Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

You guys need to read more of Michael Ruse

"Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will—or in the metaphorical roots of evolution or any other part of the framework of the Universe. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but is not justified by it because, like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.…Unlike Macbeth’s dagger, ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.16"

Again, if you dont believe in OMVs, then everytime you say acts like rape and torture are wrong, you are sufferring from an illusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

What's the problem?  OFC morality is a survival strategy.  Does that make child rape any less immoral? Does child rape being objectively harmful make morality any less of an "illusion"?

[Astreja]

I am merely pointing out the logical conclusions if morality is subjective. 

All you people keep on saying i that there certain acts are right or wrong morally. If you say this you are ADMITTING to OM.

I admit no such thing.  Stop pretending to read our minds.

Until otherwise demonstrated, all morality is subjective -- including morality that allegedly comes from a god.

The god of the Bible is a particularly egregious and ugly example of this.  It sets up the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" but violates it regularly, with wild abandon.  If there is an objective standard upon which the commandment is based, Yahweh is in clear violation of it and accordingly can be ignored as an authority on morality.

Subjective morality is simple:  If you don't want it to happen to you, don't do it to someone else.

[Harry Nevis]

You guys need to read more of Michael Ruse

"Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will—or in the metaphorical roots of evolution or any other part of the framework of the Universe. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but is not justified by it because, like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.…Unlike Macbeth’s dagger, ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.16"

Again, if you dont believe in OMVs, then everytime you say acts like rape and torture are wrong, you are sufferring from an illusion.

No, we don't.  You need to get your head out of your ass.

[Little Henry]

What's the problem?  OFC morality is a survival strategy.  Does that make child rape any less immoral?  Does child rape being objectively harmful make morality any less of an "illusion"?

Thats my point. if that is all what morality is, acts like rape and murder are neither right or wrong.

---

I am merely pointing out the logical conclusions if morality is subjective. 

All you people keep on saying i that there certain acts are right or wrong morally. If you say this you are ADMITTING to OM.

I admit no such thing.  Stop pretending to read our minds.

Until otherwise demonstrated, all morality is subjective -- including morality that allegedly comes from a god.

The god of the Bible is a particularly egregious and ugly example of this.  It sets up the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" but violates it regularly, with wild abandon.  If there is an objective standard upon which the commandment is based, Yahweh is in clear violation of it and accordingly can be ignored as an authority on morality.

Subjective morality is simple:  If you don't want it to happen to you, don't do it to someone else.

God does not kill.

As the author of life he has the right to remove anyone from this temporal existence to another existence as he sees fit.

[Astonished]

What's the problem?  OFC morality is a survival strategy.  Does that make child rape any less immoral?  Does child rape being objectively harmful make morality any less of an "illusion"?

Thats my point. if that is all what morality is, acts like rape and murder are neither right or wrong.

---

I admit no such thing.  Stop pretending to read our minds.

Until otherwise demonstrated, all morality is subjective -- including morality that allegedly comes from a god.

The god of the Bible is a particularly egregious and ugly example of this.  It sets up the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" but violates it regularly, with wild abandon.  If there is an objective standard upon which the commandment is based, Yahweh is in clear violation of it and accordingly can be ignored as an authority on morality.

Subjective morality is simple:  If you don't want it to happen to you, don't do it to someone else.

God does not kill.

As the author of life he has the right to remove anyone from this temporal existence to another existence as he sees fit.

So unless you got your god concept from anything other than any of the old or new testament, you are flat-out lying. And if you're arguing for a god that does not kill, or has any other attributes other than the tired 'well everything needs a designer except our designer', I'd love to know what you're basing that on.

[Astreja]

God does not kill.

As the author of life he has the right to remove anyone from this temporal existence to another existence as he sees fit.

This alleged "right" of your imaginary fiend is something it would have given to itself, by virtue of being too powerful to be stopped by anything else.

What an evil bastard you worship.

[Amarok]

Any concept of taking life is killing

And he has this right because ? don't tell me

He created life . And that means he has the right to kill it because?

He owns you. And that ownership comes from ?

He can . Might makes right ?

---

I am merely pointing out the logical conclusions if morality is subjective. 

No your not your masking empty assertions and being called out for it

[Angrboda]

@Little Henry:

You make the same mistake that creationists do, assuming that by attacking an alternative explanation of the facts they will thereby be validating their own. It doesn't work that way as that presents a false dichotomy between your views and the alternative. You still have to defend your own view of objective morality if you want to claim that it exists.

"Is God's nature good because it is God's, or is God's nature good because it is morally good (i.e. it conforms to an independent standard of good)?" You see, playing the ontology card has gained you nothing. Just as the Euthyphro dilemma applies to Divine Command Theory, it also applies to the argument that morality is derived from God's nature. Either God's nature is arbitrarily good simply because it is God's, which results in an arbitrary set of morals which by definition is not moral. Or God's nature is good in that it conforms to a standard of goodness that is independent of God, making God's nature superfluous to the question of morals. You have accomplished nothing by your detour into ontology except to confuse the issue. God is still an unsatisfactory source of morality, and you're left empty handed, claiming the existence of objective morals that you can't explain.

[Mister Agenda]

Little Henry, you claim I don't believe in OM. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

---

You guys need to read more of Michael Ruse

"Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will—or in the metaphorical roots of evolution or any other part of the framework of the Universe. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but is not justified by it because, like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.…Unlike Macbeth’s dagger, ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.16"

Again, if you dont believe in OMVs, then everytime you say acts like rape and torture are wrong, you are sufferring from an illusion.

You like Michael Ruse because he agrees with you about 'what atheists must think'. I don't agree with him, and I don't see him saying anything that compelling. As philosophers go, he's a mixed bag, and there are literally hundred of other atheist philosophers you could have turned to if your goal was to find nontheistic philosophical support for moral realism.