I hate to break it to you, but you are also subject to moral subjectivism, you’re just less honest about it. Your moral frameworks are just as much a matter of consensus, just of the theocratic. You are not immune or superior, you’re just less honest with yourself. You still follow the subjective morality defined by man, just under the guise of higher authority.
I understand that I follow morality. The question is, what is morality. If you are correct, it is subjective. If you are wrong, it isn’t. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
That you present deific morality as some alternative to the uncertain subjectivism of reality when it is not an alternative and it does not live outside of it. It is nothing more than delusion born of hubris because it is easier to reject reality and say “no I’m right!” than it is to accept the complicated nature of existence. You aren’t providing an answer to the problem, you’re hoping that if you cover your eyes hard enough the problem will stop existing.
What is it if not an alternative? Morality is either objective or subjective. You believe it is the latter, but how can you be so sure you are correct?
I am simply saying that it is a very unnatural way to think about morality, and this is why my argument works. Some people, I believe, would rather say that God is real than that morality is subjective. You can say the opposite of that, of course, but this is how philosophical arguments work.
Yes, of course it does.
How? Why?
Because the argument is based on what morality is. And this is a question about what it is.
And you think if it is preference it cannot be morality? My friend, morality is societal preference, at least in part.
Such an account of morality is indeed insufficient for some people. But this is the argument: you have to accept moral subjectivism if you reject God.
I hate to break it to you, but you are also subject to moral subjectivism, you’re just less honest about it. Your moral frameworks are just as much a matter of consensus, just of the theocratic. You are not immune or superior, you’re just less honest with yourself. You still follow the subjective morality defined by man, just under the guise of higher authority.
I understand that I follow morality. The question is, what is morality. If you are correct, it is subjective. If you are wrong, it isn’t. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
That you present deific morality as some alternative to the uncertain subjectivism of reality when it is not an alternative and it does not live outside of it. It is nothing more than delusion born of hubris because it is easier to reject reality and say “no I’m right!” than it is to accept the complicated nature of existence. You aren’t providing an answer to the problem, you’re hoping that if you cover your eyes hard enough the problem will stop existing.
What is it if not an alternative? Morality is either objective or subjective. You believe it is the latter, but how can you be so sure you are correct?
I am simply saying that it is a very unnatural way to think about morality, and this is why my argument works. Some people, I believe, would rather say that God is real than that morality is subjective. You can say the opposite of that, of course, but this is how philosophical arguments work.
I don’t see the problem you are referring to.