Evidence for God from Science

this topic is about morality (yeah i know it thus like the millionth one but bare with me) and you probably guess right it if you thought it was objective v.s subjective. well the question is that morality as a whole is it objective or subjective and more over if it is subjective can it really be called morality , if morality was based solely on a group of people and change throughtout time periods and cultures then how is something discern as right or wrong. If something is deemed right in one era but decades later is view wrong than what it inherently wrong in the first place or was it still right.

however if morality is objective than throught all diffferent opinions in society and culture only one is right and has to come from a standard. what is that standard and who man it

so, what your guy's opinion

goldmoor wrote:this topic is about morality (yeah i know it thus like the millionth one but bare with me) and you probably guess right it if you thought it was objective v.s subjective. well the question is that morality as a whole is it objective or subjective and more over if it is subjective can it really be called morality

Morality is objective. Whether or not you can convince a non-believer of this without pointing to God as confirmation of the fact is another matter.

goldmoor wrote: if morality was based solely on a group of people and change throughtout time periods and cultures then how is something discern as right or wrong. If something is deemed right in one era but decades later is view wrong than what it inherently wrong in the first place or was it still right.

It was right for the time period, wrong for afterwards. However, as there is no objective standard to go by telling someone in another culture they are wrong is impossible because of ever changing cultural differences. Right and Wrong are not set in stone if morality is subjective.

goldmoor wrote:however if morality is objective than throught all diffferent opinions in society and culture only one is right and has to come from a standard. what is that standard and who man it

so, what your guy's opinion

The standard has to be God, for it to be truly objective.

This question on the subjective state of morals is not any different than calling moral law relative or plural. Which is logically impossible.

On this site, I have given 2 arguments for objective moral standard. In the philosophy section, we are currently discussing relativism and pluralism.

I suggest checking those out.


Btw Echoside, "cultural differences" cited as a moral relativist or pluralist position commits the genetic fallacy

domokunrox wrote: Btw Echoside, "cultural differences" cited as a moral relativist or pluralist position commits the genetic fallacy

He assumed subjective morality existed in the question. Obviously if morals were subjective cultural differences would come into play as to what is right and wrong, and who it applies to.