Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

All human morals are COMPLETLY subjective and arbitrary, Do you agree or disagree?

This is coming from a liberal Atheist AntiNatalist point of view so please don't answer with religious/Christian moral non-sense. We don't have a full moral theory on how morals come to be the way that they are but it's reasonable to believe that pragmaticism geared us toward empathy and compassion because it was evolutionary advantageous toward social cooperation being able to relate to unknown people beyond our immediate family and because of the development of mirror neurons. It takes time for morals to become as objective as they feel such as not murdering or raping people which is why people in ancient time had no problem with committing "atrocities" because they believed they were "God's people" and "had his divine reassurance in that what they were doing was morally right" Now there's no rational reason to believe that we live in a universe guided by a monster that would want to create as much suffering as possible especially against Animals and especially against innocent animals that could be abused by a psychopath and if he created this universe then I would gladly walk to hell in protest. 

Update:

in response to the anonymous dummy. All morals whether right or wrong must be emotional driven and in most cases most morals require social cooperation. You completely missed the point I was trying to make that empathy and compassion precede animalistic instincts from the cavemen days which is why bible morality **** like slavery and genocide are not compatible with Today's urban society. There really is no objective obligation to do anything or not do anything. 

Update 2:

The suffering of animals is not based on emotion you dummy. It is based on the way nature works. The reason we Atheists reject your Yahweh monster is because it is unacceptable for him to create such a monstrosity and expect us to worship him.  

20 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    Hi guy.

    Here's some of my conclusions with people and their behaviors.

    WE ARE A SELFISH SPECIES! Often times we act on our selfish desires, whether that is to eat, to pee or sleep, to have sex (lust), they are ALL because of our INNATE drive to survive.         (Sex is so that our genes survive into the next generation!)

    Everything else, can usually take a back seat!!

    People's views and priorities in order of importance.. since SOME variation of the top three...

    +Themselves (and if they are religious, add something on top,  number O, and that's God!).

    +Their loved ones including their parents, siblings and children.

    +Their job/career.

    +Everything and everyone else.

    The truth. 

    Source(s): My 36 going on 37 years of life exp as an Asian Filipina living in the U.S.
  • Aspen
    Lv 4
    2 months ago

    Human morals are social constructions. They aren’t based in nature. And they can vary from culture to culture. That doesn’t mean they don’t have value. They are what makes society function. 

  • Herve
    Lv 6
    2 months ago

    Evolutionary psychology says no.

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Sorry but sentences such as "The reason we Atheists reject your Yahweh monster is because it is unacceptable for him to create such a monstrosity and expect us to worship him." make it seem like you are not an atheist but you actually do believe that gods exist and you have chosen to not worship them. Atheists know there are no gods. People who believe in the existence of gods are deluded. So you seem as deluded as people who actually worship gods.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    You have zero understanding of theology and don't get to make things up.  Atheists are haters by definition and in no position to judge anything.

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    I would disagree.

    I seems more that you have had issues since childhood. Were you molested by a Catholic priest (and I do mean it seriously and not in a sarcastic way)?

  • 2 months ago

    I think it’s culturally contextual.  So maybe, and I also think you want to rant about religion and I understand that but recognize it alienates people. 

     

    It makes one wonder your true intent.  Religion is part of culture. So is your outspoken atheism.  Lately, during these Trump years, we have really seen people that just lash out at each other. 

     

    Does it suit us?  Does alienation suit us?  Are we best suited when we build walls?  

     

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Disagree. There is a necessary logical connection back to reality based on the scarcity of resources since, if resources were not scarce, then A's use of resources could not conflict with B's, and no moral issue would arise. 

    This means that, at the very minimum, there is a possibility of inter-human conflict, and conflicts of claims of right,  concerning the physical stuff of one's body, or the physical space one occupies. 

    This means that, for one to deny this, one must use those scarce resources, and thus perform a self-contradiction. Therefore all human morals are not completely subjective and arbitray since either a) one admits this statement, in which case there is no issue, orb) one denies it, in which case one performs a self-contradiction by using non-completely-subjective, non-merely-arbitrary, scarce means to make one's argument. One cannot argue that one cannot argue. Any ethical argument necessarily presupposes that the parties acknowledge the objective right of the parties to appropriate the resources from nature to comprise their physical body, and occupy their physical space, and use their body, and often subsidiary rights of property as well, such as pen and paper, in order to make and have the argument.Note that this argumentation ethic does not presuppose any theistic or supernatural premise.

    If it were not true, because one party denied the possibility of self-ownership, then he could not participate in the argument, since it would be common ground that we would have to go back a step to whoever he claims is the person or party who has the right to use his body to make the argument, see?

    QED.

  • Mike W
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    I disagree with the notion that all morality is subjective, and arbitrary.  We couldn't function as a society if there weren't any rules that we all agreed on to govern our behaviour.  

  • 2 months ago

    One man's morals are often another man's anathema.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.