Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @fmf
What is it you seek to make "obligatory" for me ~ in terms of my behaviour and interactions with others ~ about which you think my moral principles don't already create, for me, the sense of obligation that governs me?

If objective morals don't exist nothing is obligatory.

Originally posted by @fmf
Because of the stuff I wrote when I explained the nature of morality - it's source, nature and purpose, which - judging by this question of yours - you didn't read, didn't understand, or read it, understood it, but you are now ignoring it.

If everyone has the right to describe good and evil as they see fit (since no objective morals exist) and if people call that which you call good, evil, and that which you call evil, good, then you cannot know that that which you call good really is good and that which you call evil really is evil because true good and evil don't exist it is all just an illusion.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If everyone has the right to describe good and evil as they see fit (since no objective morals exist) and if people call that which you call good, evil, and that which you call evil, good, then you cannot know that that which you call good really is good and that which you call evil really is evil because true good and evil don't exist it is all just an allusion.

No, morality is not an illusion. It's very real. I described why in some detail in several of my posts on this thread and on several threads stretching back to last year.

Your interactions with me display almost no acknowledgement of or reference to the details of what I say, nor any understanding; instead, you just repeat the same little oblivious sloganeering-assertions-questions over and over and over again.

Your pretentions that your morality is somehow different from others in terms of its source and purpose - that it is somehow "objective" for this reason - is an illusion on your part, at least to my way of thinking.

Originally posted by @fmf
No, morality is not an illusion. It's very real. I described why in some detail in several of my posts on this thread and on several threads stretching back to last year.

Your interactions with me display almost no acknowledgement of or reference to the details of what I say, nor any understanding; instead, you just repeat the same little oblivious sloganee ...[text shortened]... mehow "objective" for this reason - is an illusion on your part, at least to my way of thinking.

I did not say morality is an illusion I said the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are an illusion if there is no objective morality. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ is simply what everyone decides it to be if morality is subjective. That you cannot seem to acknowledge such a simple fact is beyond me.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If objective morals don't exist, how is the opinion that it is wrong to torture babies for fun any more valid that the opinion that it isn't?

There is a planet in the Universe where once every 100 years
the Supreme Being (you may call her "God" ) requires that the
inhabitants torture a baby for 1 minute to ensure that the billions
do not spend eternity in torment.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I did not say morality is an illusion I said the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are an illusion if there is no objective morality. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ is simply what everyone decides it to be if morality is subjective. That you cannot seem to acknowledge such a simple fact is beyond me.

Good and "evil" are, in no circumstances, aside perhaps from where bad mental health is involved - like with psychopathy or some kind of severe sociopathy, an "illusion". They are very real.

But if you can't perceive good and "evil" without reference to your notions of supernatural causality, then so be it. Your personal liking for and preoccupation with that mythology is a product of your conditioning and socialization, and is just as subjective as everybody else's moral sensibilities; it has nothing to do with being "objective".

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Morality for you is also just like shooting randomly and then calling whatever you hit the target. No one can argue with that.

What you seem to not want to understand is FM is saying morality is about actions a person takes, not his or her opinions or thoughts.

You can think all you want about wanting to kill your mom but it does not reach the level of morality until you act on that thought.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If objective morals don't exist nothing is obligatory.

How about an answer to the question your "reply" sidestepped?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If everyone has the right to describe good and evil as they see fit (since no objective morals exist) and if people call that which you call good, evil, and that which you call evil, good, then you cannot know that that which you call good really is good and that which you call evil really is evil because true good and evil don't exist it is all just an illusion.

Catchy.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why would I have to choose between only those two options? 🙄

It doesn't matter why. We could invent scenarios until our pencils run out of lead. What matters is that you don't like thought experiments that challenge your view.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
... ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ is simply what everyone decides it to be if morality is subjective. ...

This is the case even when people decide morality is objective.

Originally posted by @fmf
Good and "evil" are, in no circumstances, aside perhaps from where bad mental health is involved - like with psychopathy or some kind of severe sociopathy, an "illusion". They are very real.

But if you can't perceive good and "evil" without reference to your notions of supernatural causality, then so be it. Your personal liking for and preoccupation with th ...[text shortened]... subjective as everybody else's moral sensibilities; it has nothing to do with being "objective".

1. Assuming God does exist and He establishes the boundaries for good and evil, kindly demonstrate how our personal feelings, tastes, or opinions would affect those boundaries.

2. Demonstrate how 'good' and 'evil' can be real if they are influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions and hence can be defined in a contradictory manner.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Assuming God does exist and He establishes the boundaries for good and evil, kindly demonstrate how our personal feelings, tastes, or opinions would affect those boundaries.

Assuming I am God, why are you disagreeing with me?

Try that as a thought exercise first.

Me "assuming God does exist" doesn't make your subjective, personal opinions and superstitions "objective" here in the real world.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Demonstrate how 'good' and 'evil' can be real if they are influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions and hence can be defined in a contradictory manner.

I believe I have already addressed this issue in previous discussions. Refer to them.

Originally posted by @fmf
Assuming I am God, why are you disagreeing with me?

Try that as a thought exercise first.

Me "assuming God does exist" doesn't make your subjective, personal opinions and superstitions "objective" here in the real world.

Assuming God does exist makes Him the universal lawgiver, so our personal feelings, tastes, or opinions do not change His laws.