Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I wasn't presenting anything as proof for an objective moral standard.

I didn't claim you were. You claimed that our discussion is akin to me trying to convince Wolfsbane of evolution, and that because it is up to him to decide to accept it or not that must mean according to me evolution is subjective.

I was pointing out how nonsense your point was. There are objective measurements to support evolution. There is nothing objective to support the assertion that there is an objective morality. It is purely a subjective opinion held by some. Which makes any appeal to objective morality all subjective anyway. As we like to say 1 theory of electromagnetism, 40,000 religions

PDN wrote: »

I was pointing out the difference between believing in an objective moral standard or not, and the consequences of being consistent in those beliefs.

Well that wasn't actually the question I asked (ironic given you are giving out I'm not reading your posts correctly), but your "consequences of being consistent" is a nonsense point that has been ripped to pieces many times on this forum.

The idea that if we all believe morality is subjective then we will not be able to justify stopping things we consider bad from happening because we have no way of demonstrating it is objectively bad is a straw man, though that doesn't stop it being consistently rehashed on this forum.

In reality we have no way to demonstrate something is objectively bad or not anyway and that doesn't stop us stopping people doing things we believe are bad. If you are doing something I consider immoral I will attempt to stop you, even though I believe in subjective morality. You can say I can't prove it is wrong, but my response is I don't care I'm still going to stop you. And vice versa. If you tried to stop me doing something you consider immoral I could say you cannot prove it is, and you would no doubt not care.

People who do not believe in an objective morality simply realize this, where as those who believe in objective morality seem to be just kidding themselves that their subjective moral opinions are some how likely to be in line with the mythical objective standard.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

I didn't claim you were. You claimed that our discussion is akin to me trying to convince Wolfsbane of evolution, and that because it is up to him to decide to accept it or not that must mean according to me evolution is subjective.

I was pointing out how nonsense your point was. There are objective measurements to support evolution. There is nothing objective to support the assertion that there is an objective morality. It is purely a subjective opinion held by some. Which makes any appeal to objective morality all subjective anyway. As we like to say 1 theory of electromagnetism, 40,000 religions

More goal post shifting.

You argued that, because different people disagree about morality, that therefore it is more likely that there is not an objective true morality.

I pointed out to you that was a massive non-sequitur. Disagreement over an issue does not, in any shape or form, carry any implication as to an objective reality lies behind the issue or not.

It is a clear and unescapable point - and, despite all your squirming and obfuscation, you have not provided a coherent response to it.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

More goal post shifting.

You argued that, because different people disagree about morality, that therefore it is more likely that there is not an objective true morality.

I pointed out to you that was a massive non-sequitur. Disagreement over an issue does not, in any shape or form, carry any implication as to an objective reality lies behind the issue or not.

It is a clear and unescapable point - and, despite all your squirming and obfuscation, you have not provided a coherent response to it.

But when all comes to all, it is a meaningless point PDN , for arguments sake lets us concede there is an objective moral code out there- so what ?

How do we objectively interpret it ? Your interpretation will be different that mine and both of us will differ from Mullah Omar and we will all believe we are right.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

More goal post shifting.

You argued that, because different people disagree about morality, that therefore it is more likely that there is not an objective true morality.

Er, no I didn't?

I argued that there is no tangible difference between a world where there is objective morality but no one knows what it is and is just subjectively guessing what it might be, and a world where there is none at all.

I've no idea if there is actually objective morality. I think it is very unlikely given that morality appears to simply be a product of human instincts and reasoning which were developed by evolution.

But equally I don't think it matters a jolt, for two reasons.

Firstly until someone can actually measure this objective morality and demonstrate someone is actually right or wrong in any meaningful fashion other just their opinion, all moral decisions are subjective.

And as I hopefully demonstrated in the Rev. King thought experiment, even if it turned out that something I believed was right, such as equal rights among whites and blacks, was actually wrong I wouldn't care. Neither would you. The only morality that ever genuinely matters to us is our own.

PDN

PDN wrote:

It is wrong to torture babies to death for the fun of it. Now, you can view that statement in one of two ways:

a) It describes a moral absolute. That means that torturing babies to death as a recreational activity is always wrong, and always will be wrong, irrespective of any circumstances. That is objective morality.

b) It describes a social construct that has evolved to aid the survival of our species. That means that, because of our particular circumstances, we don't like the concept of torturing babies to death as a recreational activity. But, since morality is subjective, it is perfectly possible that another society might find it biologically useful to treat babies in such a manner. And, if that society does come to such a conclusion, then their position is no more right or wrong than ours. Since there is no objective morality, their behaviour towards children is, essentially, a matter of preference such as whether we open our boiled eggs at the pointy end or the rounded end. That is subjective morality.

Zombrex wrote:

Given that some people do torture babies to death for fun it would seem that b) is closest to reality, would it not?

PDN wrote:

You argued that, because different people disagree about morality, that therefore it is more likely that there is not an objective true morality.

Zombrex wrote:

Er, no I didn't?

Fair enough - this discussion is over from my end.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

For posterity, I'll point out that there is no operational difference between a moral realist and a moral nihilist. Both act the same way in any given situation. I.e. The difference is on a meta-ethical level, not an ethical level. There are no adverse consequences of one position that would not also be present in the other.

Yes, in the same way that placing a scoop of chunky choc and gooey toffee ice cream into a cone is operationally the same as placing a scoop of horse manure into a cone.

(I'm not, of course, equating all subjective morals to horse manure.)

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

For posterity, I'll point out that there is no operational difference between a moral realist and a moral nihilist. Both act the same way in any given situation. I.e. The difference is on a meta-ethical level, not an ethical level. There are no adverse consequences of one position that would not also be present in the other.

Yes, but if there is an objective moral premise that both work off, even if it's minutea are unknown to everybody, than that is exactly what one would expect to see?

In other words, irregardless of cultural differences etc. and even if value 'opinions' may differ, they agree far more often than not, simply because morality is not an opinion but the premise of all opinion. Otherwise the arguement just seems to be begging the question somewhat no?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, in the same way that placing a scoop of chunky choc and gooey toffee ice cream into a cone is operationally the same as placing a scoop of horse manure into a cone.

(I'm not, of course, equating all subjective morals to horse manure.)

Knowing that someone is a moral nihilist tells you in nothing about what moral decisions they will take. It simply tells you how they view morals in general.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

In other words, irregardless of cultural differences etc. and even if value 'opinions' may differ, they agree far more often than not, simply because morality is not an opinion but the premise of all opinion.

Almost as if we are all the same species of animal that act in similar ways around key areas of evolutionary advantage, such as protecting children.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

Knowing that someone is a moral nihilist tells you in nothing about what moral decisions they will take. It simply tells you how they view morals in general.

I agree. Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my post.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I agree. Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my post.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "operationally".

A moral nihilist might save a person from a burning building, or they might not, depending on what they personally believe.

A moral objectivist might save a person from a burning building, or they might not, depending on what they personally believe.

If that is what you meant then we are in agreement

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

If that is what you meant then we are in agreement

NEVER!

Zombrex wrote: »

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "operationally".

You would probably have to ask Mobert about that. I think I understands what he means but I can't be sure of that. He's so damn subjective that Mobert.

Zombrex wrote: »

A moral nihilist might save a person from a burning building, or they might not, depending on what they personally believe.

A moral objectivist might save a person from a burning building, or they might not, depending on what they personally believe.

Yes, I understand this. But it does not address whether it is morally right to rescue the person or not. That surely is the debate at hand.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, in the same way that placing a scoop of chunky choc and gooey toffee ice cream into a cone is operationally the same as placing a scoop of horse manure into a cone.

(I'm not, of course, equating all subjective morals to horse manure.)

They are operationally different (manure tastes like sh*t).

A flavour realists believes toffee ice cream is intrinsically better tasting. A flavour nihilists believes taste is construct of the taster. They both, however, like to eat toffee ice-cream.

EDIT: By operationally identical, I mean a person operates/interacts/behaves the same way, whether they are a realist or a nihilist.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

They both, however, like to eat toffee ice-cream.

Which is interesting, no?

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, but if there is an objective moral premise that both work off, even if it's minutea are unknown to everybody, than that is exactly what one would expect to see?

In other words, irregardless of cultural differences etc. and even if value 'opinions' may differ, they agree far more often than not, simply because morality is not an opinion but the premise of all opinion. Otherwise the arguement just seems to be begging the question somewhat no?

That (almost) all people have a disposition towards compassion, sympathy (or the more sterile biological term: altruism) fits both positions equally well. This sharing of sensibilities is not an argument for realism any more than the existence of opposing moral positions is an argument against it.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Almost as if we are all the same species of animal that act in similar ways around key areas of evolutionary advantage, such as protecting children.

Well you are a moral relativist so naturally you will say it's all about evolution of moral standards etc. etc. Indeed Christians believe you are 'human' and very many support the theory of evolution, they just think it's directed, whereas you obviously believe in chance

There is a subtle difference here though. The difference is that when we give an opinion based on the premise that both of us recognise is a 'reality'

We say because it's something we 'ought' to do because it is the 'right thing to do, to protect children, the poor, the innocent and vulnerable etc. etc.' It seems rational to say that even if a good Nazi followed the orders of his society his society and Nazism was morally wrong, clearly and definitely rather than Nazism was just **** that happened in another society and it wasn't wrong it's just that it didn't make lots of us feel too good relatively speaking.

Whereas you can only ever really say the reason why you do anything is not because it's 'right', but because it feels good to you personally not to kill or torture a baby, and the guy or elements of a society that do engage in this are not strictly wrong, they're just not really pleasing you personally with that choice.


I prefer the more courageous definition of the premise we both work off that we both recognise in eachother - (that would be the basis for all conversations on morality at all, deciding what is good, bad, fair or not fair, ie Objective morality) we both know it's there, it's the premise we work off not the opinion after the fact.

Still, you can be an atheist and believe in naturalism no good or bad anything really - I just don't, I'm a Christian and I certainly don't think there is anything irrational about saying why we 'ought' to do anything towards eachother is merely because it's the right or wrong way to behave. In fact I can be a right judgy pants and look at whole societies and say they are behaving 'wrong' towards the meek. This is the way the world works. Everytime you say something isn't 'fair' towards you, you are appealing to some kind of inherent reasoning that things should be 'fair' towards you -

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Which is interesting, no?

It is very interesting. Richard Dawkins was probably an ethologist for this very reason

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

It is very interesting. Richard Dawkins was probably an ethologist for this very reason

Shame he strayed out of his field.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

And as has been explained to you many times in response, that is a silly argument, to which you proceed to explain that you think it is clear that Christianity is the true objective morality, to which when pressed you back up with subjective opinion.

Where this argument comes in. Is in showing that there is an objective standard of good and evil. I agree that is open ended. However, as an atheist it is still a position that will undermine the credence of your position if true.

There are other arguments that can be used to demonstrate the specific veracity of Christianity. Although, Christianity clearly backs up a position of moral objectivism / universalism, and if this is true, it can be used as an argument for Christianity.

It's not a silly argument. There's clear logical difficulties for the atheist position. Ones that marienbad has just ignored on this thread when PDN has raised them to her.

Zombrex wrote: »

Just because a human thinks that their moral opinion is objective, or in line with an objective moral framework, has no bearing on whether it actually is or not, or even if there is an objective moral framework in the first place.

It's not about what people think. It's about how they function. The evidence in terms of functionality shows firstly that there is a huge amount of commonality in terms of what humans find right, and find wrong, and secondly it shows that humans point to objective morality when resolving conflicts.

On the other hand, there's no real argument for moral subjectivism.

Zombrex wrote: »

Appealing to the fact that a lot of people subscribe to moral objectivity to support moral objectivity is like appealing to the existences of Muslims to support the truth of Islam.

Not at all. See above.

Zombrex wrote: »

Your point also ignores my last point, which is that even if you believe that there is an objective moral framework you have only your subjective opinion as to what that is. Your morals are as subjective as mine since before you can even start appealing to an objective moral framework you have to subjectively pick one.

That's the question. Do I just have the subjective opinion? Or is that a claim that you are making without substance?

There's evidence that points us to the existence of objective standards. That's more than just a subjective opinion. We see it clearly in how people operate. That's more than a mere notion. It's more evidence than we have for the opposite position.

If an objective moral standard exists and there's good reason to believe that one does. Then we can probe into the reasons as to why such an objective moral standard exists, namely as to whether or not there is an objective moral law giver that will ultimately stand as judge.

Zombrex wrote: »

Clearly you never read any of the actual replies to these many discussions we've ended having on this subject.

Clearly you haven't read what I and others have posted on this subject before.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

Where this argument comes in. Is in showing that there is an objective standard of good and evil. I agree that is open ended. However, as an atheist it is still a position that will undermine the credence of your position if true.

There are other arguments that can be used to demonstrate the specific veracity of Christianity. Although, Christianity clearly backs up a position of moral objectivism / universalism, and if this is true, it can be used as an argument for Christianity.

It's not a silly argument. There's clear logical difficulties for the atheist position. Ones that marienbad has just ignored on this thread when PDN has raised them to her.

It's not about what people think. It's about how they function. The evidence in terms of functionality shows firstly that there is a huge amount of commonality in terms of what humans find right, and find wrong, and secondly it shows that humans point to objective morality when resolving conflicts.

On the other hand, there's no real argument for moral subjectivism.

Not at all. See above.

That's the question. Do I just have the subjective opinion? Or is that a claim that you are making without substance?

There's evidence that points us to the existence of objective standards. That's more than just a subjective opinion. We see it clearly in how people operate. That's more than a mere notion. It's more evidence than we have for the opposite position.

If an objective moral standard exists and there's good reason to believe that one does. Then we can probe into the reasons as to why such an objective moral standard exists, namely as to whether or not there is an objective moral law giver that will ultimately stand as judge.

Clearly you haven't read what I and others have posted on this subject before.

Do you believe any animals have a moral compass?

marienbad

Philogos, I did'nt ignore any of the points the you or PDN raised - I just don't find them compelling .

When it all comes down to is that your view of the world as a christian requires that there is a higher moral objective code. To you nothing else makes sense. But that is not proof .

I would remind you again of PDN's post no .4423


''How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways:
a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust.
b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong.
c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another. ''

Can you explain to me how that would yield an objective result ?

By the way can you answer my question on beauty ? Is there an objective standard for beauty ?
__________________

philologos

Here's an example marienbad:

marienbad wrote:

When asked you are unable to give any examples of this objective moral code and the process seems to work backwords , I believe so my actions must be guided by objective morality kind of thing.

This is clearly false. PDN and I have explained this at length to you.

You clearly haven't listened to what we are saying. I'm kind of wondering what the point is.

You say, nothing else makes sense to me. That's right. It doesn't hold up logically to hold to moral subjectivism, so I don't hold to it. If there's no good reason to hold to moral subjectivism over moral objectivism, I won't hold to it, and I will explain my reasons for not believing it to be manifest in reality. I'm entitled to ask you how you can reasonably be a moral subjectivist. I don't believe you or anyone else actually is.

It's obvious why revelation would be objective. Simply put, if God has spoken into His Creation. His word is final. That's objectivity speaking into the world. It's also obvious how God can inform our consciences if A is true. It is also true that by seeing how other people operate as in C, that we can see evidence of A and B as we've already discussed.

Beauty is a different concept to morality. I don't see why drawing comparisons to it would be useful.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

That (almost) all people have a disposition towards compassion, sympathy (or the more sterile biological term: altruism) fits both positions equally well. This sharing of sensibilities is not an argument for realism any more than the existence of opposing moral positions is an argument against it.

Fair enough. I totally agree that 'opinions' will differ, and people have and do argue and thrash them out to find the commonality in societies - However, the premise for any discussion of those opinions is the root of the moral law, it's the inherent value we place on being 'fair' imo, or that we even should be 'fair' - and that it's a good thing to be. Christians don't see it as a boomerang fairness, but quite simply a moral law on the hearts of all men that is 'true' a real and valid observable thing. We see it in all societies and the way the real world acts. I will admit however, that it's a bit of a stalemate as regards a 'proof' of God or indeed for that matter a 'proof' that God doesn't exist too. I just happen to think that the idea of that moral law and a law giver is a fairly rational observation .....but I'm a Christian not an Atheist, so I would. I thought Nietzche was kind of off his rocker, and perhaps an extremist, but will admit that not all Atheists are mini Nietzches in the making....


Thank God.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Here's an example marienbad:


This is clearly false. PDN and I have explained this at length to you.

You clearly haven't listened to what we are saying. I'm kind of wondering what the point is.

You say, nothing else makes sense to me. That's right. It doesn't hold up logically to hold to moral subjectivism, so I don't hold to it. If there's no good reason to hold to moral subjectivism over moral objectivism, I won't hold to it, and I will explain my reasons for not believing it to be manifest in reality.

Beauty is a different concept to morality. I don't see why drawing comparisons to it would be useful.

Please Philologos , lets not go down that road, I have read and responded to everything that you and PDN have posted . It just dos'nt make any kind of logical sense.

Your proof consists of looking at the world and declaring that an objective moral code derived from a Creator is the only way to explain it. There is absolutely nothing logical about your methodology .If there were everone would see what you see - why don't they ?

And those ''proofs'' and conclusions so derived should be evident to all and sundry irrespective of their beliefs - why ar'nt they.

And when asked for examples all ye come up with is the torturing babies scenario. Lets take a more widespread example- slavery.

For argument sake lets pretend this discussion was taking place 300 years ago- and the objective moral code , eternal and unchanging was the subject of discussion- would slavery be ok or not ok ?

philologos

By the by, I've not argued that anything is "proof". There is good evidence to suggest that humans work with objective morality though. There's no evidence to suggest that morality operates on a subjective basis from what I can see around me.

See what I've said about slavery a few posts ago. I've answered that already.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

By the by, I've not argued that anything is "proof". There is good evidence to suggest that humans work with objective morality though. There's no evidence to suggest that morality operates on a subjective basis from what I can see around me.

See what I've said about slavery a few posts ago. I've answered that already.

Ok then if you are not arguing ''that anything is proof''. I suppose we each interpret the evidence with a degree of confirmation bias, but I just don't see case for objective morality that you do.

Can you give me the post number on slavery as I can't seem to find it- thanks.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Where this argument comes in. Is in showing that there is an objective standard of good and evil. I agree that is open ended.

It doesn't show that. It simply shows that some people believe there is. And in fact appealing to this simply shows that everyone subjectively picks which version of this objective morality they believe exists.

philologos wrote: »

There are other arguments that can be used to demonstrate the specific veracity of Christianity. Although, Christianity clearly backs up a position of moral objectivism / universalism, and if this is true, it can be used as an argument for Christianity.

There is no objective argument for Christianity. You cannot measure the truth of Christianity. As such it cannot be used to objectively support the existence of objective morality. Which is why Islam exists. And Hinduism. And Moronism.

philologos wrote: »

It's not a silly argument. There's clear logical difficulties for the atheist position. Ones that marienbad has just ignored on this thread when PDN has raised them to her.

I missed that. If you want to post them here I'm happy to give them a ago. Though it shouldn't really need to be said that logical difficulties for the atheist position is no more support for Christianity than it is for any claimed deity.

philologos wrote: »

It's not about what people think. It's about how they function. The evidence in terms of functionality shows firstly that there is a huge amount of commonality in terms of what humans find right, and find wrong, and secondly it shows that humans point to objective morality when resolving conflicts.

On the other hand, there's no real argument for moral subjectivism.

The argument for moral subjectivism is the same. There is huge amount of commonality in humans with relation to moral behavior. This commonality though is not found anywhere else in nature. A rock will fall on your head, and not care a jot about it. The sea will happily kill you. Nature is amoral in its truest sense, in that morality simply does not exist there.There is no evidence the wider universe has any moral standard. Morality is confined exclusively to humans another animals that have evolved brains to add social interaction.

All evidence points to morality being an expressed function of the evolution of social interactions in humans. This is why morality relates so much to particular things and hardly at all to others. No one thinks is it moral to un-bend a paper clip, because such a question has no context in the survivial of human genes. The question is it moral to kill a child though stirs up great response.

The only argument from the objective side for such a correlation is that the universe (ie God) cares about the things we care about and vice versa, we care about the things the universe (God) cares about. This needless to say is hugely unsatisfactory retreat.

philologos wrote: »

That's the question. Do I just have the subjective opinion? Or is that a claim that you are making without substance?

There's evidence that points us to the existence of objective standards. That's more than just a subjective opinion. We see it clearly in how people operate. That's more than a mere notion. It's more evidence than we have for the opposite position.

There is evidence of shared characteristic human behavior. There is evidence of where this comes from (evolution of humans). There is not evidence for an objective standard as a property of the universe, independent to humans, or apes, or life itself.

Your argument is like saying because all humans have shared language traits, found in all people, therefore the universe must have a language, lets go see if we can find out what that is.

If you think I'm wrong please present evidence for the existence of this objective moral standard that is not just something found in humans.

philologos

marienbad: I don't agree. I think any impartial observer if they are honest will be able to note that humans when they are in disputes appeal to objective morality. People don't claim that morality is personal. Rather what people do when they are wronged is claim that people should know better. If morality was subjective and merely personal, why should we claim it is obvious that others should know better? Why would we expect them to understand?

This is what I find lacking about your position. Look back to this post in respect to slavery. It's a discussion I've got into before, and I don't see any reason why I should repeat myself on it.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

There is a subtle difference here though. The difference is that when we give an opinion based on the premise that both of us recognise is a 'reality'

We say because it's something we 'ought' to do because it is the 'right thing to do, to protect children, the poor, the innocent and vulnerable etc. etc.' It seems rational to say that even if a good Nazi followed the orders of his society his society and Nazism was morally wrong, clearly and definitely rather than Nazism was just **** that happened in another society and it wasn't wrong it's just that it didn't make lots of us feel too good relatively speaking.

Whereas you can only ever really say the reason why you do anything is not because it's 'right', but because it feels good to you personally not to kill or torture a baby, and the guy or elements of a society that do engage in this are not strictly wrong, they're just not really pleasing you personally with that choice.

Correct. You can say you believe it is objectively wrong to kill a baby. I can't.

I'm not sure what you think that gives you though.

A good example is the side of the road a car drives along.

Now I believe that is subjective. I don't believe there is an objective right or wrong side of the road to drive along. Because I'm human and think as a human I still say "Oh in France they drive on the 'wrong' side of the road". But I do not think rationally that it is actually objectively the wrong side of the road. It is wrong purely in the context of how we drive in Ireland.

Now imagine if someone did believe that it actually was, genuinely and objectively, the 'wrong' side of the road. First of all that wouldn't make that true. The existence of people who genuinely viewed it as the 'wrong' side of the road is not evidence that there is a wrong side or a right side of the road to drive on as far as the universe is concerned.

Second of all, what has it given them, other than a slightly inflated sense of ego to be able to proclaim that half the world's driving systems are "wrong". They can proclaim the French are wrong, but the French aren't going to care. Heck there may be some people in France who genuinely believe we drive on the objectively 'wrong' side of the road, and they will just think we are wrong.

You cannot demonstrate what is the objectively right or wrong side of the wrong, you can't even demonstrate that there is an objectively right or wrong side of the road.

All the same principles apply to morality.

lmaopml wrote: »

Still, you can be an atheist and believe in naturalism no good or bad anything really - I just don't, I'm a Christian and I certainly don't think there is anything irrational about saying why we 'ought' to do anything towards eachother is merely because it's the right or wrong way to behave. In fact I can be a right judgy pants and look at whole societies and say they are behaving 'wrong' towards the meek.

Of course you can. But why do you need morality to be objective to do that?

If you see someone driving the wrong way down a motorway you will probably shout at them they are driving down the wrong way of a motorway. You wouldn't say "Well you know wrong way or right way that is all just subjective based on what matters to humans, it is not an objective fact of the universe that he is on the wrong side of the road so who am I to dictate to anyone that they are on the wrong side of the road"

I have never understood why you guys feel you can't simply have a moral opinion without having to some how feel that your opinion is supported by the objective standards of the universe. France doesn't go "Well guys who are we to say left or right side".

lmaopml wrote: »

This is the way the world works. Everytime you say something isn't 'fair' towards you, you are appealing to some kind of inherent reasoning that things should be 'fair' towards you -

Which is a purely human construct. Appeal to a bear beating you to death, or a flood drowning you, that this isn't 'fair' is pointless since there is no notion of morality outside of humans and some other animals with higher brain functionality.

If the universe has an objective morality it certainly doesn't show it.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

marienbad: I don't agree. I think any impartial observer if they are honest will be able to note that humans when they are in disputes appeal to objective morality. People don't claim that morality is personal. Rather what people do when they are wronged is claim that people should know better. If morality was subjective and merely personal, why should we claim it is obvious that others should know better? Why would we expect them to understand?

This is what I find lacking about your position. Look back to this post in respect to slavery. It's a discussion I've got into before, and I don't see any reason why I should repeat myself on it.

I can't find anything relevant to slavery as I have raised it Philogos, and don't worry I am not going back to bibical times .

All I am asking is as follows - I presume that you believe as do that slavery is wrong immoral unethical - however we define it.

I presume that 300 years you there were men and women discussing the very issues we are discussing - the existance of an objective moral code.

I further presume that you would not permit slavery based on this objective moral code.

My question is simply why was it not forbidden 300 years ago by christians ?

And in the real world that is the crux of the matter. Now I think I know why it was permitted - because morality/ethics/whatever is not objective - it is a constantly evolving construct and is one of humanities towering achievements .

Why do you think it was permitted ?