Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

So I take it you CAN'T apply your standards of objective morality to the trolley problem?

Because you never actually answered my question, did you? Try again please.

Heres the problem for the logic you are using to disprove that objective moral values don't exist. The example you use is a logical fallacy and doesn't prove that objective moral values don't exist. It doesn't matter how I answer it. It is still a logical fallacy that doesn't prove objective moral values don't exist.

Why is it that people have to revert to more and more unreal and complicated examples to prove their point. Shouldn't you be able to do with a clear, simple, and realistic example? It only shows you are having problems proving your point.

 

[stevevw]

I'd give poor Steve the benefit of the doubt. He's the sole defender of objective morality in this thread and he's replying to at least four people. I mean, he's totally wrong of course, but he's still being a nice chap despite what must be a very stressful endeavor on his part.

Actually I don't mind and quite enjoy the debate/banter. But you are right that I am finding it hard keeping up. I do have other stuff to do, though the social isolation laws do help in restricting me to not have to cope with all the usual things I would be doing. But our PM has just announced some lifting of those restrictions so I may be going back to normal routines soon.

 

[stevevw]

Before I start my reply, I'd just like to point out that you appear to have skipped replying to many of the points I have raised.

In particular, you avoided responding to the part of my post where I said you were incapable of using your idea of objective morality to tell us what the objectively right moral choice is in a particular situation. All you ever seem to say is that certain things are objectively morally wrong. So please tell me what the objectively morally right course of action is if I find that my daughter has taken $20 out of my purse so she can go and get McDonald's with her friends.

I will answer this one separately as it seems to be something I may have missed. Though please remember that some of these points are repeated or similar questions or objections and may have been addressed in other posts.

In relation to the appropriate action for your daughter taking $20 out of your purse. Isn't that about a penalty for a morally wrong act rather than the moral act itself? I guess most people would say taking money without asking is stealing and therefore morally wrong. The penalty for doing that is another situation.

 

[stevevw]

And once again I will point out that it doesn't matter if people act as though their morality is objective. Acting like it is objective doesn't make it objective.

Then I have to go back to the logical argument I posted for how we are justified to believe based on our moral lived experience that there are objective moral values IE.

My claim is that we are justified in believing (2) on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience. Such a defeater would have to show not merely that our moral experience is fallible or defeasible but that it is utterly unreliable, that we may apprehend no objective moral values or duties whatsoever.

Our moral experience is so powerful, however, that such a defeater would have to be incredibly powerful in order to overcome our experience, just as our sense experience is so powerful that a defeater of my belief in the world of physical objects I perceive would have to be incredibly powerful in order for me to believe that I have no good reason to think that I am not a brain in a vat of chemicals or a body lying in the Matrix.

So what is the defeater that will prove that our moral experience is fallible and does not show there is objective morality but is totally unreliable that we cannot realize any objective morals whatsoever?

Show your working, please.

I used the example that objective morals have degrees of bad. IE telling a lie to the Nazi's at your door save the Jews is still morally wrong but not as big a wrong as giving them up to be taken away and killed in the gas chambers. So telling a lie in this situation doesn't make lying OK or good it is still bad. It is wrong but justified in relative situations. Remember relativity does not exclude there are objective morals.

So telling a little "white lie" as some call it to not hurt someone and cause them more harm is still wrong but not as wrong as a lie that causes someone harm or is motivated by greed etc. So the little lie though still wrong is justified in that relative situation. At no point does this change the fact that lying is objectively wrong.

It doesn't need an objective value.

I know I don't like it when people hurt me. I have empathy so I know other people probably don't like it when they are hurt. So I try to avoid hurting other people because I don't want to be responsible for them hurting.

What part of that needs anything objective?[/quote] The parts where you are appealing to qualities like hurt and empathy. Notice how you said I don't like and other people probably don't like it. Subjective likes and dislikes could mean anything. When you use "hurt and empathy" you have gone from "likes and dislikes" to qualifying a moral value and therefore not a "like or dislike".

Under subjective morality "hurt and empathy" have no moral value and meaning as there is no way to measure their worth apart from personal views. You have attempted to give your morals value through "likes and dislikes" but these do not have any moral value either just as saying someone "likes or dislikes" chocolate cake. You may not like being hurt but you cannot say that is objectively true for others. Some people like hurting others and some show no empathy as they like having everything for themselves as this makes them happy.

There is no OBJECTIVE right and wrong, but you seem to think that subjective ideas of right and wrong have no meaning.

They only have meaning for the subject (the person). So they have no meaning beyond that otherwise they would be objective (have the same meaning for all).

And me saying that other people have their own subjective views of morality is in no way the same thing as me pushing my morality on them.

I never said that. I said people that claim subjective morals tell other people with subjective morals that their moral view is wrong and that theirs is right. When they do that they are saying my view applies to everyone else thus taking an objective moral position.

Why do you think that subjective morality means we are incapable of viewing other people's actions through the lens of our own morality?

I never said you cannot view morals through your own lens under subjective morals. I said the moment you go from viewing to applying them to others you are now taking a position that your moral position is correct for others.

So really you should be saying "the way I see things your moral position is wrong but you also have the right to have that moral position and it is not wrong to you. So neither of us is ultimately in the right position. You can hold your views and I can hold mine so lone as we don't impose them on each other.

And why is the act of rape wrong then?

I mean, if there really is some objective reason, you should be able to demonstrate it, just as I can demonstrate the objective fact that 1+1=2.

You don't have to have mathematical evidence for morals. You simply have to show that rape is wrong in itself and not because you or I say its wrong. I have already shown this. The fact that moral lived experience shows us that people know that rape is always wrong shows this.

Irrelevant. You are still claiming that they are changing their position regarding something that is objective. If it is an objective fact, then there can be no changing your mind. Just like how you can't change your mind to think that 1+1=3.

So what if there are objective morals and the person changes their mind against an objective moral by being morally bad. Just because there are objective morals doesn't mean people are forced to always follow objective morals. They have free will. You are committing an "either and or" fallacy where if there are objective morals that people either have to stick or else.

And the first two sentences demolish your own point. Killing is always objectively wrong, except when it isn't.

Once again, you are forced to invent complicated tools to keep your objective morality ideas while still allowing them to be subjectively decided on. And it's not fooling me (although it seems to be fooling you).

Again this is mixing up objective and absolute moral values. To say morals are absolute is to say that they apply regardless of the situation you are in. So don't kill regardless of a crazed killer coming to wipe out your family or don't kill using the death penalty regardless of whether the crime demands that penalty to uphold justice.

Objective morality means in any given situation there is a moral choice that is really right and really wrong independent of human opinion. But that can vary depending on the circumstances. In some situations, it may morally OK to kill but in other situations, it may not be morally OK to kill. But that is different from absolute morality that doesn't take any circumstances into consideration and it is always wrong to kill in all circumstances.

And I think that is what you are confusing with objective morality. An absolute morality does not deny objective morality.

 

[Speedwell]

That view about why society conforms to certain moral values is based on sociobiological processes. That is what prominent evolutionists will call the selfish gene needed to reproduce. So under this view moral values are nothing to do with right and wrong but just learnt behaviour to help humans survive.

So things like rape, stealing and killing may be socially against the agreed norms but they are no more right and wrong than another animal for example who kills a females offspring so it puts itself in a better position to mate and reproduce. So we are just like advanced primates and what we call moral values are just these ingrained sociobiological processes.

So there are no objective moral values. When people make moral judgments under this view they are saying nothing about being morally right or wrong. When you make moral judgments like everyone has the right not to be discriminated against like it is an objective moral value where did this moral value about rights come from?

You just explained where it came from. Why do you ask the question?

Isn't this just a result of sociobiological processes. So a person who rapes, discriminates, abuses children, and steals is just acting out of fashion and against a sociobiological agreed position that has been ingrained in humans. It says nothing or carries no weight about any moral values about right and wrong.

"Moral values" and "right and wrong" is how we describe it.

 

[stevevw]

You mean the one that assumes there is an absolute morality in order to show the existence of God?

No that supports an objective morality to show the existence of God. God Himself allowed killing in some situations when was regarded as justified. So God could not have supported absolute morality where it is never justified to kill in certain relative situations. Remembering that God is all good and there is no evil in Him.

How can there be ANY justification to do something that is objectively and absolutely wrong?

Because absolute and objective morality is different. I explained this in the post before this one.

I agree.

I cannot impose my subjective morality based on my own empathy on others. BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECTIVE. Why do you keep looking for some objective morality when I've already told you countless times that there isn't one?

I haven't and you must be misunderstanding things or I am not doing a good job of explaining things. Once again I agree with you when you say you cannot "IMPOSE" your own subjective moral understanding of empathy onto others. But what I keep saying is maybe not you but most others who support subjective morality do "IMPOSE" their version of empathy and other morals onto others.

As you have agreed by not doing so is a subjective position then you must also agree that actually "IMPOSING" a person's moral position onto others is, therefore, taking an objective moral position. Why because when the person "IMPOSES" their morals onto others they are saying their morals are correct for others as well and they know they are correct for all. That's an objective position.

How would I know that it is a crooked line? Because I measure the angle.

But you only know an angle is crooked when measuring it when you compare it to a straight line. If there are no straight lines then it would just be on its own like some strangely shaped thing. Say there was no water then the state of being dry would not be called dry but rather just a state of being that is always the same, whatever you want to call it. But when we add water to the equation and people can get wet we can now come up with the idea of dryness when compared to being wet and visa versa. There is now a state of dryness only because we have wetness.

GASP! It's almost like it was entirely subjective and not objective at all!

Isn't this what I've been trying to tell you?

Yes, but haven't I kept trying to explain that people don't react like that. When they impose their moral view onto others they act objectively. I think you are not differentiating when people impose morality onto others that it has moved from a subjective position and that is causing the confusion. You are attributing objective behaviour to a subjective moral position without any substantiation.

What you are missing or perhaps it is my explaining is that when I describe how subjective morality works in that it has no way of measuring things like empathy and hurt and I am doing this to show how people contradict themselves because with their morally lived experience. They impose their subjective moral values and meaning onto others. Or they attribute meaning and value to their subjective morals beyond their personal views.

This is the morally lived experience I am talking about that supports there being objective morals. People claim subjective morality but act/react like there are objective morals and I have given ample examples.

Nah, all you've done is make the claim. You have to support your claim.

After all, what can be claimed with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.

Where going in circles again. Surely you haven't forgotten the support I have already given. IE Morally lived experience points to there being objective morals (I have given ample examples). Observable reacts and actions of how individuals, organisations and even societies impose certain moral values on others.

I have already explained and you have agreed that under a subjective moral system the meaning and value of morals even when agreed on by groups of people are just personal opinions and has no justification for being imposed on others and denying others their different subjective moral positions.
Therefore people, organisations and societies are reacting and acting like there are objective morals.

The evidence is in their observed behaviour towards others and acknowledging that some things are always good or evil, right or wrong. Behaviours whether agreed or not cannot explain why something is morally right or wrong through sociobiological processes including likes and dislikes which are also subjective and say nothing about why something is right or wrong.

Therefore if subjective morality cannot determine right and wrong objectively yet people live like there are objective morals there must be some independent measure of morality. So all that has to be shown is that there must be some independent grounding for morality beyond humans at this stage. Like I said that doesn't have to be a particular God and as Sam Harris says could be done with science and he's an atheist. So even atheist support objective morality.

I will finish off the rest in another post
thanks steve.

 

[Speedwell]

I have already explained and you have agreed that under a subjective moral system the meaning and value of morals even when agreed on by groups of people are just personal opinions and has no justification for being imposed on others and denying others their different subjective moral positions.
Therefore people, organisations and societies are reacting and acting like there are objective morals.

No, you have asserted, not explained, and many here have strenuously disagreed with you about it--without an adequate response from you.

 

[stevevw]

I know. But when the results come out to 180 degrees, I know it's straight. I don't even need to SEE the line. I just need to know that it's 180 degrees and I know for a fact that it's not crooked.

Line has angle of 180 degrees.

I don't need to know the context of anything else to know that this line being measured is straight. What possible context could there be that would change the fact that it is straight?

But there would be no such thing as 180 degrees if there were no crooked or bent lines. 180 degrees implies other degrees such as 45, 33 or 102 degrees which would be crooked to give 180 degrees its relevance. But remember there are no bent lines to compare with so, therefore, there is no such thing as 180 degrees.

But "tall" and "short" are subjective terms.

I am of average height. My daughter (back when she was six) was a lot shorter than me. But we were both tall compared to the cockroaches that we occasionally found in the house.

You can't prove an objective by invoking subjectives.

That's strange logic. It is objectively true that a cockroach will never be as tall as a human. You mentioned the average height. What is average. Say its 5' 6" for women and 6' for men. So anyone below these measures would be short and anyone above this would be taller than the average. You cannot subjectively have the view that an average short person is really taller than the average and visa versa. Those measures remain objective.

But you have missed the point. Are you saying there are no examples of how opposites or difference give contexts to each other like tall and short? I don't want to have to come up with more examples.

 

[stevevw]

No, you have asserted, not explained, and many here have strenuously disagreed with you about it--without an adequate response from you.

First trying to imply that many people are saying something that therefore I must be wrong is a logical fallacy. Just because you and maybe 5 or 6 others disagree about objective morality which is to be expected if you don't think there are objective morals doesn't mean there are no objective morals.

Second, what is it you want me to explain exactly. What I have explained cant be an assertion as people on your side have agreed that subjective morality is personal views and only relates to the person with the subjective views. That trying to apply a personal view onto someone else does not make that personal moral view right for others. That by doing so they are saying that their moral view is right for others as well and that other people's personal moral views are wrong.

 

[stevevw]

You just explained where it came from. Why do you ask the question?

How can you ask that when I just went through explaining how that view of morality does not explain moral values that people can attach values like rights to it. So you are more or less agreeing that the explanation for subjective morality doesn't really tell us what is really right and wrong.

"Moral values" and "right and wrong" is how we describe it.

But you attach more meaning and value that is really there. You should be describing it as "likes or dislikes", fashionable or unfashionable acts, or on-trend or out of trend behaviors or even in line with instinct or not. But not have any value or meaning that is about objective moral right and wrong acts and duties.

Except of course if you only apply these values and meaning to yourself, then you can call it whatever so long as you don't impose then on others. But people don't react/act that way. They impose their moral meaning and value on others.

 

[Speedwell]

First trying to imply that many people are saying something that therefore I must be wrong is a logical fallacy. Just because you and maybe 5 or 6 others disagree about objective morality which is to be expected if you don't think there are objective morals doesn't mean there are no objective morals.

Second, what is it you want me to explain exactly.

Why, if a person attempts to persuade another to adopt his moral precept is he, as you put it, "reacting and acting like there are objective morals." I would also like you to back down from your assertion that we have agreed with you about it and respond to some of the arguments against it which we have raised.

 

[Speedwell]

How can you ask that when I just went through explaining how that view of morality does not explain moral values that people can attach values like rights to it. So you are more or less agreeing that the explanation for subjective morality doesn't really tell us what is really right and wrong.

Correct, because "what is really right and wrong" is just another way of describing what you call objective morality, and there is no such thing.
Your reasoning is brilliant: If there are no objective moral values then there are no objective moral values. QED.

But you attach more meaning and value that is really there. You should be describing it as "likes or dislikes", fashionable or unfashionable acts, or on-trend or out of trend behaviors or even in line with instinct or not. But not have any value or meaning that is about objective moral right and wrong acts and duties.

Value and meaning are subjective; I can assign any value or meaning to them I want.

Except of course if you only apply these values and meaning to yourself, then you can call it whatever so long as you don't impose then on others. But people don't react/act that way. They impose their moral meaning and value on others.

In your opinion--which you have not defended

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You implied earlier that it would be a bummer if morality was subjective. I don't think it'd be a big deal even for Christians if it was. You don't want to talk about that?

We can at some point.

 

[stevevw]

Most of the Christians I know do not insert God into every question that exists; there are a lot of answers they can provide that doesn’t even include God! And many of those answers I would even agree with and on many issues they will agree with me. Only the very small issue (small to me) of theism is where we disagree, and this small issue is not sufficient to be a world view.

So you are acknowledging that there are things that atheists and theist agree on in their world views. I think that is true and understandable. After all we all like I sai many Christians can believe everything an atheist believes except for a belief in God. They can support science and evolution like anyone.

And there are some people who are content with admitting to not having all the answers to the Universe and are content with the answer “I don’t know” and don’t claim a naturalistic nor a spiritual way of how things came about.

I agree there are some strange things we cannot know. But that is different from the bigger questions which for some comes down to faith.

No. I don’t think atheism is necessarily about whether or not God exist, I see it as not believing in God (to “believe in” meaning to accept the claims made of him)

You could accept Gods claims if you don't believe in God. But this is implying that if God made other claims that were more acceptable to you then you may believe in Him.

As an atheist, I recognize whatever it is that you call God may in fact exist but I don’t call it God. In order for me to say God doesn't exist, I would have to have a complete understanding of the God in question. Some people worship the Sun, Nature, inanimate objects, even people as real as you and I! Rastafarians worshipped Haile Selassie, there is a sect in Hinduism that worships Kumari (Haile Selassie died in the 1970’s but Kumari is still alive today) Wouldn’t it be foolish to say these people don’t exist simply because some deluded people chose to call them God? I think a case could be made for the existence of Allah or Yahweh as evolved beings from another planet that visited earth when mankind was primitive and as stories told of the event things embellished over the years to what we have now as God. IOW I accept what is called God may have had real origins, I just don’t believe what is said of God today.

So what it seems to be that you are saying is that some Gods may in fact be more like non-gods and people made into godlike beings. That it is a matter of tangibility and you need some tangible support for a god.

The Christian God makes supernatural claims and this is too hard to prove so, therefore, I am sceptical until some evidence is shown. That may be like other gods you mention people have created the Christian God and it is more about human storying telling than there actually being a God. But that is consistent with any scepticism because the essence of Christian belief is by faith and there will never be cold hard evidence.

There is some circumstantial and evidence from logical arguments such as on moral grounds or the cosmological one but that is all. But it is the evidence that is associated with the big questions that everyone whether they believe in God or not wonder about. A person may think there is some other dimension for life after death without believing in God.

There are atheists who support objective morality like Sam Harris. In fact, more and more non-believers such as in psychology are coming to the conclusion that there may be objective morality but are finding ways to explain this without the need for a god. That's because humans act like certain things are always right and wrong and should apply to all. They just use things like science, natural laws, even human-made laws to explain objective morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

So you are acknowledging that there are things that atheists and theist agree on in their world views. I think that is true and understandable. After all we all like I sai many Christians can believe everything an atheist believes except for a belief in God. They can support science and evolution like anyone.

Don’t assume because someone is an atheist they support science and evolution.

I agree there are some strange things we cannot know. But that is different from the bigger questions which for some comes down to faith.

I disagree! It is those bigger questions that would require faith, those are the questions I would rather admit to not having an answer to. IMO a wrong answer is worse than no answer at all.

You could accept Gods claims if you don't believe in God. But this is implying that if God made other claims that were more acceptable to you then you may believe in Him.

First of all; I’ve never rejected anything God said; I’ve only rejected things people claim God said. Though some things they say may be true, much of it I believe to be false. According to his Rastafarian followers, when Haile Selassie stepped off the plane in 1972, he waived his hand across the sky and it immediately began to rain thus ending the drought. There are still people today who claimed to have been there and witnessed this miracle. Now do I accept the claim that Haile Selassie stepped off an airplane in 1972? Yes! Millions of people stepped off of planes that year. Do I accept the miracle attributed to him? No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Word of mouth is not extraordinary evidence IMO

There are atheists who support objective morality like Sam Harris. In fact, more and more non-believers such as in psychology are coming to the conclusion that there may be objective morality but are finding ways to explain this without the need for a god.

Don’t assume atheist are gonna agree on anything. Madelyn O’Hair said attempting to organize atheists is like trying to heard cats” When people are free to think for themselves, they aren’t gonna agree on very much.

That's because humans act like certain things are always right and wrong and should apply to all. They just use things like science, natural laws, even human-made laws to explain objective morality.

Humans also act like Selma Hayek is beautiful, Flava flav is ugly, Katt Williams is funny Tracy Morgan is not, Will Smith is talented, Kim Kardashian is talentless; and they act these beliefs should apply to all. But does this make those claims objective?

 

[stevevw]

Why, if a person attempts to persuade another to adopt his moral precept is he, as you put it, "reacting and acting like there are objective morals."

I never said persuade others. That's what people keep saying when they defend their subjective moral position that they only try to reason and try to persuade/convince others. I keep saying that lived moral experience shows us that it is more than that. That people impose their moral positions on others. They condemn other people's actions and protest about evil in the world like it is not just a personal moral position but that evil is a real thing in the world.

This goes beyond persuasion and reasoning with others and takes the position that they know best what is the right position for everyone and that any other position is wrong and should not be even held. There are countless examples and they are all from so-called subjective moralists which kind of contradicts their moral position.

I would also like you to back down from your assertion that we have agreed with you about it and respond to some of the arguments against it which we have raised.

I said that people agree that subjective morality says nothing about whether moral value is really good or bad. Therefore it only applies to themselves. What exactly are the arguments that you want me to respond to? I have had many different things thrown at me I am not sure.

The only arguments I have had against objective morality are that objective moral values are determined by sociobiological processes that try and give morality meaning and value based on human ideas like survival, wellbeing, "likes or dislikes, etc. But I have already refuted these. These processes don't give any objective value and meaning to morals.

Because what can be a "like or dislike" or a matter of survival or wellbeing can be determined as different for different people. Therefore a person who can personally believe that something bad will benefit human wellbeing or survival. Or what one person equates a "like or dislike" with being morally good another can equate it with something bad. None of these things ground moral values.

 

[Speedwell]

I never said persuade others. That's what people keep saying when they defend their subjective moral position that they only try to reason and try to persuade/convince others. I keep saying that lived moral experience shows us that it is more than that. That people impose their moral positions on others. They condemn other people's actions and protest about evil in the world like it is not just a personal moral position but that evil is a real thing in the world.

"Evil" is a subjective judgement no matter how many people share it in any particular instance. It is not an ontological entity.

This goes beyond persuasion and reasoning with others and takes the position that they know best what is the right position for everyone and that any other position is wrong and should not be even held. There are countless examples and they are all from so-called subjective moralists which kind of contradicts their moral position.

And we are trying to explain to you--without much success, apparently--why it does not. It is possible to believe that one moral precept is superior to another without requiring that it be objective.

I said that people agree that subjective morality says nothing about whether moral value is really good or bad. Therefore it only applies to themselves. What exactly are the arguments that you want me to respond to? I have had many different things thrown at me I am not sure.

Apparently I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that we agreed with your argument in the previous paragraph. Of course subjective morality says nothing about whether a moral precept is "really good or bad" (i.e., objective). It's a tautology.

 

[stevevw]

Don’t assume because someone is an atheist they support science and evolution.

But then what would be the basis of their worldview. Unless they had some other kind of immaterial basis they there would only be a materialist/physicalist view left. So that would require ideas that supported physical processes to account for the universe, life, and existence.

I disagree! It is those bigger questions that would require faith, those are the questions I would rather admit to not having an answer to. IMO a wrong answer is worse than no answer at all.

Fair enough. I would have thought only those who did not believe in God or were agnostic would have a position that they did not know. Believers would have faith in a creator God and an afterlife. A scientific materialist view can still take the position they don't know.

But nowadays more are coming up with answers to these questions as I think it is impossible for science to ever know these answers and people don't like having any answers. So ideas like Lawrence Krauss's "nothing is really something" with quantum physics to explain how the universe began. Or multiverses and other ideas about how existence and life came about. Just like God none of these can ever really be directly verified by science.

First of all; I’ve never rejected anything God said; I’ve only rejected things people claim God said. Though some things they say may be true, much of it I believe to be false. According to his Rastafarian followers, when Haile Selassie stepped off the plane in 1972, he waved his hand across the sky and it immediately began to rain thus ending the drought. There are still people today who claimed to have been there and witnessed this miracle. Now do I accept the claim that Haile Selassie stepped off an airplane in 1972? Yes! Millions of people stepped off of planes that year. Do I accept the miracle attributed to him? No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Word of mouth is not extraordinary evidence IMO

The point is at the end of the day you are not going to get that direct evidence to believe. At least for Christianity, it is a matter of faith and there's no way around that.

Don’t assume atheist are gonna agree on anything. Madelyn O’Hair said attempting to organize atheists is like trying to heard cats” When people are free to think for themselves, they aren’t gonna agree on very much.

I am not sure I agree with this. I think people will agree on much when free to do so. At least on important things anyway. I agree that atheists will have varying ideas about what exactly atheism is. But primarily they lack a belief in God. Based on this they are not going to support objective morality because objective morality is an argument for God.

Humans also act like Selma Hayek is beautiful, Flava flav is ugly, Katt Williams is funny Tracy Morgan is not, Will Smith is talented, Kim Kardashian is talentless; and they act these beliefs should apply to all. But does this make those claims objective?

I don't think that is true. Who said Will Smith is talented and Kim is not.

 

[Ken-1122]

But then what would be the basis of their worldview. Unless they had some other kind of immaterial basis they there would only be a materialist/physicalist view left.

Just because a person does not believe in God does not mean they don’t believe in Ghosts, spirits, or other such non-material entities.

So that would require ideas that supported physical processes to account for the universe, life, and existence.

We’re not required to have an explanation to account for the Universe, life, or existence

Fair enough. I would have thought only those who did not believe in God or were agnostic would have a position that they did not know. Believers would have faith in a creator God and an afterlife. A scientific materialist view can still take the position they don't know.

Why would an honest person take a position they really don’t know?

But nowadays more are coming up with answers to these questions as I think it is impossible for science to ever know these answers and people don't like having any answers. So ideas like Lawrence Krauss's "nothing is really something" with quantum physics to explain how the universe began. Or multiverses and other ideas about how existence and life came about. Just like God none of these can ever really be directly verified by science.

That’s because those things are not science. They may be speculation, ideas, philosophy, W.A.G; but not science.

The point is at the end of the day you are not going to get that direct evidence to believe. At least for Christianity, it is a matter of faith and there's no way around that.

For the 40+ years I’ve existed, do you know the biggest difference I’ve noticed between the truth and a lie? The truth never asks to be believed; that’s what lies do. A liar will demand belief because he can’t provide proof, he can’t provide a demonstration, he cannot provide any empirical evidence or objective proof that there is any merit to his claim, so he will vilify you if you refuse to take him at his word.
No; that is not what you will find from the truth, the truth asks to be tested. The truth wants to be questioned, analyzed, picked apart, studied, the truth wants to be verified! Because once you’ve done all of that, belief comes naturally.
I perceive faith as a demand for belief, and experience tells me that is the inconsistent with truth. That is the problem I have with faith

 

[Kylie]

Heres the problem for the logic you are using to disprove that objective moral values don't exist. The example you use is a logical fallacy and doesn't prove that objective moral values don't exist. It doesn't matter how I answer it. It is still a logical fallacy that doesn't prove objective moral values don't exist.

Why is it that people have to revert to more and more unreal and complicated examples to prove their point. Shouldn't you be able to do with a clear, simple, and realistic example? It only shows you are having problems proving your point.

Stop trying to get out of it.

How is it a logical fallacy? Situations very much like this have actually happened. So tell me, if it's a logical fallacy, which one is it? Argument from incredulity? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Which one?

You are alleging that there are objective morals. I am asking you to apply them to this situation. And you are doing your best to squirm out of it.