The problem with 'objective moral values'

[Raf]

Quote

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. 

 

The trick is, subjective morality does not CLAIM to be an arbiter of conflicting moral values.

In fact, it predicts unresolvable conflicts.

I have found that in attempting to discredit subjective morality, some theists will use hyperbole themselves. They'll say things like "What happens if you think rape is wrong and someone else thinks rape is right? Checkmate, atheists!!!" There are three problems with this strawman argument.

One: even if one were to conclude it discredits subjective morality, it does nothing to support objective values as a viable alternative (especially since the Bible's solution to the rape of a virgin is punishing the rapist by making him marry the woman he rapes).

Two: it doesn't discredit morality to have two people, or two groups of people, disagree on a given point, no matter how hyperbolic. Subjective morality, in fact, PREDICTS such disagreements in a way objective morality does not.

Three: while we may not have an impartial objective arbiter to resolve disputes, we have the next best thing: a partial, subjective arbiter imbued with authority to resolve such conflicts. Societal consensus. Government. Mores that have grown over time and established themselves to be most beneficial to community health and growth.

A person who does not believe rape, murder and theft are wrong is a danger to the health and well-being of everyone who disagrees with him. We can isolate that person socially and, if he actually commits these offenses, physically. 

That no two societies have independently arrived at the same set of laws is perfectly consistent with and predicted by a worldview in which all morality is subjective by definition. 

 

Edited Sunday at 05:01 PM by Raf

[Raf]

That last post didn't format the way ai wanted. Sorry.

[Nathan_Jr]

On 6/20/2025 at 7:08 PM, waysider said:

Humans have a natural, built-in sense of morality.

Exactly!

[Raf]

On 6/20/2025 at 8:08 PM, waysider said:

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

I felt the rest of his post was needed for context, because the idea that we have a natural, built-in sense of morality raises the question how that happened. The post provides a natural explanation for how that could happen.

[Nathan_Jr]

That's fair.

Each of the studies cited in the article acknowledge that very young children have  an innate, intuitive, pro social moral sensibility. The article recognizes that children's moral sense is further developed through experience and even indoctrination.

I should point out the careful word choice of "developed" leaves open the possibility moral sensibility is not necessarily improved.

Edited 7 hours ago by Nathan_Jr