English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Just curious...please only nice answers. I'm a moral relativist for your information though so maybe so reason/persuasiveness would be nice.

Skeptic/Naturalist

2007-09-06 16:36:49 · 10 answers · asked by Someone 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

I in no way implied atheism does not equal atheism in my question. It was a question directed towards atheists because I wanted their answers. And yes moral objectivism is a real word with a real meaning I didn't make it up.

2007-09-06 16:52:01 · update #1

Responses to people in numerological order.

1. Moral Objectivism is a real word actually but I think you are humorous anyways.

2007-09-06 16:55:19 · update #2

#2: What statistics, under what interpretations? I don't understand how you reached your conclusions.

2007-09-06 16:55:50 · update #3

#6: Doesn't answer the question but I do agree with you.

2007-09-06 16:56:37 · update #4

#6: Sorry you did answer my question I didn't quite notice. I can agree with an ethical system as very practical for social interaction but as long as people don't place that system at a place above man and call it objective.

2007-09-06 16:58:54 · update #5

#9: I agree and disagree. I think it is important to be loving to children so they are healthy as they grow up. I think social responsibility (not moral responsibility) and natural sensitivity/generosity are what keeps society together, not the things we call "rights" and "wrongs" so much. And I didn't imply you couldn't reproduce with non-atheists. =P

2007-09-06 17:02:07 · update #6

#8: How does an action contradict reality and which reality do you speak of?

2007-09-06 17:03:01 · update #7

#9: Sorry I didn't elaborate enough on why I thought "rights" and "wrongs" isn't what usually stops people from causing harm. I believe this because most people will say killing people is wrong. But if you give them some sort of an absurd scenario such as if you could only save many people's lives by killing someone would you do it? They would probably say yes. So the fact they believe killing people is wrong is more of a generalization but when the real scenario comes everyone seems to judge it with a fresh mind except for those who strictly follow their moral system (like religious extremeists but of course not only them).

2007-09-06 17:05:59 · update #8

10 answers

Moral Objectivism is the only POSSIBLE morality. Any other kind is a myth. One is moral because his actions do not contradict reality. The law of non-contradiction with reality is objective, not arbitrary. That's how we distinguish the rational from the irrational. All this must not be confused with being infallible or omniscient, which are both myths.

2007-09-06 16:50:47 · answer #1 · answered by DrEvol 7 · 0 1

Sorry it's getting late for large multi-syllable words. Basically there is a single reality you need to understand: the *ONLY* thing that Atheist share is that they do not believe in any god, divine being, or supernatural force.

Strangley the basics of most moral system are very similar, with some variences, it's just the reasons why something is right or wrong that differ.

The other strange thing is that individual Theists could also be considered relative, objective or any other approach to morality.

2007-09-06 23:49:39 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0 0

I am also a moral relativist, and my personal philosophy tends toward nihilism.
It is quite hard to find moral objectivists in atheism, though you'll find some that for whatever reason might take empathy as an objective parameter(what i don't like is bad and viceversa[but ask them about masochists and watch them struggle ^_^]).

2007-09-06 23:56:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I do think that humans have an innate morality.

I basically subscribe to this: as long as it doesn't hurt anyone then it's fine.

Theists reject this and create their own, slavish morality (women are second class, gays are evil etc.). I think that that's very much an artificial morality.

2007-09-06 23:49:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Yes. Why? Statistics say so.

Atheists only share one belief. The non-existance of any god.

2007-09-06 23:42:07 · answer #5 · answered by meissen97 6 · 3 0

I never knew you could add vist or vism or ology to anything and make it a word i guess im a yahoo answerologist and a tv watchervist

2007-09-06 23:41:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Yes. I believe that to be morally objective, you must be the author of morality.

Therefore, God is morally objective.

which means that the rest of us are morally subjective and therefore not able to objectively determine morality without God.

2007-09-06 23:46:20 · answer #7 · answered by TEK 4 · 0 3

you speak of us as we are some kind of different species or culture! cultivating morals within society is just as important to you as it is to me!

2007-09-06 23:52:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I have great doubt if they can lives a moral life . How can they when they dispensed away with The Moral God ?

2007-09-06 23:44:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 8

no

2007-09-06 23:43:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers