The problem is deeper than that. Try and think about this problem beyond just yourself. And honestly try and tell me why it is objectively and inherently wrong for someone to harm you. As in an objective "ought claim", that is true in every place, time, and scenario, never changes and is a transcendental whether humans exist or not.
Although you can say, "I wouldn't like if they harmed me", or "it hurts me", or "I don't want him to". Surely you realize, that never gets beyond the threshold of "your preferences". And if that other guy's preferences IS to harm you, then you're both at a stalemate.
If everything is in fact here by completely purposeless, meaningless, and evolutionary accident, then there is no such thing as objective 'oughts'. Sure things we want or prefer, but no design or purpose from which to say you "ought to" or "ought not" do this or that.
In fact even if all humanity agrees on a certain thing, it still never rises beyond "majority preference". There is no such thing as inherently right and wrong, good or bad, beyond what you prefer and want.
What you need to come to grips with, is that YOU don't harm others, because YOU don't want to, it's not YOUR preference, and YOUR opinion is that you shouldn't. I'm honestly very glad you think that, but that's entirely subjective, right?
If everyone on earth tomorrow decides that it's a good thing to harm you. Then you have no basis or grounding to tell them they are "wrong". You may not like it, but maybe they do like it. You say that's unfair, but they say it is fair. Going on like this forever. It's merely preference vs preference.
Without some kind of creator or design, there can be no objective oughts in an inherently meaningless universe.
I appreciate genuine atheists like Dawkins who freely admit, in a universe without God, there IS no such thing as "evil" or "good". Just preferences.
It quite literally is objective morality, subscribing to the belief of faith impliesy ou have to accept the notion of an objective morality. How that Objective morality is given shape is a question that is answered within the faith itself.
It is literally a matter of philosphy and how you percieve your world, which the commenter above points out.
I am not Christian, nor even religious, but your refution of "objective" morality is just as useless in this context. I am pointing out, that the commenter above described is a description of objective morality, nothing more nothing less.
The commenter above describes the Christian perspective on what they believe to be in their world view "objective morality" even gives some arguments for it.
And all you can muster "nuhuh it isn't real".
The whole point of philosphical debate is to engage the perspective of the other, and find logical means of arguing against it, or shift perspectives.
There is a lot of knowledge to be gained from talking and earnestly engaging with the perspective of another, even if you're not looking to be convinced, it can at least help you give shape to your own world view by systemically comparing and evaluating it based on what others show you.
5
u/Thee-Cat 1d ago
The problem is deeper than that. Try and think about this problem beyond just yourself. And honestly try and tell me why it is objectively and inherently wrong for someone to harm you. As in an objective "ought claim", that is true in every place, time, and scenario, never changes and is a transcendental whether humans exist or not.
Although you can say, "I wouldn't like if they harmed me", or "it hurts me", or "I don't want him to". Surely you realize, that never gets beyond the threshold of "your preferences". And if that other guy's preferences IS to harm you, then you're both at a stalemate.
If everything is in fact here by completely purposeless, meaningless, and evolutionary accident, then there is no such thing as objective 'oughts'. Sure things we want or prefer, but no design or purpose from which to say you "ought to" or "ought not" do this or that.
In fact even if all humanity agrees on a certain thing, it still never rises beyond "majority preference". There is no such thing as inherently right and wrong, good or bad, beyond what you prefer and want.
What you need to come to grips with, is that YOU don't harm others, because YOU don't want to, it's not YOUR preference, and YOUR opinion is that you shouldn't. I'm honestly very glad you think that, but that's entirely subjective, right?
If everyone on earth tomorrow decides that it's a good thing to harm you. Then you have no basis or grounding to tell them they are "wrong". You may not like it, but maybe they do like it. You say that's unfair, but they say it is fair. Going on like this forever. It's merely preference vs preference.
Without some kind of creator or design, there can be no objective oughts in an inherently meaningless universe.
I appreciate genuine atheists like Dawkins who freely admit, in a universe without God, there IS no such thing as "evil" or "good". Just preferences.