from is found in what happens when we violate the moral law. We’ve all ignored our moral intuition and done what we know is wrong, and the result has been guilt. Sometimes it is obvious to us whom we feel guilty towards. At other times the object of our guilt is not so clear, like when our guilt stems from our own thoughts or motives.

To whom do we feel guilty then? The answer is in the question: “whom,” not “what.” We feel guilty towards persons not objects. And we do not just feel guilt toward the person we deceived or harmed, but we understand the law came from someone, not something, and we feel guilt towards that person.

But is something good just because God says it is or is there a standard that God is using? If something is good because God says it is then the standard is arbitrary since it could have been something other than what it is. Or if God uses something outside himself as a standard to judge
things, then God is truly God since he relies on something outside himself. Either way is a fatal flaw against the claim that God is the source of morality. However, those are not the only options.
A third option says that things are good because they reflect God’s nature and character. God’s character is the standard of goodness and his preferences are extensions of his character, not arbitrary decrees. Because God does not change the standard does not change. And because the standard is internal God is not dependent on anything outside himself.

The argument from morality for the existence of God can be made in a couple of ways. A modest case uses it along with other arguments as only one part of a whole case. Others have made transcendental arguments with it. This approach asks what the necessary preconditions are for objective morality and argues that only the God of the Bible can account for it. This is obviously a more ambitious take on the argument, but it can be extremely effective. Both methods rely on the same claim: that objectivism is the only coherent view of morality and the only view of morality that can be lived consistently. And it points very strongly towards the existence of a transcendent, powerful, personal God.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

Hian!

Isn't it funny that this "Moral Lawgiver" changes from place to place, culture to culture.

Isn't he funny that he/she/it tells them they are special and he loves them more than any other person, even though he created them


more importantly,
isn't it funny that this "Moral Lawgiver" condones wanton violence and acts that we now call mass terror ; slavery and other forms of mass degradation.....


And yet he is the Moral one




Dude, Morality is subjective. The British wiped out the Tausmanians back then and no one shouted. They enslaved we Africans because they believed they were doing the right thing.
And to them, honest to God, they were probably moral

Just gonna copy and paste here one of my reply to one bloke.

Nice article.

God is a mathematical abstraction living in the perfect abstract society called heaven.

Julianyao:
Just gonna copy and paste here one of my reply to one bloke.

Note: This an excerpt- can't trace the rest of it.
Let me attack your god briefly:
His moral system or the system which appeals to him is a completely fecked up one. You can murder all you want, rape all you want...But the moment you give your life to Christ, you are saved, forgiven. And if the society don't know about it, wow! lucky you. After all god has forgiven you, Who the feck can judge you. The problem is that your god's system set up a ridiculously high standard (of morality) that no one can meet and then create a loophole (believe in Jesus) to escape punishment. There's also the thought crime but I prefer to leave it here.
Note: Perfect justice implies no mercy. Also justice and any degree of mercy are mutually exclusive

SirWere:
Hian!

Isn't it funny that this "Moral Lawgiver" changes from place to place, culture to culture.

Isn't he funny that he/she/it tells them they are special and he loves them more than any other person, even though he created them


more importantly,
isn't it funny that this "Moral Lawgiver" condones wanton violence and acts that we now call mass terror ; slavery and other forms of mass degradation.....


And yet he is the Moral one




Dude, Morality is subjective. The British wiped out the Tausmanians back then and no one shouted. They enslaved we Africans because they believed they were doing the right thing.
And to them, honest to God, they were probably moral

Hehe . There is one fine question I asked thehomer on morality .

KingEbukasBlog:


Interesting .

Mao Zedong is a Chinese communist and founding father of the People's Republic of China . As we all know he led and saw through the Great Leap Forward - a social and economic campaign whose goal was to transform the country from an agrarian economy into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization. An Agrarian economy is based on the country's agricultural system - producing and maintaining crops. Funny enough Ethiopia is already adopting this system as they plan to stay ahead as Africa's fastest growing economy . This campaign lasted for three years 1958-1961 .

Mao's intentions translate to the benefits of socialism .

1. The system eliminates greed

2. The Needs of Everyone are met

3. Goods are easily mobilized especially in times of disasters in order to ensure the safety and well being of every citizen affected .

4. There are no monopolistic practices . We all know how disadvantageous such practice is .

5. There are no business fluctuations . No discrimination between investment and savings and resources are readily available

So the above or more were Mao's intentions and it would put Mao's China in the forefront of civilization and development . Notably , Albeit Einstein - one of the world's greatest minds - was a supporter of socialism .

Effects of His Intentions

1. Great Chinese Famine which ended the lives of millions of people plus the torture given to millions who were not complying to Mao's vision .

2. It was estimated that 1 to 3 million people committed suicide

3. China actually did experience economic growth at some point

4. The Chinese praise Mao for the efforts he made . Without His efforts , there wouldn't have been a new China

So I ask ... Is Mao Zendong a good or evil man ?
.

SirWere:
Hian!

Isn't it funny that this "Moral Lawgiver" changes from place to place, culture to culture.

God never changes. Humans do change or at least their perception about God.

SirWere:


Isn't he funny that he/she/it tells them they are special and he loves them more than any other person, even though he created them

The people you refer to as loved and special people were sold into slavery, conquered, maimed and killed for centuries when they exercised their God-given freewill to rebel against God.

God loves man. The fall of man messed things up. God still (in his unending love and kindness) reached out to man through the sacrificial lamb. Man keeps rebelling and demanding a sense of entitlement as if he owns himself or asked to be created. Death has repeatedly proven that man does not even own his body, talkless of his life.

SirWere:

more importantly,
isn't it funny that this "Moral Lawgiver" condones wanton violence and acts that we now call mass terror ; slavery and other forms of mass degradation.....
And yet he is the Moral one

What could you possibly mean by mass degredation if morality is really subjective? , What is degrading to you might be right to another person remember? , see how your logic crumbles?
God is God no matter how much you want to have your way, no matter how much you wish he does not exist, no matter how much you hate him for existing.

The only funny thing here is your unrepentant, hardened and close mind.

SirWere:


Dude, Morality is subjective. The British wiped out the Tausmanians back then and no one shouted. They enslaved we Africans because they believed they were doing the right thing.
And to them, honest to God, they were probably moral

Did you read the article atall or are you so scared your "weak intellect" might get shattered?
I advise that you re-read the article and answer the question below before you further waste my time or that of any other person.

Julianyao:



Note: This an excerpt- can't trace the rest of it.
Let me attack your god briefly:
His moral system or the system which appeals to him is a completely fecked up one. You can murder all you want, rape all you want...But the moment you give your life to Christ, you are saved, forgiven. And if the society don't know about it, wow! lucky you. After all god has forgiven you, Who the feck can judge you. The problem is that your god's system set up a ridiculously high standard (of morality) that no one can meet and then create a loophole (believe in Jesus) to escape punishment. There's also the thought crime but I prefer to leave it here.

Note: Perfect justice implies no mercy. Also justice and any degree of mercy are mutually exclusive

The fact that you cant grasp the concept of God's unending love and mercy only shows how human you are.

You Note: Human opinions, models and theories are created for humans by humans. You cant fit your Creator into your created models. That is exactly what makes God GOD and man MAN.

winner01:


The fact that you cant grasp the concept of God's unending love and mercy only shows how human you are.

You Note: Human opinions, models and theories are created for humans by humans. You cant fit your Creator into your created models. That is exactly what makes God GOD and man MAN.

You, you think you're something special? Sorry, you're not. You're human; all too human- nothing more.

Julianyao:

You, you think you're something special? Sorry, you're not. You're human; all too human- nothing more.

On the contrary, I am special. If i wasnt special, i wouldnt have the ability to know that I'm not special.
You see, this is the beauty of theism, christianity especially. We see God's creation as special and strive to know more about God and the world around us.
Atheists vent their frustrations mostly on christians because we present a worldview that leaves them in a small meaningless box.

My question to you: You and a useless car tyre lying down the street are both products of blind chaos (in your worldview).

1. How are you more important than that tyre.
2. What is your justification for killing and eating animals (equal products of meaninglessness) which have equal rights, or even more rights than you (at least based on man and animals relative contribution to the continuity of planet earth.) and not man?

winner01:
On the contrary, I am special. If i wasnt special, i wouldnt have the ability to know that I'm not special.
You see, this is the beauty of theism, christianity especially. We see God's creation as special and strive to know more about God and the world around us.
Atheists vent their frustrations mostly on christians because we present a worldview that leaves them in meaningless-ness.

My question to you: You and a useless car tyre lying down the street are both products of blind chaos (in your worldview). 1. How are you more important than that tyre.
2. What is your justification for killing and eating animals (equal products of meaninglessness) which have equal rights, or even higher rights than you (at least based on man and animals relative contribution to the continuity of planet earth.) and not man?

1. I procreate, tyres can't. I'm rational; tyres aren't...
2. I'm a vegan
I also want you to know that I'm good in the Christianity game. In fact I still preach in churches up to this very day. I don't do that because I feel it in my heart and/or because it is my calling. I do because of the people that look up to me, see as mentor, always want to stand by them(If only they know the pain I go through). I've believe in that all my life and in seeking to know him (god) more and more, I realised how suspect everything was. I realised I was wrong. If I don't die any time soon, I will be leaving (officially) Christianity at the turn of the year to focus on my career fully. I don't hate anyone for believing in these things; it gives them hope, comfort... in this life that is devoid of meaning. Also, I don't and I won't hold any ill feelings for you. I know what it's like to be in your position because I've been there and I know how it feels when one attacks the beliefs upon which your life is based. If you decide to hold on to it, I'm fine with that; it's your choice and I respect that. We can discuss these things like normal people because there are people out there who will benefit from it.

This guy, its like you are copying and pasting...and i am here thinking it was all you

donnffd:
This guy, its like you are copying and pasting...and i am here thinking it was all you

Referring to me?

Julianyao:

Referring to me?

Noo, sorry not you...i was refering to OP

donnffd:

Noo, sorry not you...i was refering to OP

OK. No need for apology.

Julianyao:

1. I procreate, tyres can't. I'm rational; tyres aren't...

Do you have proof for this, or are you just making assumptions?

On procreation, I feel tyres, if left really long enough, with the right conditions, can evolve useful parts gradually, and then a mind of its own and then procreate. Please dont find this odd, its what atheistic evolutionists would have us believe

On rationality, You have no proof that tyres or any other product of this great "coincidence" is rational or irrational. Your opinions are yours and nothing more.

Julianyao:

2. I'm a vegan

Oh, then my question is still valid. ; What is your justification for killing and eating plants (equal products of meaninglessness) which have equal rights, or even higher rights than you (at least based on man and plants relative contribution to the continuity of planet earth.) and not man? (We all know Plants try to clean up our toxic gasses mess, so what justification do you have for destroying the precious life of a plant.)

Julianyao:

I also want you to know that I'm good in the Christianity game.

Christianity is truth. Christianity is not a game, even though some people see and use it as an end to their selfish and evil desires.

Julianyao:

In fact I still preach in churches up to this very day. I don't do that because I feel it in my heart and/or because it is my calling. I do because of the people that look up to me, see as mentor, always want to stand by them(If only they know the pain I go through). I've believe in that all my life and in seeking to know him (god) more and more, I realised how suspect everything was. I realised I was wrong.

Do you mind sharing how you came to be in this faith you profess. It will go a long way in helping people understand what you mean exactly.

Julianyao:

If I don't die any time soon, I will be leaving (officially) Christianity at the turn of the year to focus on my career fully.

Now i like this, @ bolded. "If you dont submit your life any time soon". Kinda contrary to the beliefs of the average proud, self-acclaimed intellectual atheist who thinks he owns his life.

I know of a man who has been a christian for over 40 years, he just gave his life to Christ recently. Whats my point?. You cant leave where you have never been.

Julianyao:

I don't hate anyone for believing in these things; it gives them hope, comfort... in this life that is devoid of meaning. Also, I don't and I won't hold any ill feelings for you.

If you didnt hold any ill feelings for me or anyone else, you would live your life as subject to your own beliefs and allow other people to. But this atheistic inclination against christianity majorly is what is odd, it is what makes me wonder why they hold christianity alone in such contempt, why they have atheist mega churches and not mega mosques or whatever.

There really is something about Christ, that the the carnal nature seeks tirelessly day and night to suppress. Nairaland is a good example. You can show me 10 atheistic threads aginst islam or any other religion since the inception of Nairaland.

Julianyao:

I know what it's like to be in your position because I've been there and I know how it feels when one attacks the beliefs upon which your life is based.

Ive also been in your position, i just wanted to live my life, not as an atheist or theist or whatever. I just wanted to be me. I realised sooner that there is more to this great reality, and its going on behind the scenes.

Julianyao:

If you decide to hold on to it, I'm fine with that; it's your choice and I respect that. We can discuss these things like normal people because there are people out there who will benefit from it.

I have examined the theistic and atheistic worldview. I only followed logic and evidence where it led. Im yet to find a worldview that thumps christianity or thats has been so persistently attacked as christianity. In my leisure time, i hope we can have a more detailed discussion.

As usual, another crap from Christians

winner01:
Do you have proof for this, or are you just making assumptions?

On procreation, I feel tyres, if left really long enough, with the right conditions, can evolve useful parts gradually, and then a mind of its own and then procreate. Please dont find this odd, its what atheistic evolutionists would have us believe

On rationality, You have no proof that tyres or any other product of this great "coincidence" is rational or irrational. Your opinions are yours and nothing more.

Oh, then my question is still valid. ; What is your justification for killing and eating plants (equal products of meaninglessness) which have equal rights, or even higher rights than you (at least based on man and plants relative contribution to the continuity of planet earth.) and not man? (We all know Plants try to clean up our toxic gasses mess, so what justification do you have for destroying the precious life of a plant.)



Christianity is truth. Christianity is not a game, even though some people see and use it as an end to their selfish and evil desires.

Do you mind sharing how you came to be in this faith you profess. It will go a long way in helping people understand what you mean exactly.

Now i like this, @ bolded. "If you dont submit your life any time soon". Kinda contrary to the beliefs of the average proud, self-acclaimed intellectual atheist who thinks he owns his life.

I know of a man who has been a christian for over 40 years, he just gave his life to Christ recently. Whats my point?. You cant leave where you have never been.

If you didnt hold any ill feelings for me or anyone else, you would live your life as subject to your own beliefs and allow other people to. But this atheistic inclination against christianity majorly is what is odd, it is what makes me wonder why they hold christianity alone in such contempt, why they have atheist mega churches and not mega mosques or whatever.

There really is something about Christ, that the the carnal nature seeks tirelessly day and night to suppress. Nairaland is a good example. You can show me 10 atheistic threads aginst islam or any other religion since the inception of Nairaland.

Ive also been in your position, i just wanted to live my life, not as an atheist or theist or whatever. I just wanted to be me. I realised sooner that there is more to this great reality, and its going on behind the scenes.

I have examined the theistic and atheistic worldview. I only followed logic and evidence where it led. Im yet to find a worldview that thumps christianity or thats has been so persistently attacked as christianity. In my leisure time, i hope we can have a more detailed discussion.

Note: Any claim I make is within the bounds of maximal certainty i.e to the limits to which man is able to know. Consequently, it means I'm open to changes as I learn more about the world.

Now to your questions;
Would you like to meet my daughter? As far as human knowledge is concerned, tyres haven't been seen to give birth. Neither has it been conceived a condition favoring procreation in tyres. However, Science is still trying to see how that can be achieved in the lab..By the way, tyres are materials that are made up of different components. And most importantly, it doesn't correspond to the unit of life from which the whole process is explained to have started from.
On rationality: That term applies to humans. We define what rationality is; we don't use the word to talk about tyres. We have words like durability, resistance to heat... for. I brought that up to point out why I feel special more than tyres. They are not some product of evolution lying around; we made them.

On plants: What kind of justification are you on about? If its a moral one; I acquit them the same right to eat me as I do them. I don't even entertain this because morality deals with my relation with those around me.

Christianity may or may not be a game. Bad phrasing on my path there I must admit.

Atheism is not a faith- it is a lack of believe in a deity. How I became an an atheist? By studying the bible with an open mind; No prejudice- just open mind. If it had come with a disclaimer, who knows...I'm not much different from you; I just happen to believe one less of all the things you believe.

On the bolded text: That does not in any sense indicate that I'm scared of death or to die. If it means anything, it is that I know and have accepted that my existence is nothing but for a period of time.

My family and relatives are all theists and they don't know about my atheism. Most of my friends are theist and we get along pretty well. What I don't tolerate, however, are theists trying to infuse their beliefs in public policies, institutions... On the attacks on Christianity: Well, the atheists community can come together to discuss on how to be civil when confronting theists. Theists also need to work on their own approach. This is the major reason I'm on Nairaland. The reason Christianity gets more attention is probably because its the religion most people confront often on this platform.

You don't really know my position. I'm an existentialist. I need not explain that further, you should already know what that means.

Of course I'll create time for that if you want that.

Thought about replying the OP..........then thought again and decided not to

KingEbukasBlog:


Hehe . There is one fine question I asked thehomer on morality .

Mao Zedong I believe that he had about as much use for morality as a 28 year old man has for a child's drawing book.

You see Mao had a burning need to develop his country. His plans were ingenious, even though they failed at first.

I think you can forgive him for the deaths as they were not primary intention...........
At least, the Chinese have.........

SirWere:
Mao Zedong I believe that he had about as much use for morality as a 28 year old man has for a child's drawing book.

You see Mao had a burning need to develop his country. His plans were ingenious, even though they failed at first.

I think you can forgive him for the deaths as they were not primary intention...........
At least, the Chinese have.........

This is not the answer to my question . Is Mao a good or evil man

KingEbukasBlog:

This is not the answer to my question . Is Mao a good or evil man

I thought I have said it before; Good, evil is in the eyes of the beholder.

KingEbukasBlog:

This is not the answer to my question . Is Mao a good or evil man

I thought I have said it before; Good, evil is in the eyes of the beholder.

SirWere:

I thought I have said it before; Good, evil is in the eyes of the beholder.

Eh na . So in your eyes , is Mao Good or Evil ? If you are trying to circumvent ridicule by being reticent , your cup of tea . This is just a simple question

KingEbukasBlog:


Eh na . So in your eyes , is Mao Good or Evil ? If you are trying to circumvent ridicule by being reticent , your cup of tea . This is just a simple question

Was Moses in the bible a good man? What about prophet Mohammed? Was he also a good man?

winner01:
Is there actually such a thing as objective morality? Are right and wrong real things that all people at all times are obliged to obey or are they just matters of opinion? Was Adolph Hitler evil? If so, why and where did the standard he is judged by come from?

The moral argument for the existence of God tries to show that moral values must be objective and universal to make any sense. And if moral values are objective, the source must be a transcendent, personal being who is concerned with the actions of human beings. This is one of the most powerful arguments for God’s existence because all of us have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and the way things ought to be. The question is how to account for why that is.



RELATIVISM
There are two basic ways to view morality: as relative or as objective. The most widely held view in our culture is called relativism. Relativism holds that societies or individuals decide what is right and wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person to person. There
are no objective, universal moral truths—just conventions for behavior created by people and that are subject to change. There are three different forms of relativism: cultural relativism, conventionalism, and ethical subjectivism.


CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Cultural relativism is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they all have different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality. For example, some cultures, like Mexico, declare abortion to be abhorrent and have passed laws prohibiting it. Other cultures, like the United States, permit abortion as a legal option open to any pregnant woman for any reason. Still other cultures, like China, have actually required abortions under certain circumstances. Cultural relativism says that because
each culture is holding to its own view of morality, and because these views differ, there must be no objective morality.

There are several problems with this line of thinking. One is that observing how cultures behave is just that: observation and nothing more. At best, these observations are simply statements of fact. Morals are not descriptions of the way things are. Morals are prescriptions of the way things ought to be. Just because things are a certain way does not mean they should be that way. When Popeye says, “I am what I am” he is making a statement of fact, not a moral claim. If he said, “I ought to be what I am,” he would be making a moral claim.

Another problem with cultural relativism is its premise that different answers to a given question means there is no right answer. Just because Mexico, the United States, and China disagree on the issue of abortion does not mean there is no right or wrong approach to abortion. If two golfers disagreed on how many strokes one of them took on a hole, it does not mean there is no incorrect answer. Either both are wrong or one of them is right. They cannot both be right. When people disagree about morality, it does not mean that there is no objective morality.

Finally, let’s say someone disagrees with cultural relativism. If the cultural relativist is to remain consistent, they must agree that the fact that there is a disagreement means that there is no wrong view of moral theory. But as a cultural relativist they are claiming there is a correct view of moral theory and that other views are incorrect. As a result, they cannot live their own philosophy.

On the other hand, if the cultural relativist claims that the opposing view is a wrong way to think about the issue, then again they show they are not actually a relativist. Thus, cultural relativism cannot give an account of the basis of morality.




CONVENTIONALISM

The view that each society decides what is right and wrong for itself is called conventionalism. In contrast to cultural relativism, which says that there is no right or wrong answer, conventionalism claims there is a right and wrong, but it varies from society to society. The majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal.

If conventionalism is true, the results are counterintuitive and very hard to live out. For example, let’s say a law was passed that made having blue eyes illegal and that the penalty for having blue eyes is death. There would not only be nothing immoral about the law, but it would in fact be immoral to have blue eyes!

But we don’t need to invent absurd hypothetical situations to see what a conventionalist society would look like. Conventionalism was the philosophy of Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Thus, when the Nazis declared Jews to be sub-human and deserving of death, there was no recourse for the Jews. The law by definition was “moral.” The large community of countries who protested were ignored. After all, what grounds did they have to critique German society? As a result six million Jews were systematically killed. And the defense given by Nazis tried at Nuremberg was conventionalism. “It couldn’t have been wrong, it was the law,” they said. “We were only following orders.”

One of conventionalism’s problems is that it leaves no room for society to be reformed. If society defines morality, then a person who protests against the laws of that society is, by definition, immoral and criminal. If a society were to change a law it would not change from immoral to
moral or from unjust to just. The law could only change from one rule to another, it would simply be different, not better or worse.

Think about what this means: if conventionalism is true then people like Gandhi, Jesus, and William Wilberforce would be among the most egregious criminals that ever lived! Their crime? They thought society could be changed for the better. The criminalization of such
moral reformers is, of course, wildly counterintuitive and helps show the bankruptcy of the conventionalist view.

Ultimately, conventionalism is about power, not morality. Whichever way the wind blows, the will of the majority is what is moral. Like a gang of bullies forcing into submission those who would dare oppose them, conventionalism forces its preferences on everyone by defining itself into power. And like cultural relativism, this fails to account for morality.



ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM

The most widespread form of relativism is ethical subjectivism. In this view, individuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only. Morality is nothing more than personal preference and opinion. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.”

One of the major problems with ethical subjectivism has to do with language. Conversation about values and moral topics becomes completely incoherent. No longer could anyone say something was right or wrong with any meaning. The best you could say is, “I choose not to do that because it is wrong for me,” or “I do not prefer that.” An ethical subjectivist could not meaningfully call the terrorist attacks on September 11 evil or wrong. And they could not call the rescue workers good or heroic and make any sense. When an ethical subjectivist makes a statement about the morality of an event or action they are not talking about anything other than their opinion of it, not about the thing itself.

The fatal flaw in this view is that it is clearly self-refuting. Again consider the statement, “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.” The statement makes no sense. It says that truth claims only apply to the person making them. The problem is that if this statement is true it applies to everyone, which, of course means the statement is false!

A very effective way to expose the bankruptcy of Ethical Subjectivism is by using examples of obvious moral clarity that apply to all people at all times in all places. “Torturing babies for fun is wrong,” is a well-known example. When confronted with this statement, an ethical subjectivist
would then be in the unenviable position of having to argue against it. They may not personally think it is right, but they could not say it is wrong and be consistent. Just imagine what kind of people this system produces. In this system an ethical subjectivist must walk past a rape in
action since they cannot condemn it for anyone but themselves. An ethical subjectivist must allow trespassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists to burn it as long as the trespassers, thieves, and arsonists don’t believe their acts are wrong. But nobody lives this way. Or do they?

One way to judge a moral system is to look at the kind of heroes the system produces. Take the objective moral stance of the Judeo-Christian view. The heroes are many and mighty: Jesus, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr. immediately come to mind.

But what kind of hero best exemplifies ethical subjectivism? Lived consistently, it produces moral monsters, people who see no need to care about others, and are unaccountable to anything but their preferences. Jack the Ripper. Ted Bundy. Albert Fish (one of the inspirations for Hannibal Lector). Ed Gein (the inspiration for Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the Buffalo Bill character in Silence of the Lambs). These are the heroes of ethical relativism.




OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Morals are not opinions or personal, private decisions. And they are not descriptions of behavior. They are prescriptions for behavior and motives that have the force of a command. They have a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative and applies to all people in all places at all times.

One way we come to moral knowledge is directly. We know it through intuition. This immediate knowledge is important because some things are only known in themselves. No investigation of facts or reasoning is required. This is precisely what is demonstrated by clear case examples like, “Torturing babies for fun is wrong.” Nobody has to investigate this claim before they can take a moral stance on it. Our intuition enables us to recognize it as self-evident. Just because we have a moral intuition does not mean we do not have to develop it, however. Even though we have an intuition for logic, we still have to cultivate a reasonable mind to better act on that intuition. The same is true with moral intuition; we have to cultivate our minds to be sensitive to it and to act on it.


There are several ways to show that all people, even self-professed relativists, actually believe in objective morality at their core. As we have seen, one way is through clear case examples. These examples don’t have to be confined to outlandish claims like the torture example. Often
conversations present opportunities to make this point in a much more personal way.

Christian thinker Francis Schaeffer was a master at this. He once had a conversation with several students, one of whom disagreed with Schaeffer’s moral objectivism. The student claimed there was ultimately no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. Another student who was listening decided to put that belief to the test. He picked up a teakettle full of boiling water and held it over the first student’s head as if he were about to pour it onto the student. He then said, “There is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty.” The first student realized that in his worldview he could not object to the threat and got up and left the room disillusioned. What makes these kinds of situations so powerful is that they are opportunities to take the conversation out of the abstract and put into the everyday world we all live in. In this light, the force of the objectivist position is undeniable no matter how hard someone tries to resist it.

Another way of exposing objectivism in a relativist is to discover their passion and relativize it. Let us say, for example, a relativist believed deeply in animal rights. A moral objectivist could tell the relativist how he is trying to find a new shampoo and just tested out a couple brands
by rubbing the shampoo into the eyes of a dog to see if there was any adverse reaction. The relativist will betray what they say they believe and object to these actions. And rightly so. But by objecting they demonstrate the reality of moral objectivism: moral laws are not personal opinions.

So, objectivism stands as the only coherent view of morality and the only way that can be consistently lived out.

At this point in the argument, all that has been shown is that there are very good reasons for believing that objective morality exists. Two questions now arise: “Where did morals come from?,” and, “Why should we obey them?” To find the source we should look at the characteristics of morality. Morality is:
• Prescriptive
• A command
• Universal
• Objective
• Authoritative


Prescriptions and commands are forms of communication, and communication happens only between minds. Also, because morals deal with purpose and will, the source of morality must also have purpose and a will. Because morals are universal and transcend individuals, societies,
and time, the source must be universal and transcendent. Since morals are authoritative they must come from an authority, and authority can only be held by a person. Finally, this person must have the power to impose his moral will on us and provide us with an ability to know their moral will through intuition. Thus, morals come from a transcendent person who has the power and authority to impose a moral law on us. And we call this person God.

Another indication of where morals come from is found in what happens when we violate the moral law. We’ve all ignored our moral intuition and done what we know is wrong, and the result has been guilt. Sometimes it is obvious to us whom we feel guilty towards. At other times the object of our guilt is not so clear, like when our guilt stems from our own thoughts or motives.

To whom do we feel guilty then? The answer is in the question: “whom,” not “what.” We feel guilty towards persons not objects. And we do not just feel guilt toward the person we deceived or harmed, but we understand the law came from someone, not something, and we feel guilt towards that person.

But is something good just because God says it is or is there a standard that God is using? If something is good because God says it is then the standard is arbitrary since it could have been something other than what it is. Or if God uses something outside himself as a standard to judge
things, then God is truly God since he relies on something outside himself. Either way is a fatal flaw against the claim that God is the source of morality. However, those are not the only options.
A third option says that things are good because they reflect God’s nature and character. God’s character is the standard of goodness and his preferences are extensions of his character, not arbitrary decrees. Because God does not change the standard does not change. And because the standard is internal God is not dependent on anything outside himself.

The argument from morality for the existence of God can be made in a couple of ways. A modest case uses it along with other arguments as only one part of a whole case. Others have made transcendental arguments with it. This approach asks what the necessary preconditions are for objective morality and argues that only the God of the Bible can account for it. This is obviously a more ambitious take on the argument, but it can be extremely effective. Both methods rely on the same claim: that objectivism is the only coherent view of morality and the only view of morality that can be lived consistently. And it points very strongly towards the existence of a transcendent, powerful, personal God.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

Part of the articles states that only the God of the bible is the source of objective morals. Yet when we read the bible we see this same God issuing out injunctions and doing things that are objectively immoral. When wi christians stop lying and face reality instead of hiding behind apologetics to deluded themselves?

dalaman:


Was Moses in the bible a good man? What about prophet Mohammed? Was he also a good man?

Moses was a good man . The Judges of Israel were good men who fought against the subjugation of Israelities in the hands of their enemies . They were God's executioners - all these acts were justified in that dispensation

Don't argue ignorantly . Here enjoy this piece : https://www.nairaland.com/3031728/reasons-why-god-not-subject

dalaman:


Part of the articles states that only the God of the bible is the source of objective morals. Yet when we read the bible we see this same God issuing out injunctions and doing things that are objectively immoral. When wi christians stop lying and face reality instead of hiding behind apologetics to deluded themselves?

Looks like the Judges in the law court do commit murder and are despicable because they sentence criminals to death . They need to be arrested immediately

Read this and stop the delusion bro : https://www.nairaland.com/3031728/reasons-why-god-not-subject

KingEbukasBlog:


Eh na . So in your eyes , is Mao Good or Evil ? If you are trying to circumvent ridicule by being reticent , your cup of tea . This is just a simple question

In my eyes, he was a good man na.........

No dispute for me.

SirWere:
In my eyes, he was a good man na.........

No dispute for me.

After ending the lives of 45 million people in fours years because of his hate for religion ? The ostensible purpose of The Great Leap Forward Campaign was to put China ahead but his real purpose was to decimate the religious because he was nothing but a bigot and anti-theist with a despicable mindset .

Atheists have the disposition to terrorize and can cause harm to you just to have their way . Please beware of them .

KingEbukasBlog:


After ending the lives of 45 million people in fours years because of his hate for religion ?

Where did you see this sh!t. Mao never directly ordered the deaths of those people, they are as a result of a too- radical policy. Where do you get the sh!t from

The ostensible purpose of The Great Leap Forward Campaign was to put China ahead but his real purpose was to decimate the religious because he was nothing but a bigot and anti-theist with a despicable mindset.

Where did you get his information from?? Which reputable Chinese Historian wrote this down?? Why do you specialize in gulping gross misinformation
The whole Missive of the Greap Leap forward was to change the whole Chinese system from a farming system to an industrialized state overnight. Of course it failed because it was simply too unfeasible. Mao seriously overreached at that time; anyone will agree at that. It was the result of that failure that caused the mass millions of deaths; he did not, in any sense, directly order those people killed...... The Chinese still love him, despite everything. Enough of this sh!t you parade as information

Atheists have the disposition to terrorize and can cause harm to you just to have their way . Please beware of them.

Na wa oooo....... So despite the fact that we now have major Atheistic societies like South Korea,Australia Sweden, Denmark and the like; you people still spew out the drivel that atheists are "evil, immoral wicked people"?

I understand, you need to cling to the idea that one cannot be good without religion.

Too bad it's a lie