/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>If God does not exist, the Nazis were not wrong. It's just your opinion that they were wrong.

>Muh no objective morality

Yes, that's correct. There's no knowable magical transcendent virtue that applies to all absolutely. So? That doesn't mean we can't create our own values. All of history's civilisations did it. Rape isn't bad IN ITSELF through some magical holistic force, but we can agree as a society that it isn't in our best interest to just let people do that willy nilly. It would be anarchy. Humans have human natures with human interests, and so if you don't kill me, I don't kill you, etc. Anarchy is unproductive.

>Free will

lol

>Laws of nature proves God

Maybe that's the only way they can be.

>Evil

Human nature and emotions.

Even if a bunch of this stuff was true, it just proves theism to be the most accurate, not Christianity.

>where does the material of the universe come from

Maybe it's always been there in some form or another.

These arguments are ancient, anyways.

>>2195

even if i'm wrong in the end it's essentially all speculation

>>2194

Any theology that remains pre-German Idealism and pre-Nietszchean a shit. Philosophically incoherent as well as plain spiritually weak.

He's basically correct, but comes to the wrong conclusions.

You don't need to "justify" morality for it to work.

>free will is proof of god because god created free will

>science is proof of god because god created science

>existence is proof of god because god created everything

Do christfags have an non kierkegaard argument for god that does not rely on a pre existing assumption for the existence of god?

>>2252

You have no idea what Kierkegaard wrote about, ya dingus.

>>2213

>free will is not necessary to be a moral subject

>Implying moral judgement is not qualitatively different from any other kind of

You imply a lot, but you prove nothing. You give no arguments, either...

>>2252

General theistic arguments are for god, but Christians prefer arguments for God.

That video is a compiling of several general arguments for theism, not specifically Christianity - although he does draw the connections.

>>2201

I'd say modern anti-theology, like existentialism, is the weakest link.

Nietzsche is interesting, certainly, but I'd still hold onto the freedom to choose.

>>2259

So far, all philosophers have failed to come up with a method that allows us to judge the validity of a system of ethics without resorting to making ethical statements. We can judge the logical consistency of a system of ethics, true, but we can't judge whether it's truly morally sound while standing outside any and all system of ethics.

You ought to kill one person to save a hundred, says the utilitarian. Why do you have to do this? Because it serves the greater good. Why do we have an obligation to serve the greater good? In other words, what makes the greater good "good"? They are silent on that matter. The only way out is to regard utilitarianism, as well as any other system of ethics, as systems on how to maximize a certain property we defined as good beforehand.

This is not to say that morality was relative, or arbitrary. It is not relative because you can apply one system of ethics anywhere on the globe, to any situation. In that sense, they are all absolute. It is not arbitrary because a system that is logically inconsistent does not deserve to be called a system. When you change the rules as you go along, you're acting on whims, or upon a broken system. We can also pass judgement on whether a system actually functions to maximize a certain property or not. A system of ethics can define what property is good, but it can't define anything else about the property in question. It is for that reason (among others), for example, that the Social Justice Mentality is unsound: It purportedly serves to maximize equality, but it does so by granting certain groups privileges over others

If we apply ethical systems in a descriptive sense, we can theoretically apply them to everything, including non-living matter. This is commonly regarded as absurd. I haven't yet figured out why, though, but it might be different from system to system. What I do know is that we can judge a human brain on whether it's capable of making sound moral judgement and acting accordingly, without introducing free will into the equation.

>>2272

Read about Hegel's ethical theory. He's one philosopher which makes no appeal to the good in an arbitrary way.

>>2282

Thanks, m8. Will do (eventually). Have a lot of other stuff to read, but as far as philosophers of that era go, he's my top priority.