On Moral Authorities

[theologian]

There's no consistent usage of the term subject or subjective that would not also apply to a gods rules, or christs rules.  So, that last part of the question "especially human rules"...there is no "especially".  Joes rules, Christs rules...both -equally- subjective rules on grounds of ownership, neither especially more-so or less-so than the other.  Obviously, you can think that christs rules are better rules, or the ones we should follow...which is the sentiment you expressed before regardless of whether or not they were quite as original as you thought them to be.  Better subjective rules.  The right set of subjective rules to follow.

Well, if Christ is God, and God created everything objective, then Christ's rules will be the objective rule.

I stand corrected in my second point.

Please help me understand your question on whose or what rules it is allowable. You are asking of whose or what rules. Doesn't it imply subjectivity, especially if your talking about human rules?

Ok, let's think of it this way. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that God exists, that God is the source of objective morality, and that God has made clear to all his moral rules. He's also made clear that killing another human being is wrong.

In such case, clearly everyone should know that killing is wrong. Would acknowledging that killing is wrong prevent someone from killing someone regardless? Not likely, since people are known to do things they know are wrong but they do them anyway for whatever reasons.

Just a reminder, you said this:

If I follow your logic, then if I have a personal goal which includes hurting and killing other people, it follows that it is allowable to hurt or kill other people. [1]

So would it be right to conclude that, despite God, it is still allowable to kill other people just because they may have a reason to do so? [2]

If your answer is no, then the answer should hold for cases of no God as well. Because even with no God, there are still laws to abide by. Even without God, we still have a conscience that nags at us. Even without God, we still feel obligations towards ourselves and others. [3]

I said no. 1, because you have said the following:

What's arbitrary about not wanting to hurt others? It's actually a very reasonable thing to not hurt others aimlessly. [3]

So, the no. 1 is not a point from mine. It was what I have derived due to your no. 3. The reason for this is that I'm trying to derive from your point of view how morality is objective without God.

Please consider the following dilemma:

If you don't believe that nature exists in every created being and if there's no God, then your moral basis is just your personal choice which is therefore subjective.

But, if you believe that nature exists in every created being and that's the basis of morality, then we can further ask where does the nature came from? What or Who defines it? We can reasonably arrive that the Unmoved Mover, Uncaused First Cause, Necessary Being, Perfect Being, and Super Intelligent Being is the source of that nature, whom people call God.

So, either of the case, and if there's no God, then there can't be objective morality.

2. Since no. 1 has been said here due to the consequence of what you have said in no. 3, it follows that I'm not required to answer your no. 2.

3. If conscience is your sole basis of morality, then your basis of morality is still subjective, for conscience is subjective. Further, feeling obligated is subjective too, as feelings are subjective. So, how can there be an objective morality, without God? I still hold that if there's no God, then there can't be objective morality. Hence, it is hard for atheists to impose morality to others if they hold that there's no God, which in turn logically followed that there can be no objective basis of morality.