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?

"Right" and "wrong" and subjective. All moral/value systems are subjective.

(December 12, 2012 at 8:21 pm)Annik Wrote: "Right" and "wrong" and subjective. All moral/value systems are subjective.

I think that's what I essentially said. But thanks!

I was agreeing with you.

No, we do not - and I'm not certain we could have one even if we wanted one.

As to the rape question - I'd turn that around on the questioner, and pose this questions (asked in the context of a world without an real or imaginary deity): Are you saying that we would be unjustified as a society in prohibiting and punishing rape?

To me, the answer is a resouding no, we would not be unjustified, because we as an empathetic society value our society free from rape. Why? Because we do.

Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings. To say something is morally wrong is to say there is a victim who has been wronged. The reason rape is wrong and homosexuality is not is because with the former there is a victim and with the latter there isn't. Simple enough.

I don't know what is even meant by "objective morality"? If we say something is objective, that should mean we can measure it. Can we plug numbers into a spreadsheet and determine what is the moral course of action?

Similarly "subjective" doesn't mean all opinions are equal. Some subjective evaluations are better supported by logic and facts better then others. If a CEO tells shareholders "we had a good year" and the facts show they lost a lot of money, how is the CEO's subjective opinion, even if sincere, superior to the evaluation of the shareholder, "no, it was a bad year you buffoon"?

Finally, "GodWilsIt" doesn't answer anything. What makes the will of a deity any less subjective? All the theist is doing is moving the question of morality one step further away.

When theists throw the term "objective morality" around they mean that certain actions or states are right and wrong independent of anybody's opinion.

---

(December 12, 2012 at 8:47 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings. To say something is morally wrong is to say there is a victim who has been wronged. The reason rape is wrong and homosexuality is not is because with the former there is a victim and with the latter there isn't. Simple enough.
...

Why should we care if somebody has been wronged? Why is it wrong for somebody to be "wronged"?

I would think that the same logical processes which lead one to be philosophically atheistic would also make the idea of objective morality sound objectionable.

Objective morality isn't really possible. A bit of subjectivity can be good; morality needs the wiggle room, so to speak. If people can't be trusted to follow their own judgement, then objective morals would still be useless because no one would follow them.

(December 12, 2012 at 9:18 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Objective morality isn't really possible. A bit of subjectivity can be good; ...

But "good" is subjective...