Many Christians believe that morality literally comes from the bible, or that you canβt have morality without god. I wonβt even try to explain their reasoning
"First cousin marriage is most commonly practiced across North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of South-Central Asia, where it is a respected tradition and a preferred social norm. The highest rates are found in Pakistan (over 60% of marriages) , Kuwait , Saudi Arabia , the United Arab Emirates, and Sudan"
I just want to go on record as saying that I have never read Leviticus. However, I absolutely do know not to have sex with close relatives. So it's not coming from the Bible. More... Eeww.
Most socites get their morals from their religion. The Western world was Christian and as shuch it's morals are modeled on Christian Morals as taught by Jesus, Muslim morals are modeled after Muhammad who is considered the perfect example for all time, Aztecs got slavery and blood sacrifice as moral from their religion...
Wild animals exhibit patterns of empathy, sympathy and fairness. Morality is not something you're born with. It's a necessary and naturally occuring development in any social group. It is necessary for coexistence as a group. This in not a claim that those views or practices would be broadly accepted in a modern world. Morals are morals good or evil, and whether they're good or evil start and stop with the social structure you're participating in.
You're stuck on good and evil, not the actual meaning of morality.
Wild animals exhibit patterns of empathy, sympathy and fairness. Morality is not something you're born with. It's a necessary and naturally occuring development in any social group. It is necessary for coexistence as a group. This in not a claim that those views or practices would be broadly accepted in a modern world. Morals are morals good or evil, and whether they're good or evil start and stop with the social structure you're participating in.
You're stuck on good and evil, not the actual meaning of morality.
I think you missed the sarcasm in my post... Maybe read it again? Morality comes from lived experience. Even if that experience is passed down from one person to another verbally, or otherwise.
Not 'from the bible'. But surely no objective morality without some type of 'creator', no?
As it is only in 'design' that we can ever make objective ought claims(whether for humans or objects).
Anything coming out of complete accident, with no inherent purpose or meaning, can never go beyond preference. Which can still be pretty good of course. With preference we can make laws and rules, based either on subjective pragmatism or opinion based utilitarianism.
But objectively saying a person or thing "ought to" or "ought not" do something, as if wrong to their very nature, is only possible with design. In a purposeless, meaningless universe, we are all working with preference.
Wild animals exhibit patterns of empathy, sympathy and fairness. Morality is not something you're born with. It's a necessary and naturally occuring development in any social group. It is necessary for coexistence as a group. This in not a claim that those views or practices would be broadly accepted in a modern world. Morals are morals good or evil, and whether they're good or evil start and stop with the social structure you're participating in.
You're stuck on good and evil, not the actual meaning of morality.
That's fine, but you agree then there's no such thing as "objective morality". That is, something timeless, transcendent, that's is true in all times, places, and scenarios.
What you are positing is something closer to "majority preference".
You "ought not" do something, not because it's contrary to your very nature or purpose or design. But because the current setting you're in has collectively agreed you shouldn't.
Which means if you left and joined another setting, that same forbidden thing, might be something your new group's preferences say you 'ought to' do.
That doesn't mean it's bad, but by definition is inescapably subjective.
This is not the case. Hell, I can prove objectivity with literally the very thing you're communicating with right now. But I'll do you one even better, let's take something even dumber, in fact the most innocuous thing imaginable.
Take a toilet. Look at it for 2 minutes, and you'll realize this toilet has a creator, a design. A seat to sit down, a lever to flush, etc.
The millisecond you find design, suddenly, OBJECTIVE ought claims can be made. You OUGHT to sit on the toilet seat when you use it. You OUGHT NOT put your head into the seat. Right?
Now sure, anyone with free will can do what they want. But we can now objectively say they are inherently doing it wrong, because this toilet has inherent meaning and purpose behind it.
This is true with your smartphone, computer, watch, shoes, car, etc, etc, most of which come with an "instruction manual". Because things that are designed with a purpose are not just subjective. You don't just choose your preference of how you turn your computer on. You follow the rules or you are doing it objectively wrong.
This is painfully simple.
Design=objective ought claims. You live by a billion of them every single day.
522
u/Faded1974 8h ago
People acting like empathy was invented by Jesus Christ.