What does "We all agree X is wrong -> objective morality" actually mean

[Chriliman]

Right, emotions are subjective. People experience them differently.

This is true, but just because we experience emotions subjectively doesn’t mean they have no objective significants. It’s that objective significance that's important to consider when deciding if morality is objective or not.

If someone’s grieving at the loss of their child, you can say it’s objectively wrong to call them a wimp for crying about it because of the facts of the situation.

 

[Ken-1122]

Agreed. . .but that it is even on the radar in pagan cultures is evidence of conscience.

But the fact that there is no consistency concerning these issues tells me it is not based on the nature of human conscience.

 

[Clare73]

But the fact that there is no consistency concerning these issues
tells me it is not based on the nature of human conscience.

The human conscience is not unalterable.
That it can be dulled and even extinguished does not negate the nature of human conscience prior to doing so.

 

[Ken-1122]

The human conscience is not unalterable.
That it can be dulled and even extinguished does not negate the nature of human conscience prior to doing so.

So are you saying it is natural for humans to have a perception of right vs wrong, even though what constitutes right or wrong will vary from person to person and often change over time? Is that the point you are making?

 

[Clare73]

So are you saying it is natural for humans to have a perception of right vs wrong, even though what constitutes right or wrong will vary from person to person and often change over time? Is that the point you are making?

I am making the point Paul makes in Romans 2:14-16: that the law of God (right and wrong) is naturally written on the human heart, the conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them, by which law of their heart they will be judged.

And I am saying that conscience can be seared whereby it is dulled and deadened to the law naturally written on the heart, by which law they will, nevertheless, be judged.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am making the point Paul makes in Romans 2:14-16: that the law of God (right and wrong) is naturally written on the human heart, the conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them, by which law of their heart they will be judged.

And I am saying that conscience can be seared whereby it is dulled and deadened to the law naturally written on the heart, by which law they will, nevertheless, be judged.

The problem with making unsubstantiated claims based on what Paul, or any other character from the Bible said, is it only works if you’re preaching to the choir, and as you can see from my profile, I’m not a member of the choir. Perhaps you can try a different approach!

 

[Clare73]

The problem with making unsubstantiated claims based on what Paul, or any other character from the Bible said, is it only works if you’re preaching to the choir, and as you can see from my profile, I’m not a member of the choir. Perhaps you can try a different approach!

'Tis not mine to explain gravity to one who doesn't believe the laws of physics.

And 'tis not mine to explain the existence of the spiritual nature of man to one who doesn't believe the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

 

[Ken-1122]

'Tis not mine to explain gravity to one who doesn't believe the laws of physics.

And 'tis not mine to explain the existence of the spiritual nature of man to one who doesn't believe the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

If you are making a point and expect to be taken seriously, it is up to you to explain these things.

 

[Clare73]

If you are making a point and expect
to be taken seriously, it is up to you to explain these things.

As likewise said the guy who doesn't believe the laws of physics.

 

[Ken-1122]

As likewise said the guy who doesn't believe the laws of physics.

If someone doesn't believe the laws of physics, you can explain it to him by daring him to step off a cliff. He will either die or become a believer. The same can't be said for your God claims; the two cannot be compared.

 

[FireDragon76]

The idea is that if at least one thing is morally wrong then objective morality must exist. The torture of children is the easy example that proves that not anything goes. It is something like a practical dilemma: either you admit that the torture of children is wrong and objective morality exists, or else you show yourself to be a sociopath.

C.S. Lewis does a similar thing in Mere Christianity, albeit in a smoother way. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people really do believe in objective morality, whether they are willing to admit it or not, and whether they can give an adequate explanation or not.

Objective moral standards don't exist. C.S. Lewis tried to over-generalize from many diverse religious and philosophical traditions that he wasn't really familiar with (as exemplified by his appropriation of the Chinese term tao). At best we can conclude there are certain principles that are more or less conducive to human flourishing, but that isn't quite the same as what Christians generally think of, when they think of "objective morality".

 

[stevevw]

I don't understand the comment "We all know torturing children is wrong so there must be objective morality"

Could something that thinks it is true explain it in a totally different way

please please please do not just say "but why do you think that"
I would suggest that you only use scripture

Research shows that we are born with the basic knowledge of right and wrong.
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says 'yes' | CNN

We know the moral law without even having a moral law.
Romans 2:14
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

So it looks like its something innate in us.

 

[stevevw]

If someone doesn't believe the laws of physics, you can explain it to him by daring him to step off a cliff. He will either die or become a believer. The same can't be said for your God claims; the two cannot be compared.

As far as moral truths or facts are concerned we can explain how they come about but in a different way to science. Rather we can look back over our experiences and see how these moral truths were carved out through our experience.

For example the idea that all people have equal rights. This was hard fought for where people challenged the idea of the ruling minority. It didn't sit well with the commoners and people began to challenge this notion until we came to the realization that all are equal. Once this was established it was realized that this was a truth principle that was beyond what individuals or ruling minorities claimed.

The same with ideas like slavery where we thought certain races were inferior. But thanks to wise men who realized that all people were innately the same and deserved respect, dignity and equality regardless of race this became a truth that we live by since then and will never change as its a self evident truth we came to realize.

These moral truths have always been there. It just takes time to live out the alternatives to come to the realization of these truths.