Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.

-Xenophanes c.500BC

[Neo-Scholastic]

The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.

-Xenophanes c.500BC

You do realize that Xenophane was arguing for a more austere and comprehensive monotheism. This was his critique of the popular polytheism of his time. How typical of you to present an uneducated argument of convenience that actually means the opposite of what you think it does.

[SteveII]

The distinction is that a "no god" epistemology gives you subjective value/meaning/purpose which leave it open to a matter of opinion and a theistic epistemology provides objective grounding with God providing value/meaning/purpose which is not open to opinion or changing over time. 

If an atheist thinks abortion or euthanasia is abhorrent, then they must admit it is their opinion and other have a right to their opinion. Hopefully the "others" opinions don't matter more than yours when it comes to your baby or your grandmother. A theist has no such obligation to recognize someone else's opinion.

I wonder if you feel the same way about political systems which lack a monarchy.  Are modern secular governments likewise deficient in value/meaning/purpose?

Why would a monarchy be a qualifier? Any government is a reflection of some assortment of values, philosophy, traditions, goals--the combination of which cannot be described as anything other than subjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Having fun pounding sand Neo, lol?  

I, like Xenophanes and Bennyboy, find it altogether too convenient that the gods people create, and by default the moralities people ascribe to their gods.....are so very human.  While he and I have different opinions on the divine, and Benny and I have different opinions on the nature of moral systems and proclamations, we agree there, at least. The gods we believe in are artifacts of their creators.

Perhaps you too would be able to find common ground if you weren't so busy scorching it for no reason at all?

@steve. No more or less subjective than the purpose or meaning or value ascribed to us by a god. He thinks I'm for "x"..., you agree, I disagree.

[CapnAwesome]

Most of the famous Atheist philosophers haven't been nihilists. In fact, I don't know that any of them were.

I should have been more precise. Atheism results in Existential Nihilism. For that, there is plenty of support from atheist philosophers.

Not really. I wonder who you would consider a Nihilist? I mean Sarte, Beauvour, Camus all opposed Nihilism. So did Nietzchez, who for some reason commonly gets cited as a Nihilist. He actually actively wrote against it.

“Nihilism is…not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one shoulder to the plough; one destroys.”

[bennyboy]

-Xenophanes c.500BC

You do realize that Xenophane was arguing for a more austere and comprehensive monotheism. This was his critique of the popular polytheism of his time. How typical of you to present an uneducated argument of convenience that actually means the opposite of what you think it does.

Thank goodness truth isn't a product of historical pedantry.

The truth, and it's pretty obvious, is that the face of God has changed as the cultures it has spread through have developed.  Do you expect a husband to cane his wife to keep her in line?  Do you think people during Jesus' time depicted him as blond and blue-eyed?

Here's the thing-- if the face of God changes with the developments of man, then God IS a development of man.  So any moral system that "comes from God" comes in fact from man.  Your moral system is absolute in the sense that it was presumably literally written in stone-- not because it was provided by a cosmos-creating God that still has enough free time to watch boys masturbate in the shower and cluck disapprovingly.

[Azu]

I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

By cope, I mean cope with the fact that the systems in place are arbitrary, so there's no one system which can ultimately bring about the best of humanity. Without an objective morality, of which one could appeal to every person through reason, there is basically only wars and dogmas that struggle for dominance.

Once neuroscientists are able to dissect a human brain and discover its section for morality, this may provide an answer to your question. For now, we don't have evidence to support that there is no absolute morality.

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

By cope, I mean cope with the fact that the systems in place are arbitrary, so there's no one system which can ultimately bring about the best of humanity. Without an objective morality, of which one could appeal to every person through reason, there is basically only wars and dogmas that struggle for dominance.

Once neuroscientists are able to dissect a human brain and discover its section for morality, this may provide an answer to your question. For now, we don't have evidence to support that there is no absolute morality.

Even if it were neurological, that wouldn't prove anything except for that our brain developed certain evolutionary advantageous regions. Something's evolutionary usefulness is not a measure of it's morality. You'd still have to define what it is about those religions that produce "morality", based off of a definition of morality.

[brewer]

Once neuroscientists are able to dissect a human brain and discover its section for morality, this may provide an answer to your question. For now, we don't have evidence to support that there is no absolute morality.

bold mine

You're kidding, right?

[SteveII]

The distinction is that a "no god" epistemology gives you subjective value/meaning/purpose which leave it open to a matter of opinion and a theistic epistemology provides objective grounding with God providing value/meaning/purpose which is not open to opinion or changing over time. 

You -just- gave us a secular value/meaning...was it objective when you said it but subjective when I say it?  How does that happen?  Further, the way you're using the terms objective and subjective are ridiculous.  The value or meaning god assess in our case is no more or less subjective than the value we may place upon one another or ourselves...and from the other end granting it the status of "objective" in gods case would grant us the same.  

The meaning of subjective/objective is based on a reference point. If we make up our own purpose/value/meaning, it is subjective. If God created us, then to us, our purpose/value/meaning is objective, while from his reference point, it is subjective. 

If an atheist thinks abortion or euthanasia is abhorrent, then they must admit it is their opinion and other have a right to their opinion. Hopefully the "others" opinions don't matter more than yours when it comes to your baby or your grandmother. A theist has no such obligation to recognize someone else's opinion.

Hahaha, wow, talk about a lot that demands privilege?  So, other people have to recognize others opinions...yours as well, presumably, but you don't have to recognize theirs?  Again...how does that work?

I should have phrased the sentence: A theist has no such obligation to recognize what they do not think is opinion.

---

@steve.  No more or less subjective than the purpose or meaning or value ascribed to us by a god.  He thinks I'm for "x"..., you agree, I disagree.

Except if God did create us, it would not matter what you thought about our purpose. We would have one that, from our reference point, is objective.