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

quote:

---

The mass murder of children is objectively detrimental to the future of a species under the biological parameters of life here, especially with respect to a social one attempting to develop cooperative societies for the betterment of that species.

---

So what? What has that to do with objective morality?

quote:

---

If we define “wrong” as something that negatively impacts our survival as a species or leads to unnecessary pain and suffering, then we can say murdering children is objectively wrong.

---

The "objective" part is not whether or not an action is in alignment with a standard but whether the standard, itself, originates from within or without the human mind and experience. You are calling for the moral standard to be that which "negatively impacts our survival as a species or leads to unnecessary pain and suffering" but my argument is that such a standard is arbitrary in its nature and is subjective. I could just as easily say that the definition of "right" is that which gives me the most pleasure, happiness, and ensures my own survival and passing along my genetic code and "wrong" would be anything that gets in the way of those things for myself alone. I could steal, rape, and murder to my heart's content with that definition and have a clean conscience knowing that by my own standard, I'm acting "morally". That's the problem with arbitrary definitions and standards of right and wrong.

quote:

---

But no, there is not some base universal truth that killing children is wrong. There could be societies in our universe which killing is not wrong by these standards. And there is no ultimate, eternal punishment for those who murder children where it is considered wrong.

---

This is objectively true: that without an objective moral standard that is universally applied to all people, we would have what you just described, namely no single standard for right and wrong. As you said, in such a world, the morality of murdering children would be relative to the particular society, yet we don't act as if this were true. We act as if murdering children were objectively morally reprehensible. My worldview provides a basis for what we know to be true: that moral absolutes do exist and murdering children is objectively wrong. My worldview is therefore to be preferred to yours.

quote:

---

So with respect to our species and our society, yes I can say murdering children is wrong. That statement is conditional however and I cannot say that murdering children would always be wrong in every conceivable society.

---

What this boils down to is your own opinion. You think murdering children is wrong because it goes against your opinion of morality, but that's all it ultimately is, an opinion. If Hitler has a different opinion about what true morality is based on what he believes is best for himself or his own society, who is to argue with him? In your paradigm, the best you've got is a personal dislike or distaste for that which conflicts with your moral preference. You have no objective basis to condemn those contradictions any more than you have a basis to argue that your favorite color is the right color.

quote:

---

If that upsets you well, I’m sorry. But the fact is a claim being too horrifying to accept has no baring on the truth of the claim.

---

It doesn't upset me at all. I know what the logical conclusion of such a worldview is and it's garbage, to be blunt. If people lived consistently with such a worldview, the world would be absolutely chaotic and simply an evil place all around.

On the other hand, if everyone lived consistently with my worldview, there would be far less actual suffering and pain and people would be logically consistent by condemning actual evil.