Recent content by Azdgari

Almost. Regarding the bolded, I believe that a subjective morality functions just fine. But with that alteration - yes, as someone who does not believe in objective moral values, that concession is one I readily make. Values are held by minds, and do not exist outside of minds. That makes...

In this thread you've overlooked it yourself, then. To the bolded: Yourself included. Your statement was more true than you perhaps intended. In order for the failure of materialism to allow for objective value to be at all important, you have to show that it's any different from...

(it's in the lower right of the post, left of the "Like" button)

Berserk, if you're not going to address my counterpoint in post #205, then just say so. So far, what I'm seeing is a lot of wishy-washy avoidance and it's very telling. You don't really have an argument for a link between belief in gods and meta-ethics, you just have some prejudice and an axe...

Even those philosophical absolutes tend to carry human assumptions. For example, for the law of identity to be meaningful requires that objects be discretely labelled, and that these labels are objective. That's a handy assumption in most cases, but ignores our own role in categorizing reality.

Those might be called universal, but they're a very human tool. Being imposed universally wouldn't make them any more or less right - just more widely enforced. Unless might makes right, anyway.

Perhaps you need a more relevant question. For example, what gives you, personally, the authority to assign a source of universal morality? I am still waiting for a reply to my earlier response. Post #205, I believe it was. Your deafening silence to that counterpoint is informative.

The "deafening silence" to your question is, as I and other have pointed out, due to it being moot. Most of us don't feel powerful and happy as a result of harming others, so the question doesn't bear on our lives.

Indeed, I doubt the average theist asks this question, either. It would only occur to people who get their kicks from harming others. I don't think that that describes the majority of people, theist or atheist.

Odd, I was really expecting to come back online to a response from Berserk to my counterpoint. I accept the concession made by the choice to avoid addressing those points, and instead to write a long post in response to nothing in anyone else's posts at all.

No, this case would mean that the rule was put forth by the one doing the defining. Definition is a human action. If some humans define their god as the source of all that is good, then the humans are the ones defining what is good. It would be honest of them to accept their responsibility...

That's awfully big of ourselves, no? To think that our human global consciousness is universal in importance and scale? The height of arrogance, that. No, scratch that, the height of arrogance would be to place the importance of one's own consciousness on a universal scale. But doing so with...

Yes. That is a problem for humanity, but what does it have to do with the unity of the universe? I agree with your sentiments, Neo, but I still fail to see what they have to do with what I asked of Arm.

How would one go about doing such a thing?

Still, relevance? How is it even a minimum qualification? Seems totally unrelated to me. See above re: "common but unexamined trope". The source would have to not be another conscious being, because that would make it subjective. Gods are ruled out. In a sense, of course, all morality is...