(December 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: The theists are always asking us "how do you get your moral values?" And then I see a few atheists try to justify some sort of objective moral system as an alternative to a theistic moral system grounded in God.
Is this even necessary?
Why can't morals be as subjective as liking cheese on apple pie?
When the theist asks "If there's no God, what's wrong with rape?" Instead of going through the trouble of positing some godless moral order, why can't we just reply "because I don't like rape"?
If the theist asks "but if the rapist likes rape, how is that wrong in a godless universe?" Instead of trying to argue that we have some universal duty to love our neighbor or other such nonsense I might reply "it isn't actually wrong. I just don't like rape and I want it illegal. Tough luck for rapists" The end.
As atheists we could say things are "right" or "wrong" in so far as they are consistent with certain basic values but these values ultimately seem arbitrary. A value might be "people living in harmony" and then based on that value you could construct certain "rights" and "wrongs" but these values are still purely arbitrary. You could instead have a value of "people living in chaos" and construct "rights" and "wrongs" based on that and it would be just as legitimate of a moral value. And why should that bother us?
Hence, golden rule, silver rule.
Subjective morality, even if it seems objective.
