My views on objective morality

[abaris]

Yes, I am aware that people disagree with me, especially here. I was stating what I personally believe to be true. And that is that morality is objective.

Sorry, but that doesn't compute, even on the most basic level. You'd have to consider everyone not following your set of morals as being immoral, given the above.

If morality was indeed objective, there had to be some invisible rulebook after all.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, I am aware that people disagree with me, especially here. I was stating what I personally believe to be true. And that is that morality is objective.

Sorry, but that doesn't compute, even on the most basic level. You'd have to consider everyone not following your set of morals as being immoral, given the above.

If morality was indeed objective, there had to be some invisible rulebook after all.

I know not everyone does. Not everyone thinks rape, torture, slavery, etc, is immoral. What I'm saying is I believe the people who think those things are moral, are incorrect. That's what I mean when I say morality is objective. I mean I think some things are inherently immoral even when people don't think they are.

[Ryantology]

I mean I think some things are inherently immoral even when people don't think they are.

That's what makes it subjective. It's your opinion vs. someone else's. Morality is a concept that cannot be rigidly defined (like say, mathematics), so nothing can be objective about it.

Even if God has his own ideas about what is moral, so do I. Furthermore, morals are only objective if they apply universally. There are plenty of examples in the Bible in which God acts in a manner which contradicts his own morals. If they only apply to humans, they are necessarily conditional morals.

[bennyboy]

I know not everyone does. Not everyone thinks rape, torture, slavery, etc, is immoral. What I'm saying is I believe the people who think those things are moral, are incorrect. That's what I mean when I say morality is objective. I mean I think some things are inherently immoral even when people don't think they are.

Every time you say the words "I think" or "in my opinion," you are contradicting your position. It doesn't matter what you think or believe. . . it's completely, absolutely irrelevant. Unless you have an OBJECTIVE REASON for holding your position, which you don't, then any conclusions you make about objective truth will be unsupported. What you have is a cultural weight of SUBJECTIVE "reasons"-- affirmations from your church friends, maybe a few deep-feeling experiences, and so on.

[Whateverist]

Maybe it isn't all that unreasonable.  I mean, I'm no objectivist myself but maybe it isn't a logically challenged position to think -even from within our entirely subjective points of view- that there are at the very least a set of best moral practices .. which no one is constrained to agree with.  I could think that these best practices exist even if I myself can never be sure I have them exactly right.  So I don't think C_L's position is deeply flawed.  i just don't think it can be justified adequately for an impartial judge to agree.

The existence of objectively best moral practices is something people can reasonably disagree about.  It isn't as brash a claim as belief in an omni-everything, intergalactic watch maker, but it is equally poorly supported.  Sometimes I wish theists would just leave it as a profession of faith and forget about all the arguments and apologetics.  In many cases I find they don't so much want to argue that atheists are wrong in their disbelief as they want to argue that the belief they have which separates us is reasonable too.

[robvalue]

Well, she's saying anyone who disagrees is "wrong" but isn't giving a clear indication of what that actually means.

Of course they are wrong according to her criteria. That's how subjective morality works.

I think anyone who disagrees with my morality is wrong too. If I didn't, it wouldn't make any sense. But saying they are "objectively wrong" is to say that I'm aware of some correct way of measuring morality which everyone should be adhering to. I am not, and I don't believe anyone is. I think it's just a misuse of language.

[SteelCurtain]

We're back to what I said on like page 3. That's why I bowed out of this thread so long ago.

The argument that objective morality exists because you believe there are things that are always right and wrong is just applying a the wrong word to a concept. You've literally just described subjective morality, that's it.

[robvalue]

Yup.

And we've explained how "god's opinion" is subjective anyway.

I perfectly respect someone saying they think rape is always wrong. (Although I can construct situations where I would personally question the judgement.) But I can't accept someone saying their way of assessing morality is objectively correct, unless they give a very strong argument why this is the case. Or how that is even coherent. If it's simply a matter of opinion, then that's the definition of subjective.

I've had the same problem with Roadrunner on another thread. I just don't think people are using the word "objective" properly.

[Mr.wizard]

Yup.

And we've explained how "god's opinion" is subjective anyway.

I perfectly respect someone saying they think rape is always wrong. (Although I can construct situations where I would personally question the judgement.) But I can't accept someone saying their way of assessing morality is objectively correct, unless they give a very strong argument why this is the case. Or how that is even coherent. If it's simply a matter of opinion, then that's the definition of subjective.

I've had the same problem with Roadrunner on another thread. I just don't think people are using the word "objective" properly.

They are using the word "objective" incorrectly but it's not by accident. They are using the word incorrectly because they have to, they are stuck working backwards from their conclusion that god exists and he's the source of morality.

[robvalue]

Yeah...

It's an attempt to remove any doubt, I suppose.

To be fair, CL only says some things are objectively immoral. Which means morality as a whole is still subjective, even if this is conceded. Some people argue the whole of morality is objective, which is a million times more absurd.

And if God turned up and said, "Rape is good. Rape is in my nature", most Christians would still think it is immoral. So his opinion is only valid while it conforms to what they think his opinion should be.