The problem with 'objective moral values'

[Raf]

We have addressed these issues before, but I did so in a way that was confrontational and not constructive. I hope to reverse that this time and do so in a way that addresses the issue from an angle I'm not sure we covered directly last time.

One of the criticisms we (who do not believe in gods/God) face is that in the absence of God, we have no foundation for objective morality. I'll allow Christian apologist William Lane Craig to frame the issue.

Objective moral values do exist, and we can justify the existence of such values because God exists. Objective moral values cannot exist unless God does. Now, I am oversimplifying his point and I invite you to read his work on this for yourself, but I do so with a cautionary note: I believe Craig (I will abbreviate to WLC to avoid confusion with that other Craig of our common experience) uses a LOT of words to obscure the fact that his argument is ultimately circular. That is, one has to presume objective moral values exist in the first place and you must assume there is a causative relationship between those values and the existence of a God in order to reach the conclusion that God provides the foundation for objective moral values.

As I will demonstrate in either this post or a future one, the problem with the assumption that God is the foundation of objective moral values is, it leaves us with no mechanism to evaluate the morality of the actions committed by or ordered by that God. Of necessity, anything that God says or does has to be morally good, even if we know they're not. For the unbeliever, this is a serious problem, because we need to evaluate the moral value system of multiple gods who disagree with each other, with each religion telling us we have no right to question the morality of their God. We cannot question Allah or Jesus or Yahweh. A Christian sure can evaluate Allah, but only against Christianity. And the Muslim has no responsibility to accept a Christian's criticism because to the Muslim, the Christian is using a false moral foundation.

Simply put, Christians believe Yahweh/Jesus is/are always right, and if your morality conflicts with theirs, you are wrong and better get with the program. Muslims think Allah/Muhammad are always right and if your morality conflicts with theirs, you are wrong and better get with the program. The problem is, they cannot BOTH be right, and there can't simply be no way to evaluate the morality of a god's actions or orders. 

The problem is in the premise.

The problem with the whole construct lies right at the beginning, with the premise that objective moral values exist.

They don't. Repeat, objective moral values do not exist. In fact, if you think about it, objective moral values are oxymoronic. 

We need to first distinguish between types of values. Some values are objective. Say, measurements. Five feet is taller than three feet. Six feet is taller than two feet.

But is six feet objectively "tall"?

Well, it can be. It can also not be. If you're a horse jockey, six feet is real tall. Perhaps prohibitively so. However, if you're a basketball player, six feet is tiny. Same six feet. Tall against one standard, short against another. The objective value is feet and inches. Or centimeters, for anyone reading on the rest of the planet.

So when we talk about values, we can't assume we're talking about something objective, especially when human evaluation against ANOTHER standard comes into play.

And THAT is the problem with morality.

Morality is an attempt at a coherent system of value judgements, but such judgments are subjective BY DEFINITION.

One cannot say an action is objectively moral, objectively right or wrong, anymore than one can say something is audibly green or chromatically loud.

Actions merely ARE. They do not become moral or immoral, right or wrong, good or evil until they are measured against something else.

What does this mean? On social media, a believer writes: "If atheism were true sin wouldn’t be real. It would be a social construct. So really if you murdered, raped or genocide a village, then that wouldn’t be wrong. So even your worst evils aren’t evil if atheism is true."

But this believer is mistaken. Badly.

The first mistake is to assume that subjective morality is somehow inadequate to evaluate the goodness or evil of an action. Not only is subjective morality adequate to the task, it is the ONLY tool we have to accomplish the task!

That's hard for people to process because it requires saying things like "rape is not objectively wrong; murder is not objectively wrong; genocide is not objectively wrong."

Here's the thing, though: "Not objectively wrong" is not a synonym for "right, acceptable, good," or even "neutral."

Good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are all subjective value judgments. Always. (This doesn't change just because one subjugates his own moral value system for God's and calls it "objective." God's moral value system is HIS subjective value system, and all people are entitled to evaluate it to decide whether it is adequate.

Rape is not objectively wrong. But it is subjectively wrong and that is an adequate basis to condemn it.

Murder is not objectively wrong. But it is subjectively wrong and that is an adequate basis to condemn it.

Genocide is not objectively wrong. But it is subjectively wrong and that is an adequate basis to condemn it.

On what basis does one evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action?

Well, I submit you hold it against a standard that IS objective. While it is not written in stone, one can build a predictable and useful subjective value system around the premise that all actions have the potential of helping people or hurting them, contributing to our benefit or contributing to suffering. If you commit an act that contributes to the greater good without exacerbating suffering, we can generally evaluate your action to be "good" or at least "neutral." 

And we can test that standard against any other. Ditch the parts that don't work and improve the parts that do.

This is what humanity has always done. It is why slavery was tolerated for centuries. It is why punishment for criminal activity has become less barbaric over time. It is why we look back at a movie like Reefer Madness as a virtual comedy rather than a solemn warning. It is why Amos and Andy were hilarious in their day and offensive now. Our morality evolves.

Biblical morality does not. Quranic morality does not.

Objective morality cannot change, by definition, because if it's objectively moral in 2025 then it must have been objectively moral in 2025 BC. If you argue "but it was a different time," then you concede, of necessity, that morality changes when times change, which is the OPPOSITE of "these actions are objectively wrong."

This is how I answered the social media Christian (I will repeat his post so you don't have to scroll back up for it:

"If atheism were true, sin wouldn’t be real. It would be a social construct. So really if you murdered, raped or genocide a village, then that wouldn’t be wrong. So even your worst evils aren’t evil if atheism is true."

My reply: 
1. Sin is not real.

2. It is a religious construct.

3. Rape, murder and genocide are wrong, which is a SUBJECTIVE determination with a rational basis in the amount of avoidable and unnecessary harm that is caused.

4. Evil is a subjective value judgment, so as long as there are people, those acts will contribute to avoidable human suffering therefore determined subjectively to be evil.

5. Subjective morality is an adequate basis to condemn evil.

6. Objective morality is an oxymoron. It does not and CAN not exist.

 

Stopping here to allow others to weigh in and ask questions.

 

 

 

[Nathan_Jr]

2 hours ago, Raf said:

On what basis does one evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action?

Well, I submit you hold it against a standard that IS objective. While it is not written in stone, one can build a predictable and useful subjective value system around the premise that all actions have the potential of helping people or hurting them, contributing to our benefit or contributing to suffering. If you commit an act that contributes to the greater good without exacerbating suffering, we can generally evaluate your action to be "good" or at least "neutral." 

This can be objectively observed and described. It is through this frame I will make a subjective moral assessment. Value judgements are indeed subjective.

How else could the species survive 200,000 years? Humans had to cooperate, help each other, for the survival and flourishing of the group, clan, tribe, nation state. Likewise, the individual needed the help of the group to survive and flourish. And we still do.

WLC. *exasperated sigh*  We were incapable of making value judgements about rape and murder until 3500 years ago? Whew! Finally! After enduring thousands of years of rampant child rape and matricide, humans finally understood how to live righteously. Thanks to the Hebrews - enthusiastic child rapists and mother murderers themselves, until they got morality. Got it.

 

 

[oldiesman]

4 hours ago, Raf said:

1. Sin is not real.

2. It is a religious construct.

3. Rape, murder and genocide are wrong, which is a SUBJECTIVE determination with a rational basis in the amount of avoidable and unnecessary harm that is caused.

4. Evil is a subjective value judgment, so as long as there are people, those acts will contribute to avoidable human suffering therefore determined subjectively to be evil.

5. Subjective morality is an adequate basis to condemn evil.

6. Objective morality is an oxymoron. It does not and CAN not exist.

 

Stopping here to allow others to weigh in and ask questions.

 

 

 

If I'm understanding you correctly, then wouldn't numbers 1 and 2 be "subjective" as well?

 

[Raf]

You're not understanding me correctly.

You are equating "sin" with "wrong."

Sin is an offense against God, objectively. God says to do x, and you do Not x. 

No God = no sin, by definition.

It is a logical consequence of God's non-existence.

Regardless of whether God and sin exist or not, it is a religious construct, not a social one. There are lots of social constructs governing the evaluation of morality. Sin is not one of them. 

The question is, can we as humans evaluate an action to be right or wrong, good or evil, in the absence of a God telling us the action is a sin?

This is a very difficult question for a believer to explore because it requires you to entertain the hypothetical that there is no god ultimately deciding the answer to the question.

Bottom line answer to your question: no, 1 and 2 are not subjective.

1. Is an assertion of fact contingent on the premise that there is no God (a direct response to the first premise cited by the theist).

2. Is a statement of fact regardless of whether one believes in a god. You simply cannot have sin without a god to offend. That makes it a religious construct, not a social one.

The challenge is to divorce the concepts of bad and evil, which are subjective evaluations of behavior and conduct, from sin, which is an objective evaluation of whether a particular action violates a set of divine laws or rules.

Did that clarify my point or muddy it?

[Nathan_Jr]

Sin is a real religious construct. Sin is a real religious concept. The concept doesn't exist outside a religious framework..

[oldiesman]

10 hours ago, Raf said:

You're not understanding me correctly.

You are equating "sin" with "wrong."

Sin is an offense against God, objectively. God says to do x, and you do Not x. 

No God = no sin, by definition.

It is a logical consequence of God's non-existence.

Regardless of whether God and sin exist or not, it is a religious construct, not a social one. There are lots of social constructs governing the evaluation of morality. Sin is not one of them. 

The question is, can we as humans evaluate an action to be right or wrong, good or evil, in the absence of a God telling us the action is a sin?

This is a very difficult question for a believer to explore because it requires you to entertain the hypothetical that there is no god ultimately deciding the answer to the question.

Bottom line answer to your question: no, 1 and 2 are not subjective.

1. Is an assertion of fact contingent on the premise that there is no God (a direct response to the first premise cited by the theist).

2. Is a statement of fact regardless of whether one believes in a god. You simply cannot have sin without a god to offend. That makes it a religious construct, not a social one.

The challenge is to divorce the concepts of bad and evil, which are subjective evaluations of behavior and conduct, from sin, which is an objective evaluation of whether a particular action violates a set of divine laws or rules.

Did that clarify my point or muddy it?

Got it, thanks.     I hope the logistics of this discussion works to help improve mental clarity.  

[Raf]

43 minutes ago, oldiesman said:

Got it, thanks.     I hope the logistics of this discussion works to help improve mental clarity.  

Thank you.

If I am less than respectful in responding to your questions, please call me out on it.

[Raf]

Theists on social media (and this is not directed at anyone on this page UNLESS the shoe fits) tend to think that the atheist failure to account for "objective moral values" constitutes some kind of gotcha.

As if rape and murder and genocide are not really wrong unless they are objectively wrong.

That's why you may get tired of me pointing out that there is no such thing as objectively wrong.

"Aha! Gotcha! So anything goes, because nothing is wrong, nothing is evil!"

That is NOT the point.

The point is that subjective moral values form an adequate basis to justify labeling intentional actions as good or evil. In fact, subjective moral values form our ONLY basis for condemning evil!

But subjective values are just a matter of opinion. What happens when someone disagrees with you?

Good question. When someone disagrees with you, the first thing you do is discuss the foundation of your opinion. Values are subjective (is he tall or short?), but the basis for those values are objective (he's 6 feet tall and wants to be a basketball player or a horse jockey). In most cases (not all) an objective analysis will give you what you need to reach your conclusion, IF you can agree on the standard. In a good v. evil analysis, we can check with our harm-suffering/benefit standard. Is someone hurt by this action? Is there a benefit that outweighs the hurt, making it a mere inconvenience rather than actual damage?

But if I am using harm/benefit while you are using God's Word, we're going to have lots more disagreement.

Example: I believe it is always wrong and has always been wrong to execute someone for crimes other than murder. That is a subjective value. You can't argue with it. It's my opinion. God's Word teaches that at one time it was right to execute someone for gathering wood on the sabbath. I don't think you can make a moral case for the death penalty in that case no matter how hard you try. "It was another time" implies there was a time when this was okay.

And here's the crux of my position: If you hold that God is THE OBJECTIVE source of objective morality, you have NO BASIS to question it. None. At all. Zip. You are forced by necessity to accept ALL his actions as inherently moral, all his commands as inherently "holy, just and good."

Even when he's ordering genocides, which (according to the Bible) he does multiple times. Go in and kill them all, including the women and babies!

Why, that's outra... no, it's holy, just and good. You have NO BASIS to question it.

I do. It is unprovoked. It causes avoidable harm and suffering.

Now you have to posit things to make it more palatable: Those babies go straight to heaven, so...

Stop right there. If a murdered baby goes straight to heaven, give me a good reason not to murder a baby right now. God says not to? Why not? I'm sending the baby straight to heaven! His parents should THANK me!

At some point you are forced to concede that it's wrong for a reason other than "God says it's wrong." God didn't say it was wrong for Israelite soldiers to slaughter babies, so objectively speaking, slaughtering babies cannot be deemed to be an objectively immoral, unjust or evil act. It can only be evil under certain circumstances. But God can command the act into moral acceptability and goodness.

It may sound like I'm straw-manning the opposing point of view, but I assure you I am not. WLC writes:

Quote

"God has the moral right to issue such commands and ... He wronged no one in doing so. I want to challenge those who decry my answer to explain whom God wronged and why we should think so. As I explained, the most plausible candidate is, ironically, the soldiers themselves, but I think that morally sufficient reasons can be provided for giving them so gruesome a task."

Let's be clear: According to WLC, the people most wronged by God's command of a genocide were the soldiers who had to carry it out.

Did that make you throw up in your mouth a little?

I totally understand why WLC had to resort to such a monstrous statement. By declaring God to be the arbiter of right and wrong, and declaring His actions to be holy, just and good by definition, WLC left himself powerless to exercise his judgment to find these commands morally repugnant.

He goes further:

Quote

"I find it ironic that atheists should often express such indignation at God’s commands, since on naturalism there’s no basis for thinking that objective moral values and duties exist at all and so no basis for regarding the Canaanite slaughter as wrong."

But THAT is strawmanning the opposing point of view. On naturalism, there IS A basis for making moral value judgments. The fact that there's no such thing as "objective moral values" does not imply in any way that subjective moral values form an inadequate basis on which to condemn evil.

The fact is, I can say it's wrong for Yahweh or ANY OTHER GOD to order a genocide, and a theist cannot. That is a fundamental flaw with the notion of objective moral values.

Once you recognize that objective moral values do not and cannot exist (they are an oxymoron), only then can you realize that our moral value systems rest on societal consensus, that reaching that consensus requires reason and argument, and that disagreement will form everything from different friend groups to different nations.

 

 

 

[Raf]

Started a new thread. This chat has nothing to do with morality.

[oldiesman]

6 hours ago, Raf said:

Theists on social media (and this is not directed at anyone on this page UNLESS the shoe fits) tend to think that the atheist failure to account for "objective moral values" constitutes some kind of gotcha.

As if rape and murder and genocide are not really wrong unless they are objectively wrong.

That's why you may get tired of me pointing out that there is no such thing as objectively wrong.

"Aha! Gotcha! So anything goes, because nothing is wrong, nothing is evil!"

That is NOT the point.

The point is that subjective moral values form an adequate basis to justify labeling intentional actions as good or evil. In fact, subjective moral values form our ONLY basis for condemning evil!

But subjective values are just a matter of opinion. What happens when someone disagrees with you?

Good question. When someone disagrees with you, the first thing you do is discuss the foundation of your opinion. Values are subjective (is he tall or short?), but the basis for those values are objective (he's 6 feet tall and wants to be a basketball player or a horse jockey). In most cases (not all) an objective analysis will give you what you need to reach your conclusion, IF you can agree on the standard. In a good v. evil analysis, we can check with our harm-suffering/benefit standard. Is someone hurt by this action? Is there a benefit that outweighs the hurt, making it a mere inconvenience rather than actual damage?

But if I am using harm/benefit while you are using God's Word, we're going to have lots more disagreement.

Example: I believe it is always wrong and has always been wrong to execute someone for crimes other than murder. That is a subjective value. You can't argue with it. It's my opinion. God's Word teaches that at one time it was right to execute someone for gathering wood on the sabbath. I don't think you can make a moral case for the death penalty in that case no matter how hard you try. "It was another time" implies there was a time when this was okay.

And here's the crux of my position: If you hold that God is THE OBJECTIVE source of objective morality, you have NO BASIS to question it. None. At all. Zip. You are forced by necessity to accept ALL his actions as inherently moral, all his commands as inherently "holy, just and good."

Even when he's ordering genocides, which (according to the Bible) he does multiple times. Go in and kill them all, including the women and babies!

Why, that's outra... no, it's holy, just and good. You have NO BASIS to question it.

I do. It is unprovoked. It causes avoidable harm and suffering.

Now you have to posit things to make it more palatable: Those babies go straight to heaven, so...

Stop right there. If a murdered baby goes straight to heaven, give me a good reason not to murder a baby right now. God says not to? Why not? I'm sending the baby straight to heaven! His parents should THANK me!

At some point you are forced to concede that it's wrong for a reason other than "God says it's wrong." God didn't say it was wrong for Israelite soldiers to slaughter babies, so objectively speaking, slaughtering babies cannot be deemed to be an objectively immoral, unjust or evil act. It can only be evil under certain circumstances. But God can command the act into moral acceptability and goodness.

It may sound like I'm straw-manning the opposing point of view, but I assure you I am not. WLC writes:

Let's be clear: According to WLC, the people most wronged by God's command of a genocide were the soldiers who had to carry it out.

Did that make you throw up in your mouth a little?

I totally understand why WLC had to resort to such a monstrous statement. By declaring God to be the arbiter of right and wrong, and declaring His actions to be holy, just and good by definition, WLC left himself powerless to exercise his judgment to find these commands morally repugnant.

He goes further:

But THAT is strawmanning the opposing point of view. On naturalism, there IS A basis for making moral value judgments. The fact that there's no such thing as "objective moral values" does not imply in any way that subjective moral values form an inadequate basis on which to condemn evil.

The fact is, I can say it's wrong for Yahweh or ANY OTHER GOD to order a genocide, and a theist cannot. That is a fundamental flaw with the notion of objective moral values.

Once you recognize that objective moral values do not and cannot exist (they are an oxymoron), only then can you realize that our moral value systems rest on societal consensus, that reaching that consensus requires reason and argument, and that disagreement will form everything from different friend groups to different nations.

 

 

 

So then, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that there's no such thing as universal moral values?

[Raf]

Define universal

[oldiesman]

3 minutes ago, Raf said:

Define universal

Objective

[Raf]

I don't mean to be snide, but it's not universal until everyone agrees, and I don't think we can get EVERYONE to agree on ANYTHING.

So we can get widespread agreement on, say, "murder is wrong." But rape? No, humanity grew into that one. For a long time, women were considered property, and so the rules against rape reflected the belief it was a crime against the property owner: her husband or father.

I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Jennifer Love Hewitt is less attractive than Sandra Bernhard. But that doesn't make her OBJECTIVELY more beautiful because no matter how you slice it, beauty is a matter of taste, opinion.

I'm saying morality is like that: even if one were to find a universally accepted moral tenet, that would not make it objective. 

[Raf]

Did that adequately answer your question? 

We would you care to post a rebuttal?

 

[oldiesman]

11 hours ago, Raf said:

I don't mean to be snide, but it's not universal until everyone agrees, and I don't think we can get EVERYONE to agree on ANYTHING.

So we can get widespread agreement on, say, "murder is wrong." But rape? No, humanity grew into that one. For a long time, women were considered property, and so the rules against rape reflected the belief it was a crime against the property owner: her husband or father.

I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Jennifer Love Hewitt is less attractive than Sandra Bernhard. But that doesn't make her OBJECTIVELY more beautiful because no matter how you slice it, beauty is a matter of taste, opinion.

I'm saying morality is like that: even if one were to find a universally accepted moral tenet, that would not make it objective. 

Lemme know if I am saying this correct:

To the Christian, Christianity is objective

To the Jew, Judaism is objective

To the Atheist, Atheism is objective

But to everyone collectively, universally; there is no objective moral truth...

[Raf]

This is not what I am trying to say. Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify. I am choosing my words and their order very carefully:

To the Christian, Christianity (the Bible, God's Word) is the standard for objective moral values.

To the Jew, I could make a similar comment but it would be presumptuous, so I am only doing so for the sake of argument: Judaism is the standard for objective moral values.

To the Muslim, Islam, the Quran, is the standard for objective moral values.

This atheist (we don't all agree) rejects the premise of "objective moral values" as an oxymoron. Moral values are subjective by definition, which is why you can't get two societies to agree on abortion, the death penalty, gay rights, etc 

I believe, "oversimply," that an analysis of harm:benefit forms an objective standard for moral values.

Note the placement of "objective," because it is crucial: the STANDARD can be objective even though the values themselves are not.

Actions are not good or evil until they are deemed to be good or evil by someone committing, affected by, observing or merely hypothesizing the action.

"Thou shalt not kill."

Therefore, all soldiers are evil. No, it's thou shalt not murder. Oh that's different.

No it's not. It's the same act. The only difference is, you ran the latter act through a subjective filter because you recognize that not all killing is the same.

Blah blah blah.

Atheists do not believe our morality is objective.

We believe all morality is subjective. We also believe that the (oversimplified) harm-benefit analysis standard produces subjectively superior results compared to the standard of scripture, Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

Which is not to say the scriptures contain no good. There's lots of good. Some great!

There's just some not-so-good, too.

Harm-benefit can duplicate the good but it cannot duplicate the bad unless it is ignored.

Edited Friday at 02:21 PM by Raf

[waysider]

Would it be fair to say ""The objective standard for morality is, in and of itself, subjective." ?

[Raf]

9 minutes ago, waysider said:

Would it be fair to say ""The objective standard for morality is, in and of itself, subjective." ?

I submit that would be an oxymoron. 

The standard is objective. The value you place on it is subjective. A person is 6 ft tall. That is objective. If you're a horse jockey that person is too tall. That is a value. If you're a basketball player that person is too short. That is a value. Same six feet. But for one group he's too tall, and for the other group he's too short. Same six feet.

[Raf]

Using harm-benefit as an objective standard against which we can measure an action and determine whether that action is "good" or "evil" does NOT result in universal results, because we are human and each of us will value different things as part of our overall calculation.

On the after life thread, the question was raised about euthanasia and abortion.

Euthanasia causes a very serious harm: death. It also causes a very serious benefit: it prevents later suffering. So is it right or wrong? Well, who's making the decision? I would contend, and I'm sure many would agree, that the person doing the dying gets the determining vote. But you want that vote to be based on fact, not just speculation. I'm 55. My best years are behind me. So, what, I kill myself now? If I were to think that way in the absence of a medical diagnosis foreshadowing pain and suffering, you would probably want me to reconsider. I have a family to care for. Hm, the insurance money would come in handy, TBH. But my presence would be much more valuable than money. Lots to weigh. If I decided to take my life anyway, you would probably judge me to have been morally wrong to do so. 

But if my sister, whose final months of ALS were painful to watch, decided to ask for a medically assisted suicide, how could anyone deny her that right?

Abortion. I can think of a million reasons abortion would be morally acceptable. All involve terminating the life of a baby. In some cases the baby would have died anyway, or lived a short and painful life. I can't imagine interfering. But where do I draw the line? And why do I get to draw it? A pro-lifer draws the line elsewhere. And one need not be religious to be a pro-lifer. If you value the life of the fetus/unborn child over the mother carrying it, you will say abortion is always wrong. If you say the mother has the right to decide whether she is willing to puther body through pregnancy, you will be pro-choice. Honest people will disagree. And we will spend the rest of humanity struggling with this question. Because I cannot be forced to surrender my bodily autonomy to save someone else's life. Is it different if that someone is a baby in your uterus?

I'm not raising this to invite a political discussion but to demonstrate that there are limits to our capacity to reach agreement.

[Nathan_Jr]

A nondualist might say morality is an illusion. The subject is the object, the observer is the observed.

Action is motivated by the compassion arising from the awareness that what I do to another I do to myself. Which brings us back to a standard that may be the only universal one: does this action promote well being or suffering?

Before learning religion, philosophy or social constructs, what was the basis for right action?

[waysider]

3 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Before learning religion, philosophy or social constructs, what was the basis for right action?

Humans have a natural, built-in sense of morality. It's thought that this innate sense of morality may have been responsible for mankind's continued ability to survive as a whole. (Greater good vs individual needs)

 

Source: Origin and Development of Moral Sense: A Systematic Review - PMC

[Raf]

There is actually no appreciable difference between the harm-benefit analysis I'm articulating and basic morality driven by human empathy.

In other words, Nathan, I see no areas of disagreement between your comments and mine, save yours are more succinct.

Mine are more geared toward addressing the presumption that god is a prerequisite for "objective moral values."

That is, yours is an argument. Mine is a counterargument.

Counterarguments take longer 

Edited yesterday at 01:35 AM by Raf

[oldiesman]

12 hours ago, Raf said:

 

Mine are more geared toward addressing the presumption that god is a prerequisite for "objective moral values."

 

Raf I agree with what you're saying.    To me, it's simply logical that one doesn't necessarily have to believe in a god to believe in morality.    We all have brains.    It's simply a matter of logic not religion, to want to do unto others as you would have others do unto you.  (even though a religiously moral person said to do that too...)

[Raf]

Success!

[Raf]

The problem with subjective morality can best be addressed AFTER one realizes objective moral values are not an option.

Subjective moral values are subject to conflicting standards. If I use harm-benefit and you use "God's Word," there is no independent arbiter to decide which standard is right or wrong. The best each side can do is appeal to the standard.

Now, I picked the hyperbolic examples to demonstrate you cannot presume the "God's Word" standard to be superior (slavery, death penalty, ordering genocide and baby killing). But those are hyperbole.

But what about something like abortion? Harm-benefit doesn't give us a clear answer. (Some would argue it does). God's word does. (Some would argue it doesn't).

In resolving disputes, subjective morality utterly fails. People simply disagree. And depending on the severity of those disagreements, we see different alliances, friendships, communities, denominations and even nations.