No objective moral truth without a Supreme Being?

Sep 2015
1,787
England
#12
And your opinion... on the theme?
The OP: 'There is no objective moral truth, without a Supreme Being to set down those objective moral truths in the first place? Like you can say that genocide is wrong, but that is just your feelings, which you convince yourself is the objective truth, but then if you are perfectly honestly, they are just subjective feelings?'

My understanding is it is all just a silly pedantic method and means to marginalise an opinion you don't happen to like. We are all individuals so technically, an absolute definition of subjectivity is a "personal opinion", but as i said we are all individuals so all our thinking, all our understandings of anything is technically a "personal opinion", because each individual arrives at an understanding (of whatever it is). But so what? What is an opinion? A pejorative term? A marginalised term? No of course not.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,523
Portugal
#14
The OP There is no objective moral truth, without a Supreme Being to set down those objective moral truths in the first place? Like you can say that genocide is wrong, but that is just your feelings, which you convince yourself is the objective truth, but then if you are perfectly honestly, they are just subjective feelings?
Yes, I understood what ren0312 wrote, and I understood what he wrote in other posts. But in some themes it is relevant to just to read the lines but between the lines. Thus my questions that ren0312 seems to be avoiding answering. And he has that option.

My understanding is it is all just a silly pedantic method and means to marginalise an opinion you don't happen to like.
That is your subjective understanding.

We are all individuals so technically, an absolute definition of a subjectivity is a "personal opinion", but as is aid we are all individuals so all our thinking, al our understanding of anything is technically a "personal opinions" because each individual arrives at an understanding (of whatever it is). But os what? What is an opinion. A pejorative term? A marginalised term? No of course not.
Yes, mostly agree with you on this. Basically this is commonsense.
 
Sep 2015
1,787
England
#15
Which does not answer the original question? And is still based on subjective emotions?
Yes it does, and no it isn't.

A people, free to arrive at their own moral standards (crime and culture), not overly influenced by an external or internal force, free from coercive influence by an authoritarian state or government, will have a broadly agreed set of moral standards. How would you like it, is just plain common sense, which is sensible & rational.
 
Sep 2015
1,787
England
#16
Yes, I understood what ren0312 wrote, and I understood what he wrote in other posts. But in some themes it is relevant to just to read the lines but between the lines. Thus my questions that ren0312 seems to be avoiding answering. And he has that option.



That is your subjective understanding.



Yes, mostly agree with you on this. Basically this is commonsense.
Is your understanding of the meaning of the word "opinion" basically subjective and vice versa? Is it laced with the negative word and definition "prejudice"? This seems pretty crucial to me (subjectively?). Surely it is just not important to worry about whether you can label something subjective. If it is just the same as "an opinion", the reply to anything, any piece of writing could be "That's your subjective understanding". OR Your opinion (understanding) is an opinion. Whence doth one findeth le value? My reply you said was subjective was not "partial" !!! Everything that everyone says or writes IS PARTIAL under this understanding! Yes? Please see posts 57 and 51 from Can History Be Objective?
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,545
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#17
There is no objective moral truth, without a Supreme Being to set down those objective moral truths in the first place? Like you can say that genocide is wrong, but that is just your feelings, which you convince yourself is the objective truth, but then if you are perfectly honestly, they are just subjective feelings?
Also the moral truth of a Supreme Being is subjective [with reference to the Supreme Being].
 
Likes: Hoosierhiver
Jun 2016
1,841
England, 200 yards from Wales
#18
Anyway isn't the whole ethical content of the statement 'you should not do X because the Supreme Being forbids it' rest in the ethical assertion 'you should do what the SB says'?
If all ethical value is in his preferences then, if you ask why should I do what he says, we end up with 'you should do what he says because he says you should'
If we're having assertions like that why not just go straight to 'you should be nice to people' and cut out the celestial middle man?
 
Sep 2015
1,787
England
#19
Also the moral truth of a Supreme Being is subjective [with reference to the Supreme Being].
People would be being partial towards the Supreme Being having the required standards. But you are not saying being IMPARTIAL is by definition only, impossible, surely?

Can the SB not be impartial?
 
Last edited:
Aug 2012
1,554
#20
The existence of a supreme being wouldn't denote truth. Because that being would have to have earned their power through merit, rather than being created as superior to man. If a God comes from nothing and is accountable to no one, they are in fact inferior to human laws which seek accountability of even those in positions of power.
Human law says "This is right and this is wrong, and even the man who wrote the law must abide by its standards."
Divine law in the monotheistic sense seems to be "God makes the laws, but can break them with impunity."
So it would seem that rather than a Supreme Being, any moral truth would rather have to stem from multiple divine beings, who could police themselves so that the lawmaker was not above the law.
 
Likes: dreuxeng