Correct. This is what I am saying.
And yeah, Plato may be rolling in his grave... but Plato lived over 2300 years ago. If it were actually possible to get an objective good without God, then why haven't secular philosophers reached any sort of consensus on what is objectively good after 2300 years of discussing it?
Because, without God, objective good does not exist. You haven't found it after 2300 years because there is nothing to find.
Religions in general, and Christianity in particular have /also/ failed to come to a consensus as to what is good and evil (see also homosexual marriage, abortion rights, right to die / assisted suicide, the death penalty, and so forth) -- unless you define Christianity as "People who believe the same things are good and evil as I do", in which case the same solution would work for secular philosophers (e.g. People who believe in philosopher X believe the same things are good and evil, therefore X must be correct).
objective morality, if indeed it exists, has to be so WITH OR WITHOUT GODS. that's what Plato was damn well SAYING, in Euthyphro.
In Plato's writings, he describes a perfect utopia as a place where the free men would never need to work, because their slaves would work for them, so they'd be free to pursue mental activities.
Even his UTOPIA still had slaves.
And slavery, I think even you will agree, is a pretty fucking bad thing.
... So... Where's that "Objective morality" thing again (which, by the way, Plato NEVER ARGUED FOR. He simply argued for "noble governments" and stupid ideas like the "noble lie." If anything, he was an idealist)?
"Because, without God, objective good does not exist. You haven't found it after 2300 years because there is nothing to find."
Code of Hammurabi.
This is more of the same old same old. That phrase has been passed around from one Christian apologist to another in a chain that makes me think of the creationist arguments, whose origin and modifications have just been so recently diagrammed.
Let's try a simplified version for the peanut gallery. Do you feel good when life goes well for you? When nobody injures you and you have a meal to eat? When the people you love are all with you? Yes! That's true of all mankind, so does that make it sufficiently objective? When someone injures you or your loved ones, that's bad, isn't it? Isn't that true for all people throughout all time? There's the nutshell version of objective good and objective evil. No god needed.
The bible, however, did use this version, and we know it as the golden rule. It's far too ambitious a stretch to claim that they invented the concept, nor did they trademark it.
If that were true, why hasn't Christianity or religion in general also come to some form of consensus?
Let me explain: people like you often complain about Sharia law. Sharia law is very similar to biblical law. Stoning adulterers, homosexuals, disobedient children. Slavery, polygamy, and even sex slavery. And let's not forget God actually commanding people to kill entire groups. Children and all. And of course, the Bible does call for either the banishment or death penalty for the unbelievers. Yet, not only is this not really practised by many Christians, but they'll say it is wrong and barbaric. That's because Christian morality has pretty much vanished, being replaced by newer ideas in an evolving society. Hell, it should be pointed out the Bible says nothing about age and sex. It was feminists in the 1800s that saw the acquisition of consent laws, I think one particular case was a man marrying a 10 year old, but it was perfectly legal.
So to summarise. Secular and human thought has brought us more modern 'morals' and many you would probably like to claim as Christian but they simply aren't. Christian morals have been tossed over the past few centuries. Gay marriage is just the most recent development. An inevitable end to centuries of abolishing slavery, passing consent laws, giving women the right to vote, etc.
For most of those 2,300 years there were no secular philosophers.
@ FELIX LÆTVS
I think many Christians would argue that these are the laws that Christ came to replace and that what replaces them is set out in Paul's letters, i.e. the authorities are as appointed by God. While slavery still exists under Christianity, stoning and killing people for not believing is a little more difficult to justify.
Equally important is that the religion to which these commandments belong, Judaism, began to drop them in the period after the destruction of the Temple by making them practically impossible to carry out. Except for a small number of Jews, slavery, polygamy and the death penalty have not been part of the functioning Bible for at least a thousand years; this is difficult to ascribe to secular thought.
Why do good and bad need to be objective?
Stop using words like good and bad... also moral and immoral... and replace them with words like beneficial and non-beneficial, which actually have an understandable meaning that doesn't require a dictatorial authority.
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to
Sign in or Register. Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.