(March 30, 2021 at 8:44 am)Superjock Wrote: So I've never been that good at explaining to a theist how I justify my morality without God because I seem to fall into the trap where everything is just subjective and that kind of frustrates me.

Something about me is why rape is wrong.
Something about society is why rape is wrong.
Something about rape is why rape is wrong.

Which of these three (if any) best describes your position on the matter of why rape is wrong?

Since god is a man made concept and the bible (or any other god book) is written by man, any morality(s) have been made by mans tribes. When circumstances within the tribe change then morals change. 

Example: cannibalism. In the past several societies/tribes around the world practiced cannibalism as a part of their culture (tribe). Not so much any more, their societies have changed.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism

Religious belief, not evidence, lets the believers claim a god derived morality. It makes them feel good to have a ruling daddy.

The same basic positions can be staked out for a god as well.

Something about god is why rape is wrong.
Something about religion is why rape is wrong.
Something about rape is why rape is wrong.

Probably the most defensible ethical meta-view for an atheist is consequentialism as it seems to rest on an incontrovertible principle that harm or injury to self-interest is wrong. I don't agree that it's defensible, and the Nudger and I have debated this to no conclusion, but it has the virtue of being intuitively appealing and not vulnerable to the objections normally lodged against relativism.

I, for my own part, don't claim to know how morality works. Given that I can point to problems with theist morality theories, that might be a reflection of a lower vulnerability on the issue. But I don't claim to know where morality comes from, nor whether it's objective or subjective. I don't know how to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics either, but I'm confident they can be reconciled because if they can't, then the world wouldn't exist as it does. Perhaps when someone challenges you on the how and why of morality, you can remind them that before Darwin, the accepted explanation for the diversity of life was God. That didn't mean that God was the cause of the diversity off life or that evolution didn't function before Darwin, it just means that we didn't have an answer before there was the theory of evolution. God was just an assumed explanation, and one that appears to have been wrong.

(March 30, 2021 at 11:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(March 30, 2021 at 8:44 am)Superjock Wrote: So I've never been that good at explaining to a theist how I justify my morality without God because I seem to fall into the trap where everything is just subjective and that kind of frustrates me.

Something about me is why rape is wrong.
Something about society is why rape is wrong.
Something about rape is why rape is wrong.

Which of these three (if any) best describes your position on the matter of why rape is wrong?

Something about rape is why rape is wrong?

---

(March 30, 2021 at 1:25 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Probably the most defensible ethical meta-view for an atheist is consequentialism as it seems to rest on an incontrovertible principle that harm or injury to self-interest is wrong.  I don't agree that it's defensible, and the Nudger and I have debated this to no conclusion, but it has the virtue of being intuitively appealing and not vulnerable to the objections normally lodged against relativism.

I, for my own part, don't claim to know how morality works.  Given that I can point to problems with theist morality theories, that might be a reflection of a lower vulnerability on the issue.  But I don't claim to know where morality comes from, nor whether it's objective or subjective.  I don't know how to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics either, but I'm confident they can be reconciled because if they can't, then the world wouldn't exist as it does.  Perhaps when someone challenges you on the how and why of morality, you can remind them that before Darwin, the accepted explanation for the diversity of life was God.  That didn't mean that God was the cause of the diversity off life or that evolution didn't function before Darwin, it just means that we didn't have an answer before there was the theory of evolution.  God was just an assumed explanation, and one that appears to have been wrong.

Thanks will have to read up on consequentialism. Learning new things every day.

Rape is a violent act against another person. Therefore, at it's most fundamental, it's wrong.

(March 30, 2021 at 1:35 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Rape is a violent act against another person.  Therefore, at it's most fundamental, it's wrong.

So is capital punishment. That doesn't make it wrong.

And, I'd like to add that I get a little twitchy when someone starts easing in on what may turn into rape apologetics.
Let's not go there. Okay?

(March 30, 2021 at 1:40 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: And, I'd like to add that I get a little twitchy when someone starts easing in on what may turn into rape apologetics.
Let's not go there.  Okay?

Are you then withdrawing your prior statement and abandoning the discussion?

The challenge was far more specific. Not how and why of morality - but the how's and whys of atheist morality. We know the answer to that one with absolute certainty.

Same hows and why as anyone else. An atheist subjectivist and a theist subjectivist make equivalent claims. Same with relativists and objectivists.

---

(March 30, 2021 at 1:39 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(March 30, 2021 at 1:35 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Rape is a violent act against another person.  Therefore, at it's most fundamental, it's wrong.

So is capital punishment.  That doesn't make it wrong.

Shouldn't that be in the form of a question, so that a person who maintains one position can affirm that, yes, they also think that capital punishment is wrong?