22 1

Morals and religion

Can we explain the issue of ethics ... away of religion?

By belfodil6
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


We have a member here who often says "do no harm".
I think that's an excellent place to start.
It also leaves all religion right out of the equation.

KKGator Level 9 Jan 8, 2019

Do not harm is the best and bottom line rule.

I sense Religion dose more harm than good. They are too concerned about war and sex. Plus careless about the natural environment.

@Castlepaloma @jlynn37 is the one to thank for "do no harm". See?? I actually do pay attention to
what (some) other members say. ?

@KKGator Thank you dear friend. I appreciate you.


I always said, do anything you want. As long as it does not harm anyone else.

@Castlepaloma Totally agree.

Those three are my watchwords.


I think humans evolved in groups, and for many of us, our ethics come out of wanting to what is best for the grop. Things such as beign honest and keeping one's promises. We can be taught to pay attention to our ethical inclinations or to ignore them.

I find it interestign that atheists.agnostics are greatly under represented o a per capita basis in prisons, which woudl seem ti indicate that religion isn't as effective in teaching the importance of ethics as secular society is.

As for religion represented in prisons, I doubt if it would ever be possible to get an honest answer to a poll on that. Regardless of their personal beliefs, inmates are going to check the box most likely to reduce their sentence or hasten their parole. Christianity is that box. Under the same circumstances, I'd probably check the Christianity box, too.

Had not thought about that one. Sad, so many hide behind Christianity for convenience of favor.

@Deb57 I am pretty sure that is shy such surveys are done anonymously, so nobody can tell who gave what answer. They know how to eliminate most bias from studies and unless someone is paying for the study with the hopes of a specific result, then studies are usually designed to elicit unbiased answers.

@Deb57, @Castlepaloma Outwardly, yes, they do. However a study can be designed to eliminate bias to illicit more honest answers through anonymity.

@snytiger6 That could still hinge on the level of trust of the inmate as to whether he believed he was protected by a promise of anonymity or non-bias. Paranoia is rampant in prison inmates for a myriad of reasons.

@Deb57 It can be overcome.


Moral and religion...the perfect oxymoron.
Yes, we can't see as moral anything based on lies.

DUCHESSA Level 8 Jan 8, 2019

Yes I agree.


Throughout most of the history of mankind, a person was told that his life belonged to some type of group: the tribe, the king, or the god. With the arrival of enlightenment ideas, people realized that their life belongs to themselves. People began to see themselves as individuals, not just members of groups. These enlightenment ideas resulted in some of the greatest achievements of mankind: reason, the scientific revolution, valuing education, and the idea of individual rights. The result was a lifting of a cloud of darkness over mankind, and the beginning of human flourishing, which is only now reaching most of the world. But, the one idea that wasn't changed much in the enlightenment was morality. Even today, most moral systems are based upon a god, the tribe, the nation, a race, or some other group. We are told that what is moral should be based upon what is good for the group. Why not base our morality on individualism? What is good is what is good for ourselves, as long as we don't harm others.

sfvpool Level 7 Jan 8, 2019

That is impossible as just by living others are harmed in some way. If not human than other forms of life. A report in the Seattle paper said that basically, the Orca's in our area will go extinct because the one thing we could do to insure their survival, cut down on our consumption of Salmon, we will refuse to do. Every single person on the planet has a negative effect on the environment and even when we die there is still an environmental cost. AKKGator

It is not always easy to know when we are harming others. The consequences of our way of life may impact people we do not know and will never meet. For example, our choice to drive an SUV contributes to global warming which disproportionately impacts the people (i.e. the poor) who have contributed to the problem least. Is it moral to drive the SUV because it doesn't obviously hurt anyone? I don't know that answer but, it seems to me, the morality of this situation is not as black and white as asking ourselves if we are harming anyone.

@JackPedigo Our disagreement is in who should be the beneficiary of our actions. For me it is my life as a human. The environment is a value only insofar as it benifits my life and other humans. It has no value without someone to value it. The same goes for other animals.

@sfvpool To me this question involves the level of one's sense of morals. As I have commented many times my late partner asked her 2nd graders, "what is more important, people or dirt"? We cannot be more important than that which sustains us. We could not survive with mother nature and a myriad of other life forms. Failing to recognize that will mean our extinction.
Beneficiary, hmm. The religious use the carrot and stick morality. If we follow that same creed we are not different then they.

@JackPedigo @SecularHumanist "what is more important, people or dirt?" Important to whom? Like I stated, to value something requires someone to value it, and the same goes for "importance." I am more important to me than dirt. Yes, dirt is value to me for growing food, for holding up the house I live in, and many other things, but without me, it has no value to me. And, since dirt has value to me, I don't remove it from my property and I water my lawn.

You imply that we should be worried about every action we take and how it may harm someone. I disagree. You are using a computer or smart-phone to type your statements, the manufacturing of which may harm someone by your standards, so obviously you don't take your morality seriously. I drive an SUV, and I don't worry about it harming someone, unless I get into an accident. Any minor damage it may cause by its emissions are far outweighed by the value I and other people get from my driving it. Do you want us to go back to living in caves and hunting for food? Of course that would also cause damage to the environment, with the killing of animals.

Like I stated, for me, what is good is what is good for my life and other humans. I am part of the environment of the earth and I care about me first. I don't believe we will destroy "mother earth", a phrase which is interestingly similar to "mother Russia", and if we do, we'll find another way to survive as a species.

You compared my morality to religious morality. Most religious morality is more like the morality you are espousing. Sacrifice is the code of religious morality. Sacrifice to a god or to the meek. My morality is the opposite of sacrifice. I don't believe in sacrificing anything and think that sacrifice is bad. Sacrifice is giving up a value for something of less value, which I try not to do.

. @sfvpool I see a lot of things I supposedly implied and suggested which I did not. When people say things that I supposedly said and then take things personally it tells me it is useless debating. So I won't.

@JackPedigo I'm sorry, my response was to both you and @SecularHumanist. I apologize for implying that you said things you didn't, that wasn't my intention. I didn't have much time when I responded, so I combined my responses. Sorry...

@sfvpool You are right, I didn't read the other comment. Thanks for letting me know.

@sfvpool My point is that our standard for moral behavior should not be merely what is good for me and does not harm others for several reasons, only one of which is that we don't have perfect information and know who is harmed by our actions.

Instead, I'd propose that our behavior be motivated by an attitude of love for all sentient beings, those alive today and those that will come into existence in the future, as well as the biosphere on which all of us depend. That means minimizing our impact where we can, helping everyone reach their potential, and eliminating economic injustice. It is only by working together that we can reduce human and animal suffering, both today and in the future.

@SecularHumanist Thanks for your civil response. What you propose as a moral guideline is sacrificing to all sentient beings alive now and in the future, as well as to the biosphere? Why should one do that?

I believe my life belongs to me and I should be the primary focus of it. In my original statement, I wrote, "as long as we don't harm others", by which I meant, and wish I had written, as long as we don't use physical force or coercion against them.

@sfvpool In some sense love is sacrifice, but it is sacrifice willingly made. I can't image living a meaningful, fulfilling life without this kind of self-giving, what you would call self-sacrifice. Perhaps you can. But I am confident that my love at some point will be requited. And even if it isn't, I've lived nobly in this world and can look myself in the mirror every morning and know that this world is better because I was here. I hope you can too.


Morality (and ethics) has nothing to do with religion, this despite the scream of outrage from the God Mob at this fact.


Sure you can. Just to take the bible as an example, if society as a whole still adhered to its principles, we would still condone slavery, inequality of women, stonings, etc., etc. etc... The justice, protections, and civility many take for granted in First World countries are the result of Secular moral philosophizing.

Rossy92 Level 8 Jan 12, 2019

An area I sometimes I get confused is the difference between morals and ethics. They are different. Basically, "Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong."
There is a chart: []

To me the overarching morality is preserving the life support system within which all life has to live. Religion, with it's sense of human centeredness and superiority is as immoral as it comes.

That is a good site, to see the difference between ethics and morals.


Ethics are a way of life that allows society to exist in a harmonious way. It does not require a religion.

Marine Level 8 Jan 11, 2019

"away of"??

Ethics are a particular expression of morality, which is a work product of society. Religion has nothing to do with it apart from its share of influence on society. Of course it likes to appropriate what's already there and claim to have invented it and be the sole defender and sustainer of it.

mordant Level 8 Jan 8, 2019

Moral and ethical behaviors and the ideas associated with them are a result of human experience over deep time -- evolution. Nothing at all divine about them, but the gods were patterned after human experience.


What does ethics have to do with religion?

MLinoge Level 7 Jan 8, 2019

Look up the difference between ethics and morals.

@JackPedigo I did.
" - ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces - "

Sounds to me like ethics are not necessarily entwined with religion, which seemed to be the topic at hand.
Can we explain the issue of ethics ... away of religion?

If ethics can refer to rules provided by an external source in a place of work, then there is no question whether ethics can be separated from religion. It's already been done.

Or have I misunderstood something?

@MLinoge The rest of the sentence says "or principles in religions." For clergy and religious workers their religion is also their place of work. I would ask what is work? It would seem work are efforts that people do to obtain some reward and money is only one. Might an (unrealistic) goal of immortality also qualify religion as work?

@JackPedigo "I would ask what is work?"
Is all work religion? Are all workers religious? If not, my point stands.

The goal of immorality qualifies religion as work.......
Sorry. This goes somewhere I can't follow.


Yes. I'd say it's highly explainable through evolution. Like empathy, for example. It would have been a favorable trait to pass down through the generations as it allows us to work together and survive.

I think empathy is inherently a selfish trait that allows us to survive better. It's a kind of "me not killing someone decreases the risk of me getting killed" thing. Same thing goes for stealing etc. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a concept far outdating basically all world religions, and is found in almost all forms of ethical thought.

Have a great day,


All religions do not claim to be moral. What is the big deal with one that does make that claim wanting to say they get their morality from god? I get my sex drive from Pluto, but then that is just Goofy.

Many people that take a college course in ethics say it is actually against their religion.


My ethics were screwed over by religion. I'm finally getting a hang of them after giving up my religious beliefs.


Ethics come from within. Use logical, critical thinking to deiced what is right


One important thing to understand is the difference between ethics and morals.

From the site: Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

They elaborate there in ways better than I could which you may find a helpful start.



Why should we?


What we think of moral and ethics generated stable and efficient societies. Those societies were stronger than the neighbours with different values.
By evolytive mechanisms they prevailed and looks like they are natural or divine when they are just more efficient in creating stable societies.


My opinion is that the word 'morals' came with religion but ethics describes thinking ethically different. I found this online which points out what I mean and how I think of the words. "A formal way of distinguishing them is to define ethics as 'those rules which it is rational for a group to possess so as to govern its external relations with other entities' and define morals as 'those rules which it is rational for a group to possess so as to govern its internal relations between members'." So it's more likely a church GROUP has morals and individuals not god believers have ethics to follow. Just in case anyone is interested in the article, A formal way of distinguishing them is to define ethics as 'those rules which it is rational for a group to possess so as to govern its external relations with other entities' and define morals as 'those rules which it is rational for a group to possess so as to govern its internal relations between members'.


Of course.

Is vegetarianism a moral or ethical issue? I see it as a moral one.


We certainly can, and Baruch Spinoza did a pretty good job laying the ground work for much of that in his Euclidean approach to ethics (Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order). The issue is that religion has the capacity to inform so much of ethics.
Many religions lay out rules for living and definitions for a good or meaningful life. These are central to ethics, so it is not surprising that it is difficult to separate ethics out from a religion. However, ethics doesn't attempt say much about cosmic origins or the nature of reality. Beyond that, psychology, biology, and reason tell us a lot about ethics. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that it's quite easy to explain ethics away of religion. Religion can be incredibly compelling, however. I'd imagine that is why so many religious people have trouble grasping the idea of an independent ethics.

Tattva Level 3 Jan 8, 2019

Ethics is more simple business like and solid, like for example, do not kill or steal. Where morals are often loosely made up to control the mass. The Religious break their own rules more than anyone.

Not killing or stealing are moral issues.


Who is more hippocrites to those morals than the Christians. For the moral acts of war and prisoners in the US. Where the US Congress is 99℅ judeo/Christians. If they were practicing ethics, they would not be able to give out licences to steal, kill and lie.

Morality comes from within, ethics come from without. If you're not stealing solely because a book tells you not to it's ethical, and if you're not stealing because you personally feel it's wrong it's moral.

@maturin1919 Not true. It is never moral to murder or rape (just two examples). That obvious fact does not come from within.


I think the opposite.

Just simplified the 10 commandment morals down to two ethical rules.
Don't harm
Be honest.

Like other stupid morals . Like kill your neighbors if he works on the Sabbath. Like if he is mowing the lawn..

The bible morals claims to be truth and univeral knowledge and taken literally from dark ages? Not even a newspaper can be taken word for word for a number of reasons... political bias, lack of or misinformation, and human error.

The Bible morals are not nearly as solid ethical as the US Constitution in this respect of hundreds years ago vs thousands of years ago.

Thank doG, the word God is not mentioned in the original Constitution.

@Bobby9 It is true. These words have meanings and I provided them.

And yeah, there are situations in which it is moral to murder.

@Bobby9 Also, yes, those 'obvious facts' do come from within. All you need is empathy.


Only two cases, you have the right to kill.
In order to eat.
To protect yourself from being killed.
I can't imagine running out of ideas to kill anyone.

The death penalty and wars who kill.. Try to prove to us, killing is wrong. That makes them hippocrites, rather than giving us much better ethical solutions.

@Castlepaloma There are more scenarios than that in which you can kill another human and be morally justified.

@maturin1919 Never said or implied ther wasn't. For example self defense. Now how can you tell me how murder or rape be anything excpet immoral?

@Bobby9 Define murder first, so we're on the same page.

@maturin1919 Murder is already defined. It is the premeditated taking of another human life. For example an armed robber shoots an kills an innocent storekeeper.

@Bobby9 It's also defined as an unlawful killing. Meaning things like capital punishment aren't murder. Your definition is murder in the first degree, but your example may not qualify.

@maturin1919 Try to stop nit picking. You know my point. I'll give one more. A man kidnaps and rapes an underage girl. He then decides to kill her (murder) so she can't identify him. How can that be considered anything except immoral

@Bobby9 I've just asked you to define the term. And murder is the only term I'm concerned with. You know, so we understand one another? Definition of terms is typically where one starts.


Like a storekeeper killng (got off Scott free) a shoplifters who got shot 6 times as he tried to steal a package of tobacco.

Or killing millions of innocent people over in the middle East over an unproven 11/9 or assuming they have weapons of mass destruction.

Killing will never stop killing or Violence will not stop violences. Countries who don't have the death penalty have far less murderers. Besides it cost more giving them the death penalty. Than to keep them in prison for life.

@Castlepaloma Only because of an extensive appeals process.

@Bobby9 Full definition of the term, please. Not examples. Because the morality comes from the individual scenario.

@Bobby9 As per your definition, so long as no one plans a killing there is no murder. Heat of the moment killings wouldn't qualify.

@Bobby9 But I'll run with this. It's okay to kill in self defense. It's okay to kill to defend others. It's okay to kill for prevention; as in I kill someone to stop them from killing someone else, or lots of people, or because they threatened me or mine. It's okay to kill pedophiles and rapists.


You don't have atheist on your list?

Because, many Religious people put atheist worst than rapist . Lol, personally I don't put anyone on my hunting season list.

@Castlepaloma Uh, no. Religious belief or lack thereof does not qualify.

Do I strike you as a religious person?


Yah, I love everyone, like the world is my family. Monotheism Religion dose not fit in with my personal wide choice of ethics. Yet, they are welcome to their elusions.

@Castlepaloma K...

Do I strike you as a religious person? I have no idea why you would ask me if atheists are on my list or tell me what the religious disposition is towards them otherwise.


In general, I find American Christians queer about atheist. The distrust of atheists is well known, but did you know that atheists are distrusted as much as or possibly a bit more than rapists? When presented with an apparently random person doing illegal and unethical things, few people were willing to identify the person as a Christian, more were willing to identify them as a Muslim, and the most were willing to identify them as a rapist or an atheist.

@Castlepaloma I know this.

You still haven't told me why I strike as a religious person.


I did not say you Strike me as Religious, you put that into your own head. I already knew you are atheist from your profile. You had such a long list for Bobby's kill list, it was so bazaar and funny.

@Castlepaloma Which begs the question of why you would ask me if atheists are on my list...

See where I'm going with this?


It's called, irony.

@Castlepaloma I'm not sure that qualifies as such.

It's no fun, having to explain it.

@Castlepaloma You don't need to. I'm quite familiar.

@maturin1919 No, that is your incorrect reading.

@maturin1919 Too bad you can't admit obvious intent to do harm is CLEARLY immoral, on an Objective basis. I'm not playing your stupid game anymore, grow up.

@maturin1919 Murder is legally defined. I use that definition. If you are not familiar with the legal definition of murder, look it up. Sheeesh.

@Bobby9 There is nothing about morality that is objective. It is entirely subjective.

I'm quite grown, thanks.

I didn't read anything incorrectly. If you define murder as a premeditated killing, well... killings that aren't premeditated wouldn't be murder.

@maturin1919 Since you cannot cite how rape and murder are anything except objectivly immoral, your statement is hollow

@Bobby9 Haven't discussed rape at all.

There are no 'objective" morals. They're ALL subjective. And I've given several situations in which it would be just fine to kill someone.

@maturin1919 Try murder, not kill, I already said self defense was not murder. You have a BIG problem with simple definitions.

@Bobby9 Several of my scenarios fall into the legal definition of murder, so try again.

No problem with definitions whatsoever. Try again.

@maturin1919 Actually, none of your scenerios fell within the legal definition of murder. You need to try again.

@Bobby9 Um, yes. If someone threatens me or mine verbally and I go back and kill them, I will be charged and tried for murder. If I hunt down a pedophile and kill them, I will be charged and tried for murder.

Need I go on?

@maturin1919 Yes you not only need to go on, you need to greatly sharpen your argument. OF COURSE you would be charged with murder in both of the instances you just cited because in the first instance NO self defense was involved. In the second instance you would have killed again, without any threat to yourself. Even a law enforcement officer cannot "hunt down and kill" a pedophile, or any other felon. Your understanding of law is very shallow. However all of that is irrelevent to the question, which was and remains when can murder ever be considered anything except immoral. I note you have evaded answering the scenerio about kidnap and murder I gave you. Obviously that fact and the scenerios you just posed above clearly show you have no knowlede of the subject under discussion, or law and you are making a fool of yourself.

@Bobby9 No, it doesn't show that at all. I understand the issue just fine, thanks. What YOU don't seem to understand is that morality is a subjective thing that varies from culture to culture, person to person.

What I've done is give you scenarios in which I think murder is morally justifiable. You know, like you asked. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm 'wrong', get a grip.

Morality. Is. SUBJECTIVE. As evidenced right here.

@maturin1919 What I understand is that you evade questions that challange you. You continuously make statements that merely reflect your opinion, not fact, you don't back up a thing. The sccenerios you gave probably are murder (I agreed in my last post, have trouble comprehending) but not morally, or legally justifiable. Murdering someone because of a verbal threat is unjustifiable, murdering someone because they are a felon is not justifiable, that it up to a court system, not you. If you ever get around to illustrating how the rape/murder scenario I gave you is moral you'll have a point, Until then you only repeat obvious subjective behavior. You ending by once again stating morality is subjective is still again your opinion. You have no argument.

@Bobby9 What you don't seem to understand is that morality is subjective. Things that I say are morally justifiable are morally justifiable to ME, and you disagree, making them morally unjustifiable to YOU. That, in a nut shell, is the subjectivity of morality.

I haven't evaded anything. I've discussed the topic of murder as I said I would and gave you examples of things I find morally justifiable that you and the law disagree with. However, the law is the law and not a moral code, and YOUR moral code is not the same as MY moral code... which is the whole damn point here.

@Bobby9 I also don't need to justify YOUR scenario, because in MY moral code raping and murdering children ISN'T justifiable.

I addressed exactly what I said I would. It is not my fault that you refuse to see the personal and subjective nature of morality between people, cultures, and time periods. It's blatantly obvious whether you recognize it or not.

@maturin1919 You ramble and say nothing. Your refusal to address rape/murder is obviously because you know are wrong. The topic was moral, NOT "justifiable". Obviously it isn't justifiable. You evade,and that is intellectual dishonesty. No one was talking about your moral code. Actually since you say morals are all subjective, that would include your own. You fail to realize there are absolute morals such as not raping/murdering children or any age group for that matter. There are other absolutes, however since you evade there is no point in addressing them.

@Bobby9 I haven't evaded anything. I'm also not going to sit here and attempt to justify the personally unjustifiable. It makes no sense to do so. I've given you a list of times it's morally fine to murder, just as I said I would. There ARE no moral absolutes! There CAN'T be in something that is entirely subjective!

You're either dense or trolling, which is it?

You cannot say that “obviously (murder) isn’t justifiable” without then demonstrating HOW you came to that conclusion. “Just because,” “obviously,” “it just is,” are not sufficient. You must provide a rigorous argument that stands up to scrutiny before you can be taken seriously. You were given two examples of morally justifiable murder, and though you may disagree, ‘obviously, it’s wrong because it’s objectively wrong’ is tautological and weak. Study and do better next time. I know you can.

@PaigeM Murder is legally defined as the premeditated taking of a human life. It is different than killing, for which there may be many defenses, self defense being one obvious defense. If you had read the entire exchange you would have seen an example I gave where a man kidnaps a female, rapes, than murders her so she can't identify him. That cannot be anything other than immoral. If you think not, let me know why you think that way. Next time try to understand the point, I know you can.

@maturin1919 You are a waste of time, and you continually reinterating your unsupported statement shows you have nothing, nothing at all to say. You are also an obvious evader.

No one is arguing that your rape scenario doesn’t constitute murder. I don’t understand why you continue to use that one example as if it’s a magic bullet argument. Most people would agree that is indeed immoral and illegal.

You said murder is objectively and absolutely immoral. Then you were given two examples when murder could be morally justified but unlawful (therefore still murder), ERGO, murder is a legal definition but still morally relative.

MURDER is a LEGAL definition, as you said. Laws change over time, do they not? Morality informs our sense of justice, which informs the law, correct?

You were given examples (listen closely) of when an individual may have a different moral compass than the law. One may commit murder without violating a moral code. It’s sophistry to ignore the merit of those examples and call them ‘killing’ instead of ‘murder.’

Just admit you made a mistake building your case for objective morality on a legal term. We all make mistakes, and I respect people who own theirs.

@Bobby9 No, dude. No. You simply don't get it, which in this case seems to be a wilful choice. Again, I've evaded nothing. You simply don't get to tell me to justify something I don't agree with and call it a win when I won't.

It's already obvious from this conversation that morality is entirely subjective. My point has been made. And you have been a colossal ass.

@Bobby9 Oh, and again, premeditation is only ONE variation of legal murder. You still can't even get that right.

@maturin1919 I never said nor implied that. I said it was PART of statutes. You are hopeless. When you get around to justifying how a rape/murder is anythng except immoral, (you never will because you can't) let me know.

@PaigeM I know no one is arguing the scenerio is murder, duh. The challenge was to explain how it can be anything except immoral. The examples given constitute vigilantism, and murder in response to a verbal threat. Both would qualify as murder under any State Statute I am aware of. Neither is justifiable and the result of the murder is to deprive the victim of everything, forever. That must be immoral. People certainly have different moral codes, does that make any one right? Of course not. Now you listen carefully, how can murder (using the legal definition) be anything except immoral when it deproves the victim of everything, forever. Please let me know.

@Bobby9 Listen, and carefully, because this is the last time I'm going to say it: I'm not going to justify raping and murdering a child. Because it's not something my moral code allows. You will have to talk to someone who thinks it's morally justifiable. It happens every day, so surely you can find someone to explain it to you. Do you understand? Find someone who has done it and get THEIR moral justification. I don't have to do it for you.

I'm not the hopeless one here, as I've said this numerous times and you simply haven't gotten it. I've morally justified several murder scenarios that are completely okay with me, meaning I've already demonstrated the subjective nature of morality, meaning your assertion that morality is objective is already shot to shit.

Do you get it now? Are you getting it? I sincerely doubt it.

@maturin1919 You have nothing to say, and you repeat yourself endlessly. You are a fraud and an evader. In the future if you post anything, I will just refer you to this post. You justified nothing, but did prove you make up your own definitions. Buzz off.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:260958'.
Humanist does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • is a non-profit community for humanists!