No objective moral truth without a Supreme Being?

Sep 2015
1,805
England
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?
SB ? :D
 
Sep 2015
1,805
England
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.
Adopting the non-monotheistic perspective is increasingly interesting as i understand things, and that IS being impartial?
 
Sep 2015
1,805
England
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?
Or the old saying 'How would you like it?'
 
Feb 2019
533
Thrace
There "is" but actually there isn't. Humme's "Is–ought problem" is the key here.

To Sam Harris, I say he should be careful being so vehement about his "objective moral truth" that can be revealed by science.

You can say that within the context of how the human species function, certain things are objectively "bad". We don't need any Supreme Being to realize that killing or stealing in a society is counter productive. But on the Universal scale, it means nothing if I butcher 10 or 1000 people. It's how it is, but there is no argument to be made that it "should" be this way.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,038
Portugal
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"?
Short answer to your first question: Yes. To your second, if I understood it right: No.

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?
Here I really didn’t follow you all the way, For instance the sentence “OR Your opinion (understanding) is an opinion.” puzzled me a bit. Anyway thanks for the link. I already read some posts there, including some of yours.
 
Feb 2019
533
Thrace
The Universe is just a mass of particles interacting with each other, indifferent to "human morals". There is no good or bad.

But in the context of sentient beings who can feel discomfort and pleasure, we have a measure for "good" and "bad". You can just define "moral truth" as the highest amount of collective pleasure that can be achieved. Whatever means lead to that outcome, that's the closest you'll get to the "greater good".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menshevik
Sep 2015
1,805
England
Short answer to your first question: Yes. To your second, if I understood it right: No.



Here I really didn’t follow you all the way, For instance the sentence “OR Your opinion (understanding) is an opinion.” puzzled me a bit. Anyway thanks for the link. I already read some posts there, including some of yours.
Aha. It appears we may have dug up something of meaning !!!

In my dictionary:

OBJECTIVE: not depending on, or influenced by, personal opinions or prejudices. 2. Philo. based on fact or reality. noun 1 a thing aimed at or wished for; a goal. Thesaurus: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, open-minded, equitable, even-handed, neutral, just, fair.

SUBJECTIVE: based on personal thoughts and feelings; not impartial or objective. (Thesaurus: personal, individual, idiosyncratic, emotional, partial, biased, prejudiced).

Perhaps that clears things up a little?
 

Mike McClure

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
6,230
Indiana
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?
Why stop with moral truths? Why not just say there can be no objective truth without a Supreme being?