@@peezieforestem5078 I think it is a principled can not because it is necessary to believe in God to ground morality according to the theist argument that morality is objective only due to God's existence.
@@LUKSTUFF Yes in that God is a reasonable explanation for the universe and anything and everything within it having a purpose. And morality is predicated on fulfilling a purpose. I am open to other explanations for how we could have a real purpose while also being a complete cosmic accident but I have yet to hear anything that seems remotely rational that can simultaneously hold both of those ideas.
I think atheism and objective morality CAN indeed be reconciled, but I never saw any atheist online try to make that argument. But in the interest of intellectual honesty, one could argue that moral laws are as objective as mathematical laws. A lot of atheists accept that mathematical truths are objective and are true regardless of existence of humans. You could argue that moral laws "exist" in the same "realm" But I rarely saw this argument. For some reason, atheists often reject moral objectivism under all costs, which I find silly. Of course, this is just my experience and what I saw people usually stand behind
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
Morality doesn't exist, except as a language game.
Good stuff man, always gotta love a good philsoophical hot-take
You should talk about this with Planet Peterson
They can have morality they just can't ground specifically objective morality in anything real. And subjective morality is an oxymoron.
When you use the words "can't" here, do you mean "currently can not", or do you mean "in principle can not"?
@@peezieforestem5078 I think it is a principled can not because it is necessary to believe in God to ground morality according to the theist argument that morality is objective only due to God's existence.
@@LUKSTUFF Yes in that God is a reasonable explanation for the universe and anything and everything within it having a purpose. And morality is predicated on fulfilling a purpose. I am open to other explanations for how we could have a real purpose while also being a complete cosmic accident but I have yet to hear anything that seems remotely rational that can simultaneously hold both of those ideas.
I think atheism and objective morality CAN indeed be reconciled, but I never saw any atheist online try to make that argument.
But in the interest of intellectual honesty, one could argue that moral laws are as objective as mathematical laws. A lot of atheists accept that mathematical truths are objective and are true regardless of existence of humans. You could argue that moral laws "exist" in the same "realm"
But I rarely saw this argument. For some reason, atheists often reject moral objectivism under all costs, which I find silly. Of course, this is just my experience and what I saw people usually stand behind
@@methatis3013 You can add 1 atheist who is moral objectivist to your list. I personally see them fairly often, but it's still a minority.