Challenge to Atheists on Morality

[FreedByte]

Being Innate in of itself doesn't make it Objective, the Innate values are Objective(Romans 2:15), however just being Innate doesn't automatically make them Objective, it happens that the Objective Moral Values are Innate/Instilled.

To be clearer, What makes those Innate Morals Objective?

They are objective because they aren't influenced by individual feelings or opinions. They are collective, social, innate morals and are therefore objective by definition.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I always wanted my worldview to be therefore.

Do you think that english grammar is objective?

Didn't finish my sentence, I'll complete it now that you bought it up, your worldview is therefore untenable.

Nope. My worldview is devoid of objective morality. It still contains subjective and intersubjective morality. And it is found in all of reality. It is all that reality has to offer in terms of morality.

If it's Subjective then there's no Right/Wrong, Under your worldview murdering someone is Subjectively Right while being Subjectively Wrong.

The terms Right and Wrong are therefore useless, as under your worldview anything could be right/wrong.

Found in all reality?

By all means show us that Morality is Subjective.

As soon as you prove that it is objective, and that without objective morality, there is no morality at all.

Evasion #1, I proved right above that if Right/Wrong could mean anything then the terms are useless in your worldview.

You need to show me that Morality is Subjective and Not Objective, I asked you and you evaded.

They are objective because they aren't influenced by individual feelings or opinions. They are collective, social, innate morals and are therefore objective by definition.

Collective & Social would be Subjective Morality, as they would be determined by Society.

You are incapable of defending Innate Objective Morality without YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit), you refuted your very own argument.

 

[FreedByte]

Collective & Social would be Subjective Morality, as they would be determined by Society.

Define objective, please

You are incapable of defending Innate Objective Morality without YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

in what way?

you refuted your very own argument.

Far from it

 

[variant]

Proof that it's based on Human Judgement rather than instilled?

I'm not going to blindly accept your claim that Humans make what's Right and Wrong.

Well since the ideas of right and wrong change over time, and are enforced by social forces, it's hard to claim they are objective.

Some basic ideas have such obvious and horrible consequences that they are fairly universally thought to be wrong, but overall, the standards of morality seem to change as society evolves.

Meaning that Morality being Subjective would render it Imaginary, your worldview doesn't have a such thing as right/wrong, that under your worldview anything could be right/wrong.

Your worldview is therefore untenable.

Things based upon human judgment are very real since humans are real and so is their judgment. So subjective morality about as "imaginary" as society in general or any other human caused/invented thing.

Actually they do(I see that you needed to reassert yourself that Right/Wrong exist in your worldview, as a crutch for Atheism),

You specifically claimed they did not exist in my world view which is untrue.

if Anything can be Right/Wrong, then the terms are pointless, there wouldn't be a right/wrong, anything could be done under your worldview.

I am saying anything can be thought to be right or wrong depending on how you assign value.

All thoughts are certainly not created equal, and since moralities main function is to help us exist in society, the best ideas for that purpose will generally prevail.

When did we enforce our standards on the Nazi's? How do you know that these are our standards rather than Instilled standards?

What are instilled standards and how do they happen? And, further, if they are objective and instilled why are there Natzi's?

You used the Natzi example because most people are not Natzi's and it is a generally despised ideology that was defeated by use of force and decades of social derision.

 

[Freodin]

Didn't finish my sentence, I'll complete it now that you bought it up, your worldview is therefore untenable.

My worldview is untenable, because you, as I am certain, really agree with it? Now that is some kind of logic that is beyond me.

If it's Subjective then there's no Right/Wrong, Under your worldview murdering someone is Subjectively Right while being Subjectively Wrong.

The terms Right and Wrong are therefore useless, as under your worldview anything could be right/wrong.

If it is subjective, then right and wrong are based on the decisions and evaluations of moral agents. It is useless in the same way as "taste" is useless: for objective evaluations.

But in the cases where it counts - where moral agents make decisions, where groups of moral agents make decisions - it is perfectly usable.

Found in all reality?

Every example of morality that you care to find is based on moral agents making decisions and evaluations. There is not a single instance of "morality" existing without these.

By all means show us that Morality is Subjective.

Without a subject to make a moral judgement, there is no moral judgement. Thus morals are subjective.

Evasion #1, I proved right above that if Right/Wrong could mean anything then the terms are useless in your worldview.

You need to show me that Morality is Subjective and Not Objective, I asked you and you evaded.

You asserted that "it could mean anything" and that it was useless. You are wrong on both counts. Even subjective morality does not mean "anything" and I have shown how it is useful.

But even if you were right... showing that subjective morality was useless would only show that morality is useless... not that objective morality needs to exist.


So start to do that: prove that morality is objective.

 

[VirOptimus]

Atheists, What makes something Objectively Right or Wrong?

What makes Harming others Objectively Wrong?

What makes Helping others Objectively Right?

What makes Love Objectively Right?

What makes Hatred Objectively Wrong?

5 simple questions.

There is no objective morals. In fact, morals doesnt exist per se, its just in our minds.

This is a very good thing IMO, if morals where set then we couldnt evolve society and the values thererin.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

There is no objective morals. In fact, morals doesnt exist per se, its just in our minds.

So according to your worldview Murdering innocent isn't wrong, as "morals doesnt exist"

Your worldview is not only repulsive but conflicts with reality, as Objective Moral Values exist, Murder is wrong regardless of opinion.

This is a very good thing IMO, if morals where set then we couldnt evolve society and the values thererin.

You have no argument then, if it's "very good" In Your Opinion("IMO"), then the claim "we couldn't evolve society and the values" is an opinion, not a fact, thus we can dismiss it.

Also, "just in our minds", Thoughts are just in our minds as well, your point?

Define objective, please

So you went into this debate not knowing what it means, Objective meaning based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings.

So whatever is based on Society/Collective is not Fact, as that's what people would Agree on, Agreement is not Objective, it's Subjective.

Facts are Objective.

in what way?

You cannot demonstrate Morality to be Objective without YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

Whatever is Collective is not Objective.

Far from it

Yes you did, you claimed Morality is Objective while appealing to a Subjective source as proof. that's self refuting. I can see you're not one to accept being wrong, despite whatever you may claim.

Well since the ideas of right and wrong change over time, and are enforced by social forces, it's hard to claim they are objective.

Subjective Morality means anything can be right/wrong, you asserting things are enforced by Social Forces is Subjective, as you need to prove it.

Some basic ideas have such obvious and horrible consequences that they are fairly universally thought to be wrong, but overall, the standards of morality seem to change as society evolves.

You claim to think Morality is Subjective, yet you use Objective Standards such as "Horrible Consequences" as a crutch for your atheism, under your worldview it would be what you find Horrible.

Hitler for example found it horrible that Jews lived, according to you, that would be "subjectively right"

Things based upon human judgment are very real since humans are real and so is their judgment. So subjective morality about as "imaginary" as society in general or any other human caused/invented thing.

Humans being real doesn't mean Human Judgement/Opinion is Objective. Subjective Morality(what you blindly believe without any proof whatsoever) would mean Anything could be Right or Wrong, making the terms Right/Wrong useless.

Your worldview is untenable.

You specifically claimed they did not exist in my world view which is untrue.

I didn't claim, I proved it, if Anything can be right/wrong then the terms are useless.

I am saying anything can be thought to be right or wrong depending on how you assign value.

So now you're talking about what people Think are right and wrong. we're talking about what Is Right and Wrong.

All thoughts are certainly not created equal, and since moralities main function is to help us exist in society, the best ideas for that purpose will generally prevail.

#1 Saying that Moralities purpose is to help us exist in society would be an subjective claim in Your worldview. According to Your Worldview, if someone says "Moralities main purpose is so we can not exist", then according to your worldview that is right.

#2, Help us exist, What makes existing Objectively Right/the Objective Purpose?

Subjective Morality fails you can't answer anything without appealing to Objective.

What are instilled standards and how do they happen? And, further, if they are objective and instilled why are there Natzi's?

#1, Harming innocent is Objectively Wrong, Love is Objectively Right.

#2, There being Objective Moral Values doesn't mean everyone will follow them.

You used the Natzi example because most people are not Natzi's and it is a generally despised ideology that was defeated by use of force and decades of social derision.

What makes Popularity/Most Agreed Right?

If most people agreed Murder is right, would that be true?

No.

My worldview is untenable, because you, as I am certain, really agree with it? Now that is some kind of logic that is beyond me.

I do not agree with your worldview, Morality is Objective, people's opinions don't change what is Objectively Right and Wrong.

If it is subjective, then right and wrong are based on the decisions and evaluations of moral agents. It is useless in the same way as "taste" is useless: for objective evaluations.

So Right and Wrong are based on decisions and evaluations of Right and Wrong(Moral) Agents?

That's Circular, if Morality is like Taste, then your worldview on Morality is dead, as there would be no Right/Wrong, just like there's no Right/Wrong when it comes to people's taste, you by accident refuted yourself there with the taste argument.

But in the cases where it counts - where moral agents make decisions, where groups of moral agents make decisions - it is perfectly usable.

What moral agents? in a Subjective Morality Worldview there would be no one to make decisions for others, so if 100 people thought Hitler was wrong, and Hitler by himself thinks he's right, then even by Popular Agreement people have no Objective standard to make decisions on what's right and wrong, as under Subjective Morality anything would still be right/wrong.

Your worldview is still not working.

Every example of morality that you care to find is based on moral agents making decisions and evaluations. There is not a single instance of "morality" existing without these.

Demonstrate.

Without a subject to make a moral judgement, there is no moral judgement. Thus morals are subjective.

So you're assuming God "doesn't" exist, your argument is basically, "God doesn't exist & there's no moral judgement because God doesn't exist & there's no moral judgement"

Circular Reasoning, not proof.

You asserted that "it could mean anything" and that it was useless. You are wrong on both counts. Even subjective morality does not mean "anything" and I have shown how it is useful.

By Definition Subjective would mean Anything could be right, as people could have different ideas on what is right and wrong, they could think anything is right/wrong.

I think you hold to Objective Morality like I do, because if you didn't, then you would've accept the fact that under Subjective Morality Anything could be right/wrong.

But even if you were right... showing that subjective morality was useless would only show that morality is useless... not that objective morality needs to exist.

It would show that Morality is useless In Your Worldview. In Reality it exists.

So start to do that: prove that morality is objective.

By definition Morality would be an Objective Standard, if you could use a word/term for anything then the word/term is useless, hence if Anything can be Right/Wrong, then the terms are useless.

I answered that even though you did Not prove that Morality is Subjective and Not Objective.

Evasion #2 by you.

So far atheists in this thread have committed the following fallacies:

#1, Used Objectives to defend Subjective Morality, which is self refuting

#2, Have not proven Morality is Subjective and Not Objective(by all means prove it to me if it's true, All ears, you have no excuse)

#3, Have used Subjectives in attempt to defend Objective Morality without YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Morality is the way that things ought to be.

Determinism says that everything is an effect of antecedent causes. Those causes could have been different, however.

Fatalism says that nothing that has happened, is happening, or will happen could have been / can be different. Period.

Is there something in between?

Even if we accept determinism, fatalism, or something in between, all that that tells us is the way things are. It does not tell us the way things ought to be. Even if nothing could have been / can be different than what happened / is happening in the past/present, and even if everything that will happen in the future is already set and cannot be changed, that does not necessarily mean that anything is the way that things ought to be. We can still ask what ought to be, it seems.

But what is the point in trying to answer what ought to be if nothing can be changed?

Well, it seems that both determinism and fatalism tell us that we can't help it if we ask or try to answer what ought to be. And the answers that we produce--we have no control over that either.

It seems like a good starting point in asking what ought to be is to focus on what is. Therefore, hypotheticals ("In this situation / under these circumstances, would it be wrong to do this?"; the Prisoner's Dilemma; etc.) are pointless mental calisthenics.

The way things are / what is, is objective.

It could be demonstrated that the way things ought to be is embedded in the way things are. If natural systems are constantly adjusting to maintain equilibrium, then maybe there ought to be equilibrium.

And what a person values, what judgements he/she makes, etc. are not the same thing as what ought to be.

Morality, it seems, is neither subjective or objective. It is elusive.

 

[FreedByte]

So you went into this debate not knowing what it means,

No, I knew well what it means, please don't be condescending. I asked because your arguments seemed to imply that your definition was different from mine.

Objective meaning based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings.

Exactly, so objectivity could therefore be defined by innate social morals.

So whatever is based on Society/Collective is not Fact, as that's what people would Agree on, Agreement is not Objective, it's Subjective.

The only reason that it is a social morality is that it is innate in individuals. Those rare individuals who do not seem to have this innate morality and exhibit a lack of empathy or remorse and a pervasive pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others are commonly labelled as sociopaths.

You cannot demonstrate Morality to be Objective without YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

Defining morality based on the belief in a deity is the exact opposite of objectivity because it is rooted in belief.

Whatever is Collective is not Objective.

This doesn't make sense. By definition objectivity is outside of individual feelings and opinions, so something that is universally agreed upon could easily be considered objective.

Yes you did, you claimed Morality is Objective while appealing to a Subjective source as proof. that's self refuting.

Innate morality is not a subjective source, that was what I was demonstrating. You are refuting by contradiction here, which is insufficient.

I can see you're not one to accept being wrong, despite whatever you may claim.

I could say the same thing to you, but I don't because it's rude and doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Subjective Morality means anything can be right/wrong, you asserting things are enforced by Social Forces is Subjective, as you need to prove it.

I didn't say they were "enforced by social forces". "Social" morality means morality concerning engagement with fellow humans. Universally innate social morality is objective.

 

[quatona]

Atheists, What makes something Objectively Right or Wrong?

What makes Harming others Objectively Wrong?

What makes Helping others Objectively Right?

What makes Love Objectively Right?

What makes Hatred Objectively Wrong?

5 simple questions.

Sorry, I don´t understand what "Objectively Right/Wrong" is supposed to mean when it comes to valuations (in my understanding valuations are by their very nature subjective). Could you please clarify so that I can answer congenially?
Also, I am not sure how to interprete the capitalization of these terms.

But may be we can cut a long story short? From former experiences with Christians making such challenges, I suspect that in your opinion the only thing that would make a valuation "objective" is a God who determined it to be so. Correct? In which case an atheist obviously can´t believe in an "objective morality" (in your silent definition).

However, I don´t think that you use the term "objective" correctly. The opinion of a powerful being (no matter how incredibly powerful it may be) isn´t objective. It´s still subjective (although disagreeing with it may result in great problems). You know, gravity is not an objective fact because God says so but because, well, it´s an objective fact.

The closest we can come to "objective" is broad agreement. Although it actually has as little to do with objective as the opinion of a powerful being has, it appears to be at least of practical relevance. In my experience, a person will not stop doing things I disapprove of when I merely tell him that I do not only find it wrong, but even "objectively" wrong. People seem to be remarkably unimpressed by such affirmations.

And so am I. In the end of the day I don´t care about the moral opinion of a God (assuming for a moment there is one). Let´s say it turns out that there is a God and He approves of harming others and forbids loving others, I still would cling to my diametrically opposed own ethics and morality.

 

[variant]

Subjective Morality means anything can be right/wrong, you asserting things are enforced by Social Forces is Subjective, as you need to prove it.

I don't really, all observed morality is enforced by social standards. Morality has never been observed apart from moral agents.

You claim to think Morality is Subjective, yet you use Objective Standards such as "Horrible Consequences" as a crutch for your atheism, under your worldview it would be what you find Horrible.

What is horrible is what is horrible to humanity. It is a subjective determination like delicious.

Hitler for example found it horrible that Jews lived, according to you, that would be "subjectively right"

No, I would disagree with Hitler, making him subjectively wrong from my perspective.

Humans being real doesn't mean Human Judgement/Opinion is Objective.

I didn't say it was, in fact my argument is that it is not. Our judgments do not become imaginary because they are based upon us. We exist, and so do our judgments and their consequences.

Subjective Morality(what you blindly believe without any proof whatsoever) would mean Anything could be Right or Wrong, making the terms Right/Wrong useless.

Your worldview is untenable.

There is nothing "useless" about it, it is in fact a very useful activity depending on what you actually want to accomplish.

It's "usefulness" will of course depend on how well constructed it is, which means of course that all moralities are not equally useful to reach all ends.

I didn't claim, I proved it, if Anything can be right/wrong then the terms are useless.

More like that is your assertion.

So now you're talking about what people Think are right and wrong. we're talking about what Is Right and Wrong.

Same thing. Although humans are not necessarily good at predicting all the consequences of their actions so they can be wrong about which morals to adopt.

#1 Saying that Moralities purpose is to help us exist in society would be an subjective claim in Your worldview.

Yes.

According to Your Worldview, if someone says "Moralities main purpose is so we can not exist", then according to your worldview that is right.

No, my view is that moralities purpose is that society is good.

What do you think would happen to someone with this other ideology? Do you think they would find their moral judgments useful. Do you think they would form complex societies? Do you think they could compete with my ideas?

As I said earlier ideas are not created equally, and in that I mean they are no where near equally useful.

#2, Help us exist, What makes existing Objectively Right/the Objective Purpose?

We do, we like existing.

Subjective Morality fails you can't answer anything without appealing to Objective.

Subjective morality appeals to objective consequences, like existing.

#1, Harming innocent is Objectively Wrong, Love is Objectively Right.

Harming innocents has consequences you and I think are bad and love has consequences you and I think are good.

It is based upon us and how we wish to live.

What makes Popularity/Most Agreed Right?

If most people agreed Murder is right, would that be true?

No.

We generally agree that murder is wrong because it makes for a pretty dysfunctional society, and we like society.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Morality is the way that things ought to be.

Ought is an Objective.

Determinism says that everything is an effect of antecedent causes. Those causes could have been different, however.

Fatalism says that nothing that has happened, is happening, or will happen could have been / can be different. Period.

#1, Absolutely no proof for determinism

#2, According to that argument Murder could have been good.

Morality, it seems, is neither subjective or objective. It is elusive.

Even if it's elusive it doesn't mean it's neither subjective or objective, that makes no sense, as it would still be one or the other, being elusive wouldn't stop that.

Also your name is off, Intellect doesn't make someone Love, just means the person has knowledge. Love can be given by people with all sorts of intellectual levels.

 

[Freodin]

I do not agree with your worldview, Morality is Objective, people's opinions don't change what is Objectively Right and Wrong.

In the OP, you asked about "harming others". Now you are down to "harming innocents". Already within the space of this thread, you have watered down your "objective morals".
And I am quite certain, if you went into definite examples, you would get down to "harming certain people, in certain situations, by other certain people".

I admit that this might still be an example of objective morals - but a system of objective morals that are so highly situational that they are indistinguishable from subjective morals.

And just the very fact that you cannot present such an objective moral code without wiggling and contradicting yourself, and that the decisions you can present on examples are always based on your own views... that clearly shows that your own system of morality is subjective.

So Right and Wrong are based on decisions and evaluations of Right and Wrong(Moral) Agents?

That's Circular, if Morality is like Taste, then your worldview on Morality is dead, as there would be no Right/Wrong, just like there's no Right/Wrong when it comes to people's taste, you by accident refuted yourself there with the taste argument.

If taste is like this - no right and wrong at all, as you assume here... there would be no one ever to say that "this tastes good - that tastes bad".

But they do. So either there is an objective system of taste... or your assumption is wrong.

Do you think that taste is objective?

What moral agents? in a Subjective Morality Worldview there would be no one to make decisions for others, so if 100 people thought Hitler was wrong, and Hitler by himself thinks he's right, then even by Popular Agreement people have no Objective standard to make decisions on what's right and wrong, as under Subjective Morality anything would still be right/wrong.

Yes, that is what we are trying to tell you. They don't have an objective standard.
They still have their subjective and intersubjective standards.

And people tend to act on their standards.

Your worldview is still not working.

It's working quite well.

Demonstrate.

Look around you.

So you're assuming God "doesn't" exist, your argument is basically, "God doesn't exist & there's no moral judgement because God doesn't exist & there's no moral judgement"

Circular Reasoning, not proof.

God would be such a moral agent.

If God existed, was a moral agent, and acted on an objective moral system, this moral system would be independent from God. Christians deny the existence of such a system.
Any moral system with God existing would still be subjective.

By Definition Subjective would mean Anything could be right, as people could have different ideas on what is right and wrong, they could think anything is right/wrong.

No. You still assume that subjective moral evaluation would make something objectively right or wrong ("anything could be right", meaning, anything could be objectivelyright).
This assumption is false. Subjective morals only mean that right and wrong is exclusively based on individual and shared evaluations. It doesn't set a standard beyond that.

I think you hold to Objective Morality like I do, because if you didn't, then you would've accept the fact that under Subjective Morality Anything could be right/wrong.

Why should I accept that? I would only follow your faulty reasoning.

I consider things right and wrong. That is a fact. You will consider other things right and wrong. Also a fact. We might differ on issues. Another fact.

But it is completely impossible for you to show by any objective standard where my oppinion is objectively wrong and yours is objectively right. You just cannot do that.

It would show that Morality is useless In Your Worldview. In Reality it exists.

Faulty reasoning. It does not show morality useless.

By definition Morality would be an Objective Standard, if you could use a word/term for anything then the word/term is useless, hence if Anything can be Right/Wrong, then the terms are useless.

I answered that even though you did Not prove that Morality is Subjective and Not Objective.

The same faulty reasoning again. As long as you assume that there is an objective standard, and that everything has to follow such an objective standard, you are unable to correctly evalutate the possibility of subjective morals.

 

[VirOptimus]

So according to your worldview Murdering innocent isn't wrong, as "morals doesnt exist"

Your worldview is not only repulsive but conflicts with reality, as Objective Moral Values exist, Murder is wrong regardless of opinion.



You have no argument then, if it's "very good" In Your Opinion("IMO"), then the claim "we couldn't evolve society and the values" is an opinion, not a fact, thus we can dismiss it.

Also, "just in our minds", Thoughts are just in our minds as well, your point?



-snip-

Heh, no. You dont understand. I reject the existance of metaphysics. That does not mean that I dont have opinions on different things, including what is acceptable behaviour and not. I also think that I have better arguments for why its bad to kill people then its just wrong beacuse its just wrong (as you say).

I strongly suggest that you read some books or essays on the subject of moral philosophy as it seems to me as you arent really familiar with the different theories on this.

 

[quatona]

Not one Atheist in this thread has answered what makes something Objective Right or Wrong,

Well, the idea of "Objective Morality" is your position - so I am not quite clear why you expect me to defend it.
I´m also a little confused why you haven´t even tried to substantiate this opinion, so far.

nor have they proven Morality is Subjective.

The existence of subjective morality is evident: People have conflicting moral views.
The question is not: Is morality subjective or objective? but:
Does - beyond the demonstrably existing subjective moralities - exist an objective morality (and what does that even mean)?
It seems that proving this would be your job - since it is the position you hold.

 

[Freodin]

Does - beyond the demonstrably existing subjective moralities - exist an objective morality (and what does that even mean)?
It seems that proving this would be your job - since it is the position you hold.

As always, quatona hits the nail on the head.

 

[JGG]

Slavery, rape, genocide...these are objevtively wrong in your estimation?

 

[Ana the Ist]

#1, Proof that Objective Morality doesn't exist? How is it Subjective? Demonstrate.

#2, Then According to your worldview Harming people can be Right, as under your worldview Morality is Subjectivel.

Well first I would need you to tell me what you think objective morality is before I can attempt to show it doesn't exist. Generally speaking though, when most people refer to objective morality, they believe that moral good/bad are unchanging, whether across different circumstances or throughout time. Is this what you mean by objective morality?

#1. I think the easiest way to demonstrate this isn't the case would be to point out that without knowing what is definitively good and bad for every moral action...the whole notion of objective morality cannot logically exist. Why? Because for any moral actions which we do not know are objectively good and bad we would have to decide these things for ourselves. If you're deciding for yourself that a moral action is good or bad, then you're demonstrating what most people refer to as subjective morality. I like to call it relative morality.... and it's the only concept of morality that that consistently describes how morals work in real life.

#2. Yes, in some situations hurting people is a "good" moral behavior. Absolutely. I would call it relativistic morality, but I think we understand each other.

 

[Euler]

All morality is subjective. That's not an opinion, it's a readily observable fact.

We once used to consider it morally acceptable to keep slaves. We no longer do. Our moral code has changed in this regard. It has been SUBJECT to changing societal values.

We used to consider it morally acceptable to publicly torture and execute people for their religious beliefs. We no longer do so. Our morality has evolved. It is subjective in nature.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I don't really, all observed morality is enforced by social standards. Morality has never been observed apart from moral agents.

Claim, not proof.

What is horrible is what is horrible to humanity. It is a subjective determination like delicious.

So under your worldview Love could be "horrible"

No, I would disagree with Hitler, making him subjectively wrong from my perspective.

Subjectively, meaning in your worldview he would also be Subjective Right.

In Objective Morality worldview Hitler is Objectively wrong.

There is nothing "useless" about it, it is in fact a very useful activity depending on what you actually want to accomplish.

So if someone wants to murder someone, then the idea of "Subjective Morality" would be used to accomplish it according to you.

If it can be used to Accomplish anything, then the terms Right/Wrong, Are in fact Useless, under your worldview Morality would be a crutch, even you admit it when you said "depending on what you actually want to accomplish"

Your Atheist worldview is indeed untenable.

No, I knew well what it means, please don't be condescending. I asked because your arguments seemed to imply that your definition was different from mine.

How did it appear to be different?

Exactly, so objectivity could therefore be defined by innate social morals.

Being Innate doesn't make something Objectively Wrong. Being Innate would also show that the Morality isn't from us, but was caused by an external source.

Now you're left with a MindLESS source or a Mind(God).

Defining morality based on the belief in a deity is the exact opposite of objectivity because it is rooted in belief.

Nice Try, No one is arguing that Belief that God exists makes someone Moral, many people who claim to be atheists actually believe God exists, yet they reject Him and are immoral.

The argument is not about belief, but that YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) has to Exist for Objective Moral Values to exist.

This doesn't make sense. By definition objectivity is outside of individual feelings and opinions, so something that is universally agreed upon could easily be considered objective.

Self Contradicting, Outside of Individual Feelings and Opinions means that it's Not based on what's Universally Agreed/Agreements made by Individuals.

I didn't say they were "enforced by social forces". "Social" morality means morality concerning engagement with fellow humans. Universally innate social morality is objective.

Exactly, Objective Universally Innate Social Morality requires YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) to exist, otherwise Morality would be Subjective.

We agree that they are Innate, meaning not caused by use but by an external source, this source is either MindLESS or a Mind/God(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)

It cannot be MindLESS, as a MindLESS entity(or nothing) Lacks the property of Personhood/Mind/Morality. A MindLESS entity(or nothing) would be Amoral.

YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) is therefore the cause of Objective Innate Universal Social Morality.

Sorry, I don´t understand what "Objectively Right/Wrong" is supposed to mean when it comes to valuations (in my understanding valuations are by their very nature subjective). Could you please clarify so that I can answer congenially?
Also, I am not sure how to interprete the capitalization of these terms.

*Interpret

Objective as in Fact, not based on Opinion, Agreement, etc.

However, I don´t think that you use the term "objective" correctly. The opinion of a powerful being (no matter how incredibly powerful it may be) isn´t objective.

Hold the phone, right there you're making a Presupposition that All Christians have an Opinion that God exists rather than a Knowledge(Objective).

You'll need to prove that claim of yours.

And so am I. In the end of the day I don´t care about the moral opinion of a God (assuming for a moment there is one). Let´s say it turns out that there is a God and He approves of harming others and forbids loving others, I still would cling to my diametrically opposed own ethics and morality.

Harm(Depriving/Hurting/Discomfort) would be a Lack of Something(Giving Life/Loving/Comfort), Evil is not a Thing, it's a lack of. The Greatest Being/Cause of Everything could not possibly Lack anything so if God exists He could only be Loving and not approving of harm as Objective Morality.

Also God would instill Universal Moral, so even if you disagree with Him(as you do), so even if you disagree that Loving others is Right and you want to Harm others, you'd still know deep down that Loving others is the Objectively Right thing to do.

You ignored that God of the Bible would instill morals in us and that Evil is a lack of good, probably assuming I wouldn't notice, and that ultimately cost you your very own argument.

We generally agree that murder is wrong because it makes for a pretty dysfunctional society, and we like society.

Using Objective terms again, saying it makes a dysfunctional society would merely be your opinion Under Your Worldview.

Under your worldview if Hitler thought Not Murdering made for a dysfunctional society then under Your Worldview he would be "right"

Your worldview is simply not found in reality.

Heh, no. You dont understand. I reject the existance of metaphysics. That does not mean that I dont have opinions on different things, including what is acceptable behaviour and not. I also think that I have better arguments for why its bad to kill people then its just wrong beacuse its just wrong (as you say).

I never said it's wrong because it's wrong, That's Your Atheist Worldview, you have absolutely no reason to help others, other than personal opinion. whereas my worldview it's Objective to love others, as YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) instills that ought, as His nature is Love.

Well, the idea of "Objective Morality" is your position - so I am not quite clear why you expect me to defend it.
I´m also a little confused why you haven´t even tried to substantiate this opinion, so far.

The existence of subjective morality is evident: People have conflicting moral views.

People can have different views with the existence of Objective Innate Moral Values, so your argument fails.

The question is not: Is morality subjective or objective? but:
Does - beyond the demonstrably existing subjective moralities - exist an objective morality (and what does that even mean)?
It seems that proving this would be your job - since it is the position you hold.

Subjective Morality is not proven by Conflicting Views, that would be like saying the Earth being round isn't Objective because some view it as "flat".

Views don't change what is Objective, many people may think the earth is flat, that does not change that the Earth is Objectively Not Flat.

Morality would still be Objective even with conflicting Views/Beliefs.

Your argument is null, void and refuted.

It seems that proving this would be your job - since it is the position you hold.

As always, quatona hits the nail on the head.

The nail has not been hit on the head, #1, Why should it be my job? #2, Why shouldn't you prove Morality is Subjective?

But since you want me to prove it, I will, unlike you I do not evade, I will do so by proving YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) exists, If God/YHWH exists, Morality is Objective:

Simple Logic and Scientific Princple of Cause and Effect.

A Cause must have the properties of the Effect, so if for example I have a Laptop which is composed of Plastic, the Cause must contain Plastic, the Cause cannot lack Plastic as the Plastic derived from the Cause.

A MindLESS entity(or Nothing) lacks the properties of a Mind, our Cause cannot lack properties for a Mind/Free Will/Awareness as those properties are derived from the Cause.

In Layman's terms, you cannot give what you Do Not have.

Our cause therefore cannot be MindLESS, that is now proven impossible.

Atheism is false, our cause is a Mind.(YHWH: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)


Your turn, prove that Morality is Subjective, and No, Conflicting views doesn't make it Subjective, just like Conflicting views on the shape of the Earth doesn't change that it's Not Flat.

Slavery, rape, genocide...these are objevtively wrong in your estimation?

Certainly, and before you attempt to preach your indoctrination by atheist websites with false claims against the Bible, lets refute that:

Slavery never endorsed, Old Testament has Indentured Servitude -> Slavery in the Bible: Does God Approve of It? Does the Bible allow for slavery? where YHWH(God: The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) says in Leviticus 25 that they're treated as a hired man, "'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee."

In which the workers would want to live with their employee, as they got free food, free clothes, were treated like a family member, Exodus 21:5-7 - "But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently."

On rape:

Rape is condemned -> Deuteronomy 22:25-27 - "25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her."

As far as Deuteronomy 22:28-29 goes, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape and the word used is וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־(ve·he·che·zik-) which means forces(which is what rape is, Deuteronomy 22:25 Lexicon: "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.)

That word is completely missing from Deuteronomy 22:28-29, rape is therefore not condemned in Deuteornomy 22:28-29. also the words taphas and anah do not mean rape in this verse. The Old Testament and Rape : Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29

So not only is rape never condoned, it's condemned.

As far as Genocide, killed for Ethnic/Racial reasons?

No. Only those who harmed others(Such as Sodom, they were rapists) had their privileges to life taken away for hurting other people.

And in case you speak of the Samuels passage, that is a Interpolation, as it contradicts a majority of books, doesn't even make up one whole book and is in a less authenticated book

If that's Genocide then the Death Penalty would be Genocide for ending plenty of evil people.

Only under an Atheist worldview would you assume they die forever, which would be a Presupposition.

If you're going to talk about the Christian worldview, then you can't cherry pick, you must go with all doctrine from Authenticated passages(Not Interpolations), such the most important, The Resurrection(1 Thessalonian 4) where all are Resurrected for Judgement, so even then all the Harmful people simply went out of conscious temporary(Good to Eternal Life, Evil don't get Eternal Life, they get Eternal Punishment/Death).

Under your worldview of Atheist, rape wouldn't be objectively wrong.

Well first I would need you to tell me what you think objective morality is before I can attempt to show it doesn't exist. Generally speaking though, when most people refer to objective morality, they believe that moral good/bad are unchanging, whether across different circumstances or throughout time. Is this what you mean by objective morality?

Fact, Unchanging. So for example Murder is Objectively wrong regardless of human opinion.

#1. I think the easiest way to demonstrate this isn't the case would be to point out that without knowing what is definitively good and bad for every moral action...the whole notion of objective morality cannot logically exist. Why? Because for any moral actions which we do not know are objectively good and bad we would have to decide these things for ourselves. If you're deciding for yourself that a moral action is good or bad, then you're demonstrating what most people refer to as subjective morality. I like to call it relative morality.... and it's the only concept of morality that that consistently describes how morals work in real life.

Long Reteric of Claims without proof, How is Morality not Objective? Can you prove they are Subjective?

Even if people had different views on Morality, wouldn't prove that it isn't Objective.

#2. Yes, in some situations hurting people is a "good" moral behavior. Absolutely. I would call it relativistic morality, but I think we understand each other.

In what situations? rape/murder, etc would Not be good in some situations.

All morality is subjective. That's not an opinion, it's a readily observable fact.

That is an Opinion, as you provided Absolutely No Evidence, only a claim that it's "Subjective"

We once used to consider it morally acceptable to keep slaves. We no longer do. Our moral code has changed in this regard. It has been SUBJECT to changing societal values.

We used to consider it morally acceptable to publicly torture and execute people for their religious beliefs. We no longer do so. Our morality has evolved. It is subjective in nature

Even if people considered it acceptable, that wouldn't change that it's wrong, Hence Objective Morality, not based on/Regardless of anyone views.

No different than how even if certain people Consider the earth as flat it Does Not change that the Earth is Not Flat.

Views don't change what's Objective, nor do Views make something Subjective.