DiscussMormonism.com

Ceeboo asks:

I'm curious, what if humans don't agree with one another about what promoting a "moral society" would be/is? Doesn't universal/objective morality need to come from somewhere as a starting point? If so, where would you propose this objective morality comes from?

Matt Dillahunty notes that almost any debate/discussion over religion/God regardless of the starting topic always ends up debating morality.

I believe Matt states the case better than most I have heard. Instead of me trying to do it any justice spend 30 minutes listening to the following presentation: Atheist Debates - Morality

Ceebs' comment implies one needs to confront the Euthyphro dilemma again if one asserts a divine command theory of ethics. But one could also go back to the question, "Doesn't universal/objective morality need to come from somewhere as a starting point?" Does morality have to be universal or objective? If the answer to that is, "yes", then Euthyphro dilemma. But if no, then one is off in a more interesting direction, determining on what basis morality can be decided if it isn't a product of some divine external divine law.

I asked several years back on this board for an example of a moral that has been universal across human history - I don't think anyone produced such.

SteelHead wrote:I asked several years back on this board for an example of a moral that has been universal across human history - I don't think anyone produced such.

Farting outside. Always has been moral. Always will.

honorentheos wrote:Ceebs' comment implies one needs to confront the Euthyphro dilemma again if one asserts a divine command theory of ethics. But one could also go back to the question, "Doesn't universal/objective morality need to come from somewhere as a starting point?" Does morality have to be universal or objective? If the answer to that is, "yes", then Euthyphro dilemma. But if no, then one is off in a more interesting direction, determining on what basis morality can be decided if it isn't a product of some divine external divine law.

To hear Matt's take on the Euthyphro dilemma (he words it a bit differently) jump to 26:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAQFYgyEACI

The first part of Ceeboo's question is addressed by Matt at 18:25

Matt's take on Steelheads comment above jump to 9:50

Ceeboo, please note a timestamp of the video for things that you would like to discuss. He covers a broad set of thoughts on the topic

In all cases, eventually, universal and objective morality is achieved and made manifest by the person(s) in the room with the biggest gun.

subgenius wrote:In all cases, eventually, universal and objective morality desire is achieved and made manifest by the person(s) in the room with the biggest gun.

Fixed that for you. ; )

RockSlider wrote:Ceeboo asks:

I'm curious, what if humans don't agree with one another about what promoting a "moral society" would be/is? Doesn't universal/objective morality need to come from somewhere as a starting point? If so, where would you propose this objective morality comes from?

Ceeboo might want to ponder where the concepts of love or care originate from, including the instructions for either.

subgenius wrote:In all cases, eventually, universal and objective morality is achieved and made manifest by the person(s) in the room with the biggest gun.

You are confusing power with oughtness. It's a common error in thinking among sociopaths.

SteelHead wrote:I asked several years back on this board for an example of a moral that has been universal across human history - I don't think anyone produced such.

I think you are looking for a moral view that has had universal agreement across human history? That would be hard to come up with because people naturally disagree about and progressively learn more about the world. It's almost impossible to come up with an interesting fact about the natural world that all people have believed through human history. No matter how trivial to idea, someone, somewhere has disagreed.

This should be kept distinct from whether there are moral principles that universally apply to people. That's a defensible position. It's more than defensible, in fact. Universalism seems built into the meaning of moral statements.