re: A fact worth remembering: Those who don't believe in God argue against absolutes

quote:

---

I get where you are coming from here but arguing objective morality is better than subjective isn't proving it exists. Better or worse it's irrelevant if it doesn't exist. Looking back on my posts though framing objective/subjective as the same practically isn't quite right though your right. I'd say my issue is that it's a meaningless distinction if god doesn't exist.

---

I agree that it's a meaningless distinction if God doesn't exist. The reason why I'm arguing for the distinction is because we instinctively know that objective morality does exist (implying that God exists) and our actions bear this out. We act as though morality is objective which is why we're so quick to condemn others for actions we "know" are immoral. Such condemnation would be completely irrational if God and His objective moral standard didn't exist.

quote:

---

Like you said we see this different. I'd say it's a middle of the road moral framework and one of the better ones maybe for it's time, but I don't see evidence that it is actually our perfect moral framework and clearly better than all others (Obv based on subjective opinion).

---

Again you're describing this in terms of value judgements which make no sense if morality was subjective. You have to assume a standard of right or perfect in order to make a judgement of the frameworks we see today and throughout history.

quote:

---

I don't see how this follows. If humanitarianism is a core tenet of a societies moral framework then why should it abandon it?

---

Because it would be inconsistent with the notion that morality is created by each society and subjective by its nature. How can you admit that morality (what is "right") is determined by a given society and then reject an opposing morality that another society creates for itself? It's inconsistent and therefore an evidence of its irrationality.

quote:

---

Yes that is the world we live in. That is the morality of the planet earth where god does not exist. I think that's our reality and you don't. If you think that sucks I don't necessarily disagree but again better =/= true.

---

Again, "better" doesn't really exist in this view because there cannot logically be "better" or "worse" when all is opinion. Again, it's like arguing which color or flavor of ice cream is better.

I believe reality actually points to an objective moral framework and people by and large know this to be true and act as if it is true, though they may deny it when pressed.

quote:

---

We have the entire human experience of arguments and disagreement that have spawned things as big as wars to contradict this. People actually care about personal preferences and making sure others share them. It manifests in several different ways even today.

---

I'm not saying that people don't argue and fight, I'm saying that if morality were actually subjective and that everyone understood this, they would be irrational to try to say that any particular preference is the "right" on. Again, it'd be like starting wars over the best color or flavor of ice cream. When you realize that a worldview that rejects moral absolutes must forfeit a rational claim to condemnation, you have to understand that to condemn from a position of moral authority is entirely irrational.

As I see it, the options are a rational view of objective morality that supports what we "know" to be true about the concept of good and evil or an irrational and incoherent view of subjective morality that no one actually abides by, nor can they.

quote:

---

Again the issue is that there is no agency to cancer. People don't react the same to a lightning striking the house vs the arsonist because the arsonist had the agency and broke the societal compact in doing so.

---

Actually, quite a few people blame God for lightning striking a house, but that's beside the point because it isn't about agency. When thought of within the framework of evolutionary biology, agency doesn't even really make sense, since we are essentially the byproducts of genetics via evolutionary changes over time acted upon by stimuli.

But my point stands: the issue is that no matter what happens to us--whether it be a lightning striking our house, an arsonist setting it on fire, or termites and mold eating it up--there is no rational justification for saying any of it is it objectively "immoral" in a subjective moral framework, regardless of agency. All that happens is simply something we like or don't like. Even the arsonist acting out of agency is still merely an agent of evolution and a more complex animal. Him setting your house on fire is no morally different than an elephant running through your wall.

quote:

---

I agree with this that's why I said at best. I think a moral framework with utility in different categories is preferable to not but not objectively so.

---

"Preferable" is meaningless. OK, so you prefer it. If I prefer a moral framework where I steal, rape, and kill to achieve the most power and pleasure for myself, who is to say that isn't better than yours? If you admit that it's all subjective, you lose any moral authority to condemn, which has been my point all along.

We make moral judgements all the time, yet those judgements are utterly meaningless if God and His perfect, good, and objective moral law doesn't exist.