Even if God exists (huge if) morality can't be objective.

A thread.

Morality is an abstract concept which concerns itself about distinguishing 'good' from 'bad' actions. Religious people refer to their holy scriptures as they consider it as a objective anchor for their "morality".

In this thread I will be challenging that notion.

(This whole thread follows assuming theism is valid.)

I'm beginning with a very basic argument regarding theistic moral values, namely the Eutyphro dilemma.

According to Plato's Eutyphro, Eutyphro and Socrates were having a conversation one day discussing the nature of piety..

Eutyphro ended at the conclusion that piety is that which is loved by all of the gods therefore making it 'good',

That's when Socrates challenged his notion, asking whether the gods love the good because it is the good, or rather it is good since it is loved by the gods....

They contemplated the first notion: ofcourse, the gods love the good because it is good. This, however, leaves us no room for the second option: the notion that the gods love something because it is good does not explain why or how it is good...

This can easily be applied to a monotheistic God. If a religious person claims X is wrong because God said so, then it begs the question: "How does God determine right from wrong?"

If X is wrong because God knows it is wrong, then there must be a external basis as to where God..

..gets his moral rulings from. The problem however, if this external basis exists, then that means that morality is not dependent on God and therefore God is not needed for ethical issues.

If however something is from just because of the simple fact that God said so, then that..

..entails that morality is arbitrary, considering the moral claim has no other reasoning other than 'because God said so,'

That means that morality is subject to God's will, and therefore you are just abiding by the arbitrary will of Him. A religious person can argue that...

..because of God's all powerful nature, he can easily decide right from wrong, and therefore there is no problem with him setting out moral rulings.

The problem here is that power does not necessarily dictate objectivity, since that would mean that the country with the most...

..nuclearheads can set out moral rulings out of nowhere, if we follow that logic.

Now, here's the rub. Theists can argue that hellfire contains a supernatural property in which everyone sent there would dislike being in hell and therefore not following God would be irrational..

..and they say that rightfully so. But why does something being irrational necessarily make it "wrong"?

From an Islamic perspective, doing wudhu (ritual washing which qualifies a person for prayer) everytime before prayer time, even if your washing is still valid...

...would be irrational as there is objectively no need for you to do it.

This is however fine within the quran and sunnah, and as far as i know there is no fatwa against excessive washing.

Something being irrational =/= it being "wrong".

This was my thread. If you disagree with any of the above things i have just mentioned, feel free to add me on it and also explain as to why you disagree. I am happy to hear opposing views.

Thank you for your time and have a good day.

-End of thread.