JusticeMachine

I find athiest don't believe in absolute truth, morally or otherwise. I contend that moral relativism will always lead to anarchy if left alone, because of the instability and fickelness of human opinion. When you destroy the moral fabric of a society, it breaks down and de-evolves. The moral fabric of a society depends on the belief that the morals of that society are objective.

tribalbeeyatch

Some do, and some don't.Not all moral relativists are anarchists; what evidence do you have to support your contention?And when you repeat yourself, you are being redundant.What is "moral fabric", and why should we care if it breaks down?

I believe that the death penalty is immoral, but I know that other people disagree with me. Does this recognition of the fact that my moral opinions are not absolute put my "moral fabric" in jeopardy?

JusticeMachine

Moral fabric is the commonality of (moral) belief that a society ascibes to as a whole. Not everyone, necessarily, agrees with every aspect of it, but the core beliefs are accepted as objectivly true. Futher more, to the same extent that these core beliefs are attacked and subjegated, the society that they govern becomes that much weaker, until it is in open revolt - i.e. anarchy

Majestyk

Governments derive their power to govern from the consent of the governed. Theism or the lack of it are irrelevant to the "strength" of a government.

And a little revolution is a necessary thing, every now and then. It purges the institution of corrupt officials that view the government as their personal path to wealth and power.

One Winged Angel

Your problem is that you assume there is an absolute moral standard. That assumption is false. There are no morals without humans. A good example of this is the way animals work. The most treasured moral principle, that most people agree with, is that killing is wrong. However, animals kill each other all the time. In fact, without killing other animals, some animals themselves will die.

So your entire arguement is wrong, because it is based on an assumption that is false. Rethink, and resubmit.

tribalbeeyatch

I appreciate your partial answer to my post, but you've yet to support your contention that atheism -> anarchy (or that atheism -> moral relativism and moral relativism -> anarcy).

You might want to also tell me how your 'objective moral fabric' differs substantially from the plain ol' intersubjective morality that I see in effect in societies today. The "not everyone agrees with every aspect of it" part of your definition of 'moral fabric' seems entirely inconsistent with it being "accepted as objectively true", but perfectly in line with these morals being arrived at intersubjectively.

meritocrat

Where is your evidence for objective morality?

Who states that all atheists are subjectivists?

JusticeMachine

No, what I am talking about is the belief that your beliefs are objective.

It may very well be true that a persons or societies moral beliefs are subjective, but for that society/person to believe that their moral beliefs are objective give power to that belief.

If a society has a set of unquestion core beliefs that are held as objective, that society will last only so long as it holds those core beliefs in an objective regard. Barring being taken over by another contry.

Jinto

So then you would suggest that a society would be better off with the FALSE belief that it's ideas of morality are objective over the TRUE belief that it is not an objective arbiter of morality?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.

If a society holds a set of unquestioning core beliefs held as objective, then humanity will be better off if that society doesn't last. Have you learned nothing from the Dark Ages? Nazi Germany? Afghanistan? Any country ruled by a theocracy?

One Winged Angel

The problem here is that you believe that something, anything, can be totally objective. That is not possible. We filter everything we, see, feel, experience through the lens that is ourselves, making total objectivity impossible. Partial objectivity is just as bad as being subjective, because it comes from objective people.

Quote:

If a society has a set of unquestion core beliefs that are held as objective, that society will last only so long as it holds those core beliefs in an objective regard. Barring being taken over by another contry.

How do you explain America lasting over 200 years? Our beliefs are far from unquestioned, and in fact have undergone radical change(i.e. slavery). Yet we are not an anarchy, nor do we appear to be sliding into one(though that is an opinion, with no evidence to back it up).