Why objective morality is proven using the Copernican Principle and how to easily defeat the subjective morality followers cultic teachings

[Exorcist_Rampage]

I will discuss how we definitely know that objective morality is true and subjective morality is false. I will cover 4 contingent grounds that back up the morality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

Objective Morality is true

The reason objective morality is true is partly due to any observation of good or evil must yield from a grounding source. Over 96% of people believe this source to be God but despite whether God is the source or not, it is easy to show the source has objective roots. Anything you name to be good is good whether or not you say it is good. Let us say that you get the revelation that choosing to extend your life without as much stress and pain is good. Well this will be good for all and not just good and would be good even it you said it was evil. Let us take evil for example. Any evil action is evil even if you say it is good. If you burn people at the stake for walking on your property by tying them up, then doing it, it is evil and the evil is always evil even if you say it is good. Your observation of the action is not opinion but is a set standard of evil. No matter who does this act, it is evil and the reason doesn't matter. If they are mentally healthy, they will be held accountable for their evil deed.

Subjective Morality is false

Subjective morality is easy to show false. Anything that is left to opinion would not get an outrage from known people showing their emotions. Let's say that a person says that maximizing well being of a person is moral. Then their standard is of objective value even if they claim to be subjectively applying principles to it. There would be a set way to determine what moral action was done. Also, lets say a person says it is my opinion that rape is evil and that their opinion is that rape is good. Well using their claimed standard of maximizing well being as being moral, they contradicted their stance. If an action was truly subjective, then no rage would one. People rage when hearing murder being a chosen action of an evil person or end up very thrilled to know a person saved their cat from a fire. If these actions were subjective as being moral, then their expressions would be not be indicative of a known evil versus a known good action. Liking anchovies on a pizza is an opinion. Choosing whether murder is good or evil is not an opinion but objectively good and our expressions match so.

Confusing ideas of objectivity and subjectivity

The main reason people think thinks are subjective that have an objective root is due to their sinful nature wanting to be in final control of their life and everything and not depending on the eternal source of morality to make our choices. It is human nature to want to be in control. People think that whether or not rape is moral or immoral is akin to whether or not anchovies on a pizza is lovely tasting or gross tasting.

Good versus evil are opinions without God

If you are a denier of God's existence, then there is no good and no evil in your view even though you are unaware of that. Anything would go. To rage at what you call evil, would be futile if there is no Hell to go to for it. If you ended up feeding the hungry and I murdered 3 people and we both died in a car wreck in a few hours and our deeds went unpunished, then it is asinine to call what you did good and what I did evil since there must yield an objective standard to differentiate the good from the evil but morality must transcend our title of saying it is good or evil and yield a result. If we both had an afterlife of nothingness, then your good and my evil would be equal. If we just made up terms to be good or evil, then you are objectively thinking your standard is the standard by which you should get mad at if people violated. If a person ended up doing something you think is evil, you would rightly rage because you know evil must be punished. If you think it was subjective, you wouldn't rage when others aren't living up to your standards of morality.

Conclusion:

People want to dictate what is objectivity and what is subjective in terms of morality. People like being in control and not depending on the source if morality. Nobody can be their own source of morality. Any observation of morality is misinterpreting it. Morality is objective and there is nothing you can do to change the fact that if there is no Hell, there is no evil. Evil must be punished and you know it. Good must be rewarded. Whether you do it for those reasons is meaningless because if left to opinion for everything, anything goes and that is chaos. Thanks for reading!

[btbc92]

Very well written. Though I would say use some references to Atheist models vs. traditional mottos like "do unto others as you do unto yourself" to show the contradictions people have to fit their narrative.

[BlacklightShade]

@Exorcist_Rampage is a disturbed individual. He's been PM'ing me all kinds of crazy crap and posting weird accusations on other threads. He accused me of threatening to feed him meat, threatening his sister and him with a knife, and insisting I was married to another GaGer who logs into my account and deletes all these physical threats I've allegedly been making against him.

Read some of his last posts on another thread: How aware are you that atheism is a spiritual impossibility? ↗

[esotericstory]

I would say that power is good and weakness is evil. All that is good can only come from power. That which is not so must be evil.

[lightbulb27]

Wouldn't that make Hitler good? Was Jesus super powerful given he could do amazing things (reportedly), or weak because he let people kill him without a fight?

[Jjpayne]

Interesting take! Nicely done!

[Jjpayne]

Thank you for the MHO!!!

[Optymistyk]

This is a gross misinterpretation of the copernican principle (mediocrity principle). Morality can't be objective because different people have different definitions of good and evil.

For example you say murder is bad, but if you were to go to the past and kill Hittler before the war erupted many would tell you you did the right thing, sparring countless Innocent lives. But a lot of these same people might say you did wrong if you killed Hittler as a baby since he was still Innocent at that point.

You might go hunting to feed a hungry family and many would tell you you did right, but for example many people believe animal lives are just as valuable as human lives so you should just let them hunger instead of killing an innocent being

Even if you believe god is the source of all good, you have to ask which god? There's hundreds of religions to choose from. If you are catholic then even your Bible has contradictions. For example it says do not kill, but at one point god says gay people should be stoned to death. Which, by the way, I have a problem with and think is totally evil

[AbleLearner]

Objective Morality can be defined with respect to the First Cause. Since we know the First Cause must be entirely self-motivated, the only thing we know of that can be entirely self-motivated is a Free Moral Agent. Therefore an actual God exists, and Good and Evil can be defined in terms of his own eternal attributes.

The only reason an Almighty God would create anything outside of himself would be to express his own eternal love to that creation, as he gains nothing personally from creation, already being Almighty. It's also provable that an Almighty Being cannot tell a lie and cannot violate it's own nature and cannot change himself, already being Almighty nothing can be added or taken away from his own existence. therefore, the Copernican Principle is derivable from God's own attributes.

Therefore, anything that is against Love or against the Truth is inherently Objectively Evil.

[Optymistyk]

@AbleLearner the only thing we know that can be self-motivated is a Free Moral Agent. Therefore God.

Umm, no. There's no reason for the First Cause to be a being, it can just be a physical or quantum phenomenon, like quantum fluctuation which causes vacuum particles to appear out of nothing before they cease to exist moments later. If they can be created out of nothing then it's possible the universe was also spontaneously born out of nothing with no God involved.

Also the First Cause might not even exist in the first place, some theories of the universe predict that the universe is cyclical in nature and after it dies it is reborn infinitely

[AbleLearner]

No, it can't.

Virtual Particles don't come from "nothing" (From Nothing comes nothing).

Virtual Particles come from Zero Point Energy which makes up the space-time fabric, and they only exist for literally one Planck unit of time, which is why they are called virtual particles in the first place.

Cyclical Universe theories have been disproven a long time ago. String Theory proves the Universe is not a cycle. Besides, a cycle would eventually be destroyed by Entropy or some other Ontological principle like that. Moreover, you would still need an actual First Cause to create the cycle in the first place.

The First Cause cannot be "nothing itself" as nothing has no creative power (Descartest et al).

You have been mislead by a misleading interpretation of Quantum Theory and by cranks like Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss.

the Universe could not be created from nothing itself, because matter and energy within the Universe cannot be created or destroyed, they can only be changed from one form to another.

Therefore something self-eternal and outside the Universe created the Universe, as nothing inside the Universe could have created the Universe.

String theory was originally invented to try to explain away the Universe without the need for a God, and ultimately the String Theorists have concluded that the Multiverse described by the theory could only have existed if it was created by a pre-existing intelligence (Dr. Michio Kaku, 2017, formerly an Agnostic).

[AbleLearner]

For example, we also know the Universe is not a cycle, because we know from WMAP and other instruments that the Universe is Euclidean to one part in one hundred trillion. This means it doesn't have any exotic geometry and we aren't living inside any type of time loop or other cycle, and we also are not living inside a giant black hole nor any other type of exotic object, etc.

[Deathraider]

I disagree. People can have strong opinions and strong feelings on things that are subjective.

The thing is that questions about what is and what ought are two different things. It is true that millions of people are suffering, but how does that fact imply that I ought to help these people? You might say that I have a societal responsibility since I’m a member of a society or that helping people will maximize the wellbeing of all people or numerous other explanations. But then ask, why ought I fulfill my societal responsibilities? Why ought I maximize the well being of people? This is known as the Is ought gap. You can’t derive what one ought to do only based on what is true. If I asked why I ought to do x, you might give a principle (call it y). I can ask you “So what, why is y a good reason?” And this can continue indefinitely.

So how then do we have similar moral views? Well we’re raised in a society with a certain belief that uses “moral axioms”. Statements like “People should have the freedom to voice their opinions.” From there, we derive out what it is that we ought to do. Now obviously people deviate from these ideas, but they mostly stick to certain ideas they were raised with.

Good and evil exist as concepts we made and implemented into society as a whole.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

Wrong. Morals are grounded, not voted upon and decided. What's moral is always moral regardless of minds being able to decipher it. Even your own claimed people like Tom Jump agrees that morals are objective and he is a declared atheist.

[Deathraider]

I don’t know who Tom Jump is, but you do understand that not all atheist are the same, right? I don’t see how the fact that he’s an atheist automatically imply we have the same ideas when it comes to morality.

by the way, didn’t you state “Good versus evil are opinions without God”

Look, I get why you don’t want to think of them as opinions. It seems like they’re less valuable as a result. But you need to understand what makes some valuable or not is entirely subjective. The question about what ought to be and what is are fundamental different. Is claims are descriptive, they describe the world, whereas ought claims are normative, they provide norms on how people ought to act. That is why you cannot derive an ought claim from an is claim.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

Right but you have this notion of an assumption that objective morality is an impossible thing. You have this notion that always must the case be that we dictate what is moral and what is not moral. I am saying my definition for it to be moral or immoral must have a grounding principle. You may want to listen to Tom Jump on this scenario. I know that all people who consider themselves to be atheists are not equal in their mindset. Just watch 4 videos and you'll be amazed. here is his YouTube channel (try to watch the videos that are 30+ minutes especially):

www.youtube.com/channel/UCHXrvsK33VUEcpa4Ar0c0Sg

[Deathraider]

Okay. Suppose we use your definition of morality. That still doesn’t answer the questions like for example “Why is it that someone ought not kill?”

[Exorcist_Rampage]

I already told you. Murder has objective grounding and isn't opinion. If it's an opinion, you can't get mad at it. It's not like disliking anchovies on pizza. Also, murder is objectively immoral because it devalues human life and causes harm without any benefits. There is nothing about murder that builds character. It destroys who we are in God's image. We, me and you, both are made in God's image. I accept it. You reject it.

[Deathraider]

There are things that are subjective, yet we could get mad about it. Offensive things can get people mad, yet what constitutes as offensive or not is subjective.

Well I ask again, why ought we not devalue human life? For that matter, who’s benefit really matter? Well the answer to who’s benefit really matters depends on who you ask.

Again, you haven’t said why we ought not murder, only giving more claims about what one ought to value. See, this is the problem of the is ought gap. You can’t take facts about the world and attempt to claim how things should be.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

Right but certain things are objective. Wet and dry are objective, not subjective. I feel that good and evil are objective and so does 65% of people, not that popularity wins but with so many people feeling that, there must be a great reasoning to it.

Watch Tom Jump from YouTube Tjump and he will explain why morality must be grounded objectively. Don't discount him until you've heard his case. This man associates as an atheist, yet he even feels that God could exist and that morality is objective. 99% of claimed atheists claim subjective morality usually due to they don't like the notion or idea of accountability. That is mainly the contributing factor.

If you learned that morality was objective, would that change your life or how you view the universe at large?

[Deathraider]

No, I don’t think morality is objective because of the is ought gap. Many people have tried to derive what one ought to do from what is true, without success. As I said, the statement about what is and what should be are qualitatively different.

Why would it?

[Exorcist_Rampage]

You might not think it is objective but doesn't mean you are right showcasing it as subjective.

People have defeated the is-ought debate before also. So there is no lasting winning stance using that as your fallback case.

[Deathraider]

Objective: not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fair or real.
Subjective: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts.

Give me one argument that is even valid that manages to solve the is ought problem.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

Are you asking me to convince you how morals may be objective only and leave no doubt for you applying it can be subjective or is subjective but must yield objective?

[Deathraider]

I am simply asking how could you derive a statement about what one ought to do just off of what is true. Imagine if you wanted to explain to a hypothetical person why you ought not kill. Now of course you can’t assume that this person shares any of your beliefs of what you ought to do prior to trying to convince him. You can’t assume he has the same wants or desire. Just using facts of what is true.

This illustrates the is ought problem.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

Right but this is/ought question has been answered and shown that the is win and ought losses.

I explained fully why certain moralities are indeed objectively wrong and didn't use any subjectivity.

www.kialo.com/...of-another-persons-life-10057.154

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-truth.htm

www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/is-god-real.htm

[Deathraider]

None of these arguments actually address how one would bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be.
Notice in some of these, there are statements that are predicated on ought statements. For example: “Moral relativism cheapens human life.” That doesn’t say anything about whether morality is objective or subjective. It’s an ought statement. It’s like if I tried saying “Well there can’t be death, after all it’s a terrible thing that harms people.” It’s a non-sequitur.

I see no issue with the absence of objective morality. Imagine you wanted to convince someone murder is wrong. You have to know what the person values or believe is right or wrong, then demonstrate that their ideas imply that murder is wrong. You have you work within their moral axioms.

[Exorcist_Rampage]

William Lane Craig and Jason Lisle can prove objective morality.

[Massageman]

Good points and very well done.