Without God" is a meaningless thing to say, since any kind of "with God" involves intercession by human beings. In other words, with or without God, we are dealing with preferences decided on by people.
Like I said before, if this is so, then upon what basis can we even think of or work in categories/ideas called "morals"/"morality"? Such a concept is, in effect, meaningless. It's only whatever someone thinks it is. There are then no rights for anyone, because any concept of rights is then an invented thing. It can easily be taken away from us depending on who is in charge.
How do we decide what well-being is? Is it difficult for you to distinguish between slavery or freedom? Between pain and lack of pain? Between hunger and no hunger? Are you having a hard time deciding between ignorance and education?
My view, which is a standard for morality based in something transcendent does have a basis for well-being, since it can't be taken away or changed based on the whims of individuals or societies. Your view, which is based on individuals or society does not have any way of defining what well-being even is. It can be changed on the whims of those individuals or societies. That is the entire point I am making here.
When you say well-being, what does that even mean? And who decides it? Dictators and tyrants all over the world decide "well-being" means them being in charge for a lifetime and doing whatever they choose with the nation's wealth, resources and population. If "good" and "evil" are something we make up, who is to tell them they are wrong? We can't even call anything good or bad, right or wrong, etc.
Are you serious?
I don't know if you're being rude here, but of course I am serious. You keep using concepts of well-being, right/wrong, good/evil, etc. but you have given no basis upon which to even make such distinctions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Moral Absolutes vs Moral Relativism
Date: 2011-03-05 06:31 pm (UTC)Like I said before, if this is so, then upon what basis can we even think of or work in categories/ideas called "morals"/"morality"? Such a concept is, in effect, meaningless. It's only whatever someone thinks it is. There are then no rights for anyone, because any concept of rights is then an invented thing. It can easily be taken away from us depending on who is in charge.
How do we decide what well-being is? Is it difficult for you to distinguish between slavery or freedom? Between pain and lack of pain? Between hunger and no hunger? Are you having a hard time deciding between ignorance and education?
My view, which is a standard for morality based in something transcendent does have a basis for well-being, since it can't be taken away or changed based on the whims of individuals or societies. Your view, which is based on individuals or society does not have any way of defining what well-being even is. It can be changed on the whims of those individuals or societies. That is the entire point I am making here.
When you say well-being, what does that even mean? And who decides it? Dictators and tyrants all over the world decide "well-being" means them being in charge for a lifetime and doing whatever they choose with the nation's wealth, resources and population. If "good" and "evil" are something we make up, who is to tell them they are wrong? We can't even call anything good or bad, right or wrong, etc.
Are you serious?
I don't know if you're being rude here, but of course I am serious. You keep using concepts of well-being, right/wrong, good/evil, etc. but you have given no basis upon which to even make such distinctions.