If not,
then objective morality exists, if yes,
then objective morality still exists.
Not exact matches
If there is no
objective standard of
morality,
then there is no way to make a distinction between «good» and «bad.»
Objective morality does not exist... --------------- If that's true,
then no one has any grounds to call Hitler a bad person, or that he even did anything bad or wrong at all.
If there is no
objective standard of
morality,
then all is merely opinion, and there is no «right» and «wrong.»
But again, if there is no
objective standard of
morality,
then Catholic priests who molest children are not doing anything bad, because it was right in their own eyes.
What I'm simply stating is that if you can offer a plausible argument for how «
objective beauty» or «
objective love» can or should be defined,
then I'll be able to better understand your argument for «
objective morality.»
Since the senseless ra - pe of an innocent bystander is objectively morally wrong and
objective morality is grounded in the nature of God,
then God can not command this for it is acting contrary to His nature and His nature doesn't change.
Incidentally, even if god exists
then his does not represent
objective morality either.
First, if a god commands that something is so, merely because it tickles his fancy,
then it is «
objective»
morality simply because everyone and every thing must follow it.
If no
objective morality exists,
then there is no «right» or «wrong», there is only what you «feel».
movement from the sphere of abstract right to the sphere of subjective and abstract
morality,
then to the sphere of
objective and concrete
morality.
HawaiiGuest: «
Then according to your belief, there is no
objective morality, merely dictation from a diety that apparently doesn't even need to follow that
morality.»
Then according to your belief, there is no
objective morality, merely dictation from a diety that apparently doesn't even need to follow that
morality.