Well, I don't quite agree. But I see where you are coming from. For now I think we can agree to disagree.
Excuse me?
Isn't that a too important point for this very discussion to simply ignore it?
Your whole point, which you repeat again and again, rests on the assumtion that if morals isn't
objective, it doesn't exist at all. Thus there must be a god.
And now I point out that there are people who assert, like you, that morals
are objective... and still don't need a god.
Of course you are free to simply disagree... but you know that it doesn't help your argument at all. It rather makes it seem a little... subjective.
As I stated earlier, for something to be objective, it must be rooted on facts. Facts are facts and are true regardless of subjective opinion. In a system of subjective morals, good and evil are arbitrary. I will explain in response to your last paragraph.
Yes, I agree: for something to be objective, it has to be based on something other than subjective interpretation.
But this isn't what I am arguing for... it is exactly the other way around. I never argued that morals have to be objective. Instead, morals
are subjective. Morals - good and evil -
are "arbitrary". (In a certain way, not completely.)
And there is no way to escape that objective fact that morals are "arbitrary". It is always and exclusively individual "moral agents" who make moral judgements and moral decisions. This doesn't change if you introduce a "god" to make moral judgements... good and bad still a personal "arbitrary" decision.
I agree. If we have no way of determining which God or gods exist, there is no way to definitively determine what objective system to follow. But this arguement is not about "which objective standard is correct" but rather "does an objective standard exists at all? And if so, how is it possible?". Obviously, I believe that the God of Abraham is that objective standard. However, I honestly have to say that I do not know how to prove to you or anyone that it is true. But that is not what I am doing. I am just simply saying that hypothetically, if good and evil truly exists in a way that it is black and white, a god/gods/superior alien race must exist.
There is no basis for that.
Just consider all the things that we take as "true" without having an objective standard... or even needing one, once we realize it.
Taste is such an example. Have you ever used a phrase like "Broccoli / strawberries / mineral oil tastes good / bad"?
Realize that this is subjective. There is no objective standard for "taste". What you really mean is "I like how broccoli / strawberry / mineral oil tastes." You make this judgement, and you act on this judgement.
It is not "objective"... and it is still "real".
Even if there was a god/gods/superiour alien race to set the "truly existing objective standard" that Broccoli-Strawberry-Mineral Oil icecream is the top of the tastes... I'd say you'd still find it aweful. They could assert a million times over "This objectively tastes great." You still would say it tastes bad.
"Taste" of course is the ultimate "subjective" system. But consider almost every other non-digital standard that humans use. They are never objective, they are always relative or subjective. How is humanity even able to exist while using all these "not real" standards?
I don't think "subjective" means "whimsical". I call it what it is. Subjective is subjective. ..period. It is personal opinion. And that's not a bad thing but to declare it otherwise is wrong. Thus, without an objective standard of good and evil, we are no different from two people floating in the vacuum of space trying to find an agreement on which way is north!
No, you still don't understand. Your example here makes it very clear that you DO think "subjective" means "whimsical"... based on a whim.
When two people float in the vacuum of space trying to find an agreement on which way is north... the first thing they need to do is
know what 'north' means. It is not based on a whim... it is based on objective, observable facts. "North" is the direction on a sphere along the great circle towards the point of counter-clockwise rotation , as seen from the closest point on the rotation axis above the sphere.
In empty space, there is no point on a sphere, no great circle pointing to a point on the rotation axis. You said it yourself - "North" does not exist here. But there is a reason why it does or doesn't exist.
So where are the objective facts that "good and evil" are based on? Where is the reason for its existence / non-existence?
And no, "Because I , the great OM, say so!" is
not an objective fact to base something on. It is per definitionem subjective.
Ultimately we may come to an unanimous consensus, but that still does not change the fact that north does not exist in the vacuum of space. If this is the system of morality humanity has adopted, that is fine. As you and I have stated, it worked for thousands of years. But let's just call it what it is.
Well, this is exactly what I am trying to do: call it what it is. A subjective systems of values that individual subjects who are able to make "moral" jdugements base these judgements on.
I have never tried to claim that this makes it "objective". Or that it "objectively" exists. But it is real. It doesn't exist independently from moral agents. It exists dependently on moral agents.
But moral agents objectively exist. And this means subjective systems based on them are "real" and existent.