No, it isn't.  The faithful constantly refer to human morality as subjective in order to posit what they mistakenly refer to as their gods objective morality.

Now we're galloping off to teleology. Hey, guess what...there's such a concept as a natural teleology, as well. Still no gods required. A utilitarian realist, for example..posits that morality as a phenomena is best explained by the purpose it serves rather than whatever circumstances by which it may have arisen.

I'm going to stop you here, for a moment, to let something sink in. You don't actually like talking about these things. Your interest is strictly limited to your own tiny band of misconceptions.

(April 9, 2019 at 9:18 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 9:12 am)Acrobat Wrote: Try harder. In my view you haven’t really thought through your belief in morality as subjective, and that you’re going to stumble your way into inconsistencies and contradictions. Trying to work through those, would probably help you get a better grasp on what’s true here. 

You clearly take issues with suggesting your moral beliefs, are akin to taste, like your likes and dislikes. In my view thats because like me you recognize it as objective, even if some other part of you wants to deny this, or finds it problematic for your other beliefs, like your atheism.

I think Robvalue and other atheists who think morality is subjective are laboring under a false dichotomy.  Absolute objectivity or subjectivity are not the only choices.  Objectivity can be relative too.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to be an atheist who supports objective morality rather than moral nihilism if one acknowledges that morality is relative to human concerns rather than merely subjective.  We do, after all, possess common objective characteristics, our human nature, upon which we can build our moral considerations.

I think atheists that subscribe to moral realism, are sort of like YECs. They might have developed their own systems and libraries of arguments defending and articulating their views, and this might work to satisfy other YECs, but is seen as convoluted, and contradictory nonsense to everyone outside their circle. 

I think atheists who believe in objective morality, believe it more so because they want it along with their atheism to be true, than for any truly compelling reason. They think they’ve resolved the is ought problem, and fail to recognize why they continually fail to resolve it.

---

(April 9, 2019 at 9:25 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: No, it isn't.  The faithful constantly refer to human morality as subjective in order to posit what they mistakenly refer to as their gods objective morality.

Now we're galloping off to teleology.  Hey, guess what...there's such a concept as a natural teleology, as well.  Still no gods required.  A utilitarian realist, for example..posits that morality as a phenomena is best explained by the purpose it serves rather than whatever circumstances by which it may have arisen.

I'm going to stop you here, for a moment, to let something sink in.  You don't actually like talking about these things.  Your interest is strictly limited to your own tiny band of misconceptions.

Then clearly you don’t understand the faithful. If you asked them directly you’d find that nearly all theists believe morality is objective, pretty much every Christian apologist argues for this.

Where as atheists like rob who believe morality is subjective are a dime a dozen.

Can we at least slow it down to a trot?

What people are referring to when they use that term is that in order to derive some ought from any is a person requires at least one evaluative premise.  Any evaluative premise that makes no reference to gods is open to atheists and theists alike.  Positing an evaluative premise that makes reference to gods does not establish that the evaluative premise is objective...and any objective premise that iuncluded a god would not be objective by that inclusion.  If it stands..objectively, it stands regardless of gods. 

All your work is still ahead of you.

---

(April 9, 2019 at 9:30 am)Acrobat Wrote:

---

(April 9, 2019 at 9:25 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: No, it isn't.  The faithful constantly refer to human morality as subjective in order to posit what they mistakenly refer to as their gods objective morality.

Now we're galloping off to teleology.  Hey, guess what...there's such a concept as a natural teleology, as well.  Still no gods required.  A utilitarian realist, for example..posits that morality as a phenomena is best explained by the purpose it serves rather than whatever circumstances by which it may have arisen.

I'm going to stop you here, for a moment, to let something sink in.  You don't actually like talking about these things.  Your interest is strictly limited to your own tiny band of misconceptions.

Then clearly you don’t understand the faithful. If you asked them directly you’d find that nearly all theists believe morality is objective, pretty much every Christian apologist argues for this.

Where as atheists like rob who believe morality is subjective are a dime a dozen.

Oh please, I could drop thousands of the comments I just described to you in quotes on the boards over the years, and it's a common view of human failure between the faithful. Meanwhile, the majority view of ethics in academia is secular moral realism...and if you asked any atheist on this site why they thought that some x was bad..they're going to give you an explicitly or implicitly realist explanation for it.

aaaaand none of this has anything to do with gods, atheists and theists are both people, people are not gods, until you deign to make your position known. Why don't you just do that?

(April 9, 2019 at 9:30 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 9:18 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: I think Robvalue and other atheists who think morality is subjective are laboring under a false dichotomy.  Absolute objectivity or subjectivity are not the only choices.  Objectivity can be relative too.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to be an atheist who supports objective morality rather than moral nihilism if one acknowledges that morality is relative to human concerns rather than merely subjective.  We do, after all, possess common objective characteristics, our human nature, upon which we can build our moral considerations.

I think atheists that subscribe to moral realism, are sort of like YECs. They might have developed their own systems and libraries of arguments defending and articulating their views, and this might work to satisfy other YECs, but is seen as convoluted, and contradictory nonsense to everyone outside their circle. 

I think atheists who believe in objective morality, believe it more so because they want it along with their atheism to be true, than for any truly compelling reason. They think they’ve resolved the is ought problem, and fail to recognize why they continually fail to resolve it.

Please explain to me how objective morality based on relative human nature (rather than, say, the interests of ants) is "convoluted and contradictory nonsense."

The "ought" problem is only a problem if you don't recognize it as based on if-then statements.  For example: "IF you want a civil society, THEN you ought to police murders." In other words, relative morality -- relative to human thriving.

(April 9, 2019 at 9:36 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 9:30 am)Acrobat Wrote: I think atheists that subscribe to moral realism, are sort of like YECs. They might have developed their own systems and libraries of arguments defending and articulating their views, and this might work to satisfy other YECs, but is seen as convoluted, and contradictory nonsense to everyone outside their circle. 

I think atheists who believe in objective morality, believe it more so because they want it along with their atheism to be true, than for any truly compelling reason. They think they’ve resolved the is ought problem, and fail to recognize why they continually fail to resolve it.

Please explain to me how objective morality based on relative human nature (rather than, say, the interests of ants) is "convoluted and contradictory nonsense."

The "ought" problem is only a problem if you don't recognize it as based on if-then statements.  For example: "IF you want a civil society, THEN you ought to police murders."  In other words, relative morality -- relative to human thriving.

You mean relative to those who hold the goal/ought to do what's best for human thriving?

If I don't hold such a goal, then would you say I have no such moral oughts here? That the wrongness of torturing innocent babies just for fun might be true for you, but not for me. 

Or in other words for your objective morality to work, it relies on people to subscribe to a subjective goal like doing what's best for human thriving?

It doesn't actually matter.  Atheists or anyone else having convoluted views of morality, whatever those are, make no reference and have no need of reference to gods.  People can get shit wrong regardless of whather they believe in gods.  Believing in gods doesn't seem to confer any special ability or immunity in that regard. Case in point above.

All personal oughts are derived by some appeal to personal compulsion. That doesn't make the moral system that these oughts refer to subjective. The simple act of asking why -you- should or shouldn't do something is an explicit request for a personal motivation. Newsflash, personal compulsion is deeply personal.

(April 9, 2019 at 9:05 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 9:01 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: I'm sure that you do, but for clarity, nothing that your'e offering is or is meant to be anything to do with gods, correct?

It has nothing to do with whatever you have in mind by the word god/s.

Since we don’t have an agreed upon definition of the term god, I prefer to avoid using the term when possible.

Where did you present a definition of god for us to agree or disagree on? I'd really like it know what you mean by that word.

(April 9, 2019 at 9:35 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Can we at least slow it down to a trot?

What people are referring to when they use that term is that in order to derive some ought from any is a person requires at least one evaluative premise.  Any evaluative premise that makes no reference to gods is open to atheists and theists alike.  Positing an evaluative premise that makes reference to gods does not establish that the evaluative premise is objective...and any objective premise that iuncluded a god would not be objective by that inclusion.  If it stands..objectively, it stands regardless of gods. 

All your work is still ahead of you.

---

(April 9, 2019 at 9:30 am)Acrobat Wrote:

---

Then clearly you don’t understand the faithful. If you asked them directly you’d find that nearly all theists believe morality is objective, pretty much every Christian apologist argues for this.

Where as atheists like rob who believe morality is subjective are a dime a dozen.

Oh please, I could drop thousands of the comments I just described to you in quotes on the boards over the years, and it's a common view of human failure between the faithful.  Meanwhile, the majority view of ethics in academia is secular moral realism...and if you asked any atheist on this site why they thought that some x was bad..they're going to give you an explicitly or implicitly realist explanation for it.

aaaaand none of this has anything to do with gods, atheists and theists are both people, people are not gods, until you deign to make your position known.  Why don't you just do that?

I'm not talking about academia, I'm talking about on a forum like this, or among everyday atheists. Where people like rob, who believe morality is subjective, are not unicorns, but pretty common. Are you denying that atheists like rob, who claim morality is subjective, are pretty common?

And i've been on atheists forums and boards, likely as long as you. Where it's pretty easy to find atheists who indicate they subscribe to moral subjectivism.

The common theist position on morality is that it is objective and universal, by which they actually seem to mean that it is subjective to God.

And 1+1=10. Prove me wrong.

(April 9, 2019 at 9:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 9, 2019 at 9:05 am)Acrobat Wrote: It has nothing to do with whatever you have in mind by the word god/s.

Since we don’t have an agreed upon definition of the term god, I prefer to avoid using the term when possible.

Where did you present a definition of god for us to agree or disagree on? I'd really like it know what you mean by that word.

Here;

God: a belief that life signifies something, rather than nothing.