One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It's a falsifiable hypothesis. It takes just one person to think that raping and torturing children is not necessarily evil to show that there is a difference of opinion and therefore is subjective. But you ignore any posts where people mention groups like Nambla, or any mention of a society that may enforce it (e.g. Sparta)·

That demonstrates moral disagreement, not moral subjectivity.  Moral disagreement would (and does) exist regardless of whether or not morality is subjective or objective.  One has to acknowledge moral disagreement, ofc, but it's not a sufficient objection to moral objectivity.  

The moral objectivist simply replies that..yes, there are people who disagree with this moral statement x, and they are wrong...and here's why. 

The important difference is though that there is no way for two people who disagree about a moral act to find out who is right.

Whereas two people who disagree about the causes of thunder for example, an objective fact, could in theory determine who if either are correct.

If morality was objective as well then two people who disagree could in theory find out for sure who was correct. But they can't.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hmm, interesting thread...

To CL and Pool, why exactly is child rape wrong?

Well, here's my answer. It's a disordered act that goes against Natural Law, and there are several reasons for that: 

1. God created sex to be a sacred act of mutual self giving love between husband and wife. Rape takes sex completely outside of that context on many severe levels. It completely defiles something which is meant to be sacred.  

2. Every person has inherent value and inherent human rights. By forcing yourself on someone for your own gratification you are reducing them down to an object to be used by you, and in doing so, disregarding them as human beings with inherent value. Simultaneously you are taking away their inherent rights by using force and/or no consent.   

3. Children are the most vulnerable and weakest among us, and we have a moral responsibility to protect those who are weaker. By doing the exact opposite we are not only neglecting our moral duties, we are completely violating them.

[The Grand Nudger]

For me this is just the difference between my willingness to be ruthlessly practical in implementing justice, where I hang back from codifying moral experience out of regard for the possibility of a difference in subjective experience which I just can't be sure of.  

Hey, we don;t know what we don;t know.  Right?  Objective morality, though, is a morality by reference to what we do know.  It's never not going to be true that there might be something we don't know.  Pragmatism, in this case, doesn't come down on the side of avoiding codification.  It's more an issue of our stomach for error tolerance.  Do we know -enough- about x, to say y?  I think that we do in many cases taken to be moral issues.  Someone else's experience may modify our knowledge to some extent...but I don't think that anyone's experience of rape is going to overturn the moral designation as bad...at this point.

You know nature is pretty good about diversifying its portfolio.  In general, sickle cell anemia is an undesirable condition but because of it, in the face of a malaria outbreak, at least the population pulls through and more sickle cell free individuals will be born to enjoy the good times.  It wouldn't shock me to find that some individuals are morally blind, only able to regard their fellow human beings practically as useful or detrimental to their ends.  Such individuals, though pariahs in the good times, might likewise pull through keep the population going in circumstances where cooperation wasn't getting it done.  Purely speculative on my part but it is why I don't assume we are all the same morally.

I don't think that anyone denies that there's a certain utility in evil or amorality.  I've certainly availed myself of it from time to time.  

So perhaps what you're calling objective morality is what we normals acknowledge as morally permissible or not.

Designations of moral permissibility implicitly contain nested moral designations.  What I'm talking about with objective morality are those things that can be established as moral facts of a matter.  Separate, perhaps (though not always) from things we feel are wrong but cannot identify a moral fact of the matter in.

Above, for example...CL's description of why it is wrong to rape a child. That;s not an objective moral statement. It;s explicitly and arbitrarily subjective and referent to some rules that god laid down. If god had laid down different rules, it wouldn't be wrong. Gods rules, the value god placed in us, and neglecting our divinely mandated duties. But where...oh where...was any mention of the harm it caused to the child? You know...the part that's objectively demonstrable?

That explanation gets it wrong in an almost fantastic way...god is wronged....not so much the child. That's why god can tell a believer to skullfuck his neighbor and steal their daughter, without being wrong. He's not wronging -himself-. Good ole legalism-as-morality. Particularly hilarious in that the laws referred to don't even exist. There is no "natural law" that sex is holy. If we have inherent value (and do we? ) it would be value wholly independent of a god by definition. What's wrong with disregarding human beings as human beings..in that explanation, apart from it being against the wishes of a fairy? Why do we have a moral responsibility to the weak..what will happen to them if we don;t protect them? Again..absent.

The answer to all of these questions is simple, apparent, and demonstrable. The problem, ofc, is that it cuts out god entirely...and so we see a person actively avoiding any coherent or objective explanation of why raping a child is wrong.

It;s as if someone had been asked what time it was, and they blurted out "PIXIES!".

---

I want to take a moment, btw, to entertain the notion that we see and hear on these boards, that without god there would be no morality.  We laugh at that, because we know it to be risably untrue...however, is it any surprise that people who believe it, and describe morality as morality was just described...have within them some subset, however tiny, of people who lose their faith and can't cope..and go boom.  Of people who think that maybe god doesn't love these people over there and so he won't see what's done to them..and go boom....of people who think that god -told them to go boom-?

Not from where I'm sitting, it's not even remotely surprising.  These people, even the ones that aren't going boom...they have no fundamental understanding of morality whatsoever.  None.  Let that sink in.  They're one bad plate of lobster bisque away from hearing god tell them to kill their only son, or yours. The only difference between an extremist and a nice catholic lady, in this regard, is which one of them believes in their own nonsense the most, at the least opportune time.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Let's put it another way.

Subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions""

Therefore something can only be subjective if a brain is involved to produce those personal feelings, tastes and opinions.

There is no other way to determine the morality of an act other than to use your brain. There are no measurements that you can possbly use to determine how right or wrong an action is.

Therefore morality can only be subjective.

[Angrboda]

You'll have to justify that "just" for us to be able to argue anything based on a difference in the meaning we attach to the words.  You're devaluing "subjective", a subjective act.  If you can't justify that, our disagreement resides in a failure to communicate.

My point is raping children is objectively wrong plain and simple. If it is subjectively wrong then there must be a justification for how it can be a subjectively moral act, what is that explanation? There is no explanation to justify that evil, then how can it be subjectively wrong/right act, it's a objectively evil act period

When a theist says that something is objectively true, what they in general mean to say is that in some sense it's really, really, really, really true. And typically they think that just by labeling something as objective somehow magically gives them the upper hand. But something if objectively true must have reasons that explain how objective reality gives birth to such a thing. Yet when questioned on the explanation, typically theists come up short. Theists use the word objective as a superlative, which it's not. Objective and subjective have actual meanings, and the use of these qualifiers entails shouldering a responsibility for explaining the how and the what of these things is, something other than the ubiquitous explanations with reference to magic or arbitrary definitions. Theists don't seem prepared to shoulder that burden.

---

Whatever suffering possible in this world,  if we are patient and steadfast in midst of it, and in midst peril, out of love of the Great Ultimate Beauty that sees us exactly as we are,  the love that ensues to us from that loving being, is worth it, as well as the honourable position we will have in its absolute eye which is the vision of the absolute truth.

What can be asserted without justification can be dismissed without justification.

Your masturbatory fantasy about your God answers no worthwhile questions. And it isn't even based on something you actually know about, thus the phrase "will have" -- it's nothing more than projection of your baseless fantasies. That you think a bare assertion that it's worth it "because my fantasies are real" throws the problem of evil out the window simply shows that you don't know shit from shinola.

[The Grand Nudger]

The important difference is though that there is no way for two people who disagree about a moral act to find out who is right.

I don't think that's true.  

Whereas two people who disagree about the causes of thunder for example, an objective fact, could in theory determine who if either are correct.

Objective moral theories approach morality the same way.  They ask the question, "what are we even talking about?" Then, when they think they have a good answer to that, they apply it to something out in the world, and see if any relevant facts of that matter exist, and what conclusions can be drawn from them.

If morality was objective as well then two people who disagree could in theory find out for sure who was correct. But they can't.

Sure we could...but it's important to note that, as our discussions with creationists, for example have shown us both...you can show a person what and how, and where to independently verify x....and they'll still tell you x is wrong, and can;t happen.  The same is true of an objective moral theory.  We could lay out our definition of terms, justify our definition of terms, then apply that definition of terms to what we can both objectively verify...and at the end of all that, be told that we still haven't demonstrated so much as the possibility of an objective morality.

Let's put it another way.

Subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions""

Therefore something can only be subjective if a brain is involved to produce those personal feelings, tastes and opinions.

There is no other way to determine the morality of an act other than to use your brain. There are no measurements that you can possbly use to determine how right or wrong an action is.

Therefore morality can only be subjective.

Therefore all things produced by our brains are subjective.  That's not a meaningful subjectivity in any context, nor is it one that a moral objectivist has to deny.

Meanwhile, at least some of the things we take to be moral issues or moral facts of some matter x -can- be measured. I don't have to stop at the assertion..for example, that you feel pain. It certainly seems as though I might be able to devise an experiment to test that assertion. What do you think? Now, let me ask you a question. Is pain a relevant fact of the matter in your moral assessment of livestock processing?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Let's put it another way.

Subjective means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions""

Therefore something can only be subjective if a brain is involved to produce those personal feelings, tastes and opinions.

There is no other way to determine the morality of an act other than to use your brain. There are no measurements that you can possbly use to determine how right or wrong an action is.

Therefore morality can only be subjective.

Therefore all things produced by our brains are subjective.  That's not a meaningful subjectivity in any context, nor is it one that a moral objectivist has to deny.

You're using the definition of subjective out of scope of how it is commonly used to apply it to vision, homoeostasis etc. I was only referring to personal feelings, tastes and opinions, which can only be produced by a brain.

[Aroura]

I do find it funny that we are told someone isn’t mean to us, when in fact that person and others regularly tell us they are wizards and we are muggles, essentially.

They know a secret, they have the answers, the truths, and we either reject these things because we are morally or spiritually flawed. We just refuse to see the light.

It’s exhausting. Atheists know no secrets. We are just brave enough to admit our ignorance.

But hey, someone doesn't say fuck you in so many words, so it’s all good? Lol

[Mr.Obvious]

Whatever suffering possible in this world,  if we are patient and steadfast in midst of it, and in midst peril, out of love of the Great Ultimate Beauty that sees us exactly as we are,  the love that ensues to us from that loving being, is worth it, as well as the honourable position we will have in its absolute eye which is the vision of the absolute truth.

There's a good chance someone retorted as I did, but I'm not wading through 15 pages first. Sorry.

Nice sentence you have there, knight.
Go on now. Book a ticket to 'name an african country' and go say it to some 5 year old dying of hunger, thirst and disease.
Tell it to my grandfather who was born with a physical handicap.

Go to a swetshop somewhere in Asia and tell it to the kids working there for half a dollar a day with bleeding, trembling hands.
Swing by my friend who was molested, I'm sure she'll be happy to hear it.

Go to a nearby hospital and preach that to the kids dying of leukemia.
And be sure to stop by my work. I have sixty families of clients, most who are born in poverty and who will die in poverty, just dying to hear you say something like that.

Don't worry that your life sucks and that the world is unfair. Just suck it up, pussy. God loves you.

[Edwardo Piet]

That demonstrates moral disagreement, not moral subjectivity.  Moral disagreement would (and does) exist regardless of whether or not morality is subjective or objective.  One has to acknowledge moral disagreement, ofc, but it's not a sufficient objection to moral objectivity.  

The moral objectivist simply replies that..yes, there are people who disagree with this moral statement x, and they are wrong...and here's why. 

The important difference is though that there is no way for two people who disagree about a moral act to find out who is right.

Whereas two people who disagree about the causes of thunder for example, an objective fact, could in theory determine who if either are correct.

If morality was objective as well then two people who disagree could in theory find out for sure who was correct. But they can't.

That's because "thunder" has an agreed upon definition. But if it didn't and we had no idea what people meant when they said "thunder" that wouldn't mean there weren't correct answers about thunder.

It's irrelevant if people aren't able to find out the answers when we're talking about objective answers in principle.

The point is that the fact people can't figure out answers to objective morality doesn't mean that the answers aren't there. If everyone sucked at chess that wouldn't mean there weren't better chess moves.