Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Once again, Aperez, very well put. *clap-clap-clap*
I couldn't agree more with aperez241.
I have heard a few theists try to explain the problem aperez241's post describes for objective morality. Their resolution to the conflict is simple: anyone who disagrees with their version of morality is evil. Essentially everyone (perhaps outside their denomination) on the planet has intentionally gotten it totally wrong, because they want to do evil.
The intentional part is critical, because for an objective morality to be useful, it must be described in detail so people can follow it (which the theists absolutely refuse to do, as it would make them a laughing stock) or it must be obvious. If the rules are obvious, yet are being broken by just about everyone, they must be doing it intentionally. This is the natural consequences of endorsing an objective morality: that just about everyone else who has ever lived is intentionally choosing evil. We see similar situations in their fiction (Noah and Lot) which reinforce this idea.
Above I've equated theists with people who endorse objective morality; which I assume isn't totally accurate. I would guess there are theists out there who reject objective morality, so if you are one of those, please accept my apology.
A bit of housekeeping:
The OP and its subsequent posts have not argued in favor of an objective morality. To the contrary, I have argued that subjective morality is a meaningless term. I am here saying that if subjective morality has no external reference, then it is indistinguishable from fantasy. To say morality is subjective is to say morality doesn't exist.
Is that a conclusion you agree with? That if morality is at its very core a subjective opinion, then it is indistinguishable from fantasy. We are better off getting rid of the word and its associates like good and bad, or right and wrong.
You've worded it a bit more strongly than I would have, but more or less yes. Clearly what is moral varies by person, place, and time; we've all seen this.
The strong wording probably comes from a concept I'm thinking about, but can't really express too well. I'll just spill it and hope it makes sense.
Nothing subjective exists without reference to something external. It doesn't make sense to say that "taste is music" is subjective, if music doesn't exist out in the world in the first place. It doesn't make sense to say our perception of color is subjective, unless there's something objective out there like the visible spectrum.
In contrast dreams are not subjective because dreams are not an opinion, or feeling, or a preference based on anything external. Dreams could be said to be a subjective experience, but what is subjective here is the experience, not the dream.
So, the argument being that if morality has nothing external and objective to latch on to, and if morality isn't saying anything about the real world. Then it isn't subjective at all, and definitely not like our tastes in music. Morality would then be a mere internal occurrence, no different from dreams and hallucinations. Internal subjectivity requires external objectivity.
I personally see morality the way I see reason. Reason itself is internal and subjective. Yet, we call it reason, because we believe it maps on to the external world in a very meaningful way. We believe reason is telling us something real about the world. And I think morality also tries to map on to the external world, and tell us something real about it.
Thinking gay rights was bad yesterday but good today, doesn't affect the reality of morality. Just like reasoning that the world was flat yesterday, but round today, doesn't affect the foundations of reason. Moral progress is real, precisely because there is a real right and wrong, which we are trying to emulate and model. Changes and differences in morality, are simply our best attempts to capture that.
I typed up a huge response but you know what? Fuck it. Not interested in your mental gymnastics.
" I am here saying that if subjective morality has no external reference, then it is indistinguishable from fantasy. To say morality is subjective is to say morality doesn't exist."
Yes, and as I pointed out religious morality is every bit as subjective as secular morality, unless you can offer objective evidence that a deity exists, and objective evidence that you know what it wants, and of course then you'd have to show that what it wants is objectively moral. Not an easy thing to do given you're claiming human reason can't do this. This makes people who adhere to bronze age ideas of morality no more than amoral automatons.
"To say morality is subjective is to say morality doesn't exist."
No it isn't it is saying that human morality must by definition involve human reason and desire. There is ample evidence to show that such human morality unfettered by archaic religious dogma has improved the lot of the majority of people in those free societies that derive their laws primarily from secular reasoning.
"We are better off getting rid of the word and its associates like good and bad, or right and wrong."
What a truly idiotic claim. Would you rather live in a secular democracy like Norway, Sweden or Japan, or under the Taliban or under Islamic State? Take your time.....
A truly pithy response Sheldon. Love it. Also stealing your "No it isn't it is saying that human morality must by definition involve human reason and desire" entire paragraph. Condenses my thoughts into a tagline. Love it.
Thank you, I look forward to Breezy ignoring it completely as if only his posts offer any valid contribution, but then that's faith for you, you can't dent it with facts.
Your wish is my command.
It clearly wasn't a wish, but an observation of your breathtaking dishonesty. You seem almost proud of it, bizarrely?
"Pretend we're all in an airplane. The engines explode. We're heading straight to the ground, and will be dead in around 70 seconds."
i'll just stop pretending.
problem solved
good day sir..
@John 6IX Breezy
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/moral-plane?page=6#com...
"Subjective morality" is no less meaningless a term than "Objective morality": indeed, it may be a more meaningful term, because those who claim to have an objective external source to base their morality are either deluded or lying, in my subjective opinion.
Conclusion:
This thread had about a 9.92% success rate. I counted about 12 comments that were either constructive or answered the OP, out of about 121 total comments.
Most Valuable Commentators: Algebe and Aperez241
Honorable Mentions: LucyAustralopithecus and Grinseed
You have a zero percent honesty rating. Then what can one expect from sonmeone who starts multiple threads about slavery in the bible but refuses to address any posts that mention any biblical texts that actually mention slavery directly.
Or someone who pretends he wants to discuss morals, accuses atheists of having no amoral, then claims his own theistic beliefs have no relevance so he won't address them, and lastly refuse to answer any questions about biblical acts including the torture and murder of a new born baby by a deity angered that it was conceived in an adulterous affair. Then gets bent out of shape over the termination of a insentient blastocyst which he claims is no different to a child, then refuses to acknowledge the differences when they are pointed out. You'll need a fire extinguisher for your pants at this rate.
"Most Valuable Commentators: Algebe and Aperez241
Honorable Mentions: LucyAustralopithecus and Grinseed"
Most evasive and dishonest poster - no contest really, and he's 100% consistent.
Was it objectively moral for a deity to torture a new born baby to death in the bible, because it was angered that it was conceived in an adulterous affair?
Do try and keep your 100% record, we wouldn't any glimpse of integrity letting you down now.
Pages