Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[RoadRunner79]

No, that's just something that many christians believe, lol.

Similarly, when they remark on the subjectivity of moral propositions they're not contending that their every moral position is, just...like..an opinion, man.

I've asked a number of times of moral subjectivist, what in the subject is the basis of morality.   They normally dodge and change the subject (I don't believe that I have yet had anyone answer). Often when talking about something that is subjective, it is just a matter of preference or feelings.     And I agree, that we have different opinions on what is moral, the same as their may be different opinions on some matters of science.  That doesn't make either subjective though.  And we do have rules that are not moral, but a matter of social convention.  It doesn't make morals subjective.  It seems that people want to go into moral grey areas in these discussions, rather than focusing on what is obviously immoral. Our knowledge or understanding of something doesn't make it subjective and this is just a red herring.  If something is subjective, then I don't think that it is a moral truth, but rather something else.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, that's just something that many christians believe, lol.

Similarly, when they remark on the subjectivity of moral propositions they're not contending that their every moral position is, just...like..an opinion, man.

I've asked a number of times of moral subjectivist, what in the subject is the basis of morality.   They normally dodge and change the subject (I don't believe that I have yet had anyone answer). Often when talking about something that is subjective, it is just a matter of preference or feelings.     And I agree, that we have different opinions on what is moral, the same as their may be different opinions on some matters of science.  That doesn't make either subjective though.  And we do have rules that are not moral, but a matter of social convention.  It doesn't make morals subjective.  It seems that people want to go into moral grey areas in these discussions, rather than focusing on what is obviously immoral. Our knowledge or understanding of something doesn't make it subjective and this is just a red herring.  If something is subjective, then I don't think that it is a moral truth, but rather something else.

Moral skeptics would better describe the people you're talking to.  Arguing with moral subjectivists in the sense that you're thinking is going to lead to you arguing with yourself.  

Are some moral statements subjective?  Certainly.  Are some moral systems fundamentally subjective, absolutely.  Is it possible that morality is, itself..fundamentally subjective?  Yup.

It's up to you, as the realist, to make the case.  Yes, it helps to confront misconceptions about what does or doesn't competently address moral realism...but, ultimately, I think you'll get further with a positive case.

Take one of your obvious immoralities.  Since they exist.  Explain why it is objectively bad, and/or wrong..and how you've come to know this.   You might find that they already agree.  You might find that they agree on the objectivity of the statement, even. Poly, for example, is all about epistemic objectivity. That's a point of agreement between you. You could start there and show the obvious epistemology of whatever it is you hold to be immoral.

[Mister Agenda]

RR, you have to accept a basic axiom as well, in your case, that it is Yahweh that determines what good is, and virtue is obedience to Yahweh's standard. Right?

You personally accepted that axiom, There is no escape from subjectivity in moral judgment, even if the last thing you used it for iwas to decide to let someone else tell you what's right and wrong for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

He doesn't have to, at least not to be a moral realist or objectivist, he doesn't.  

To be frank...... accepting that axiom would not make him a moral realist or objectivist.

[Mister Agenda]

To be frank...... accepting that axiom would not make him a moral realist or objectivist.

Go figure....

[polymath257]

No, that's just something that many christians believe, lol.

Similarly, when they remark on the subjectivity of moral propositions they're not contending that their every moral position is, just...like..an opinion, man.

I've asked a number of times of moral subjectivist, what in the subject is the basis of morality.   They normally dodge and change the subject (I don't believe that I have yet had anyone answer). Often when talking about something that is subjective, it is just a matter of preference or feelings.     And I agree, that we have different opinions on what is moral, the same as their may be different opinions on some matters of science.  That doesn't make either subjective though.  And we do have rules that are not moral, but a matter of social convention.  It doesn't make morals subjective.  It seems that people want to go into moral grey areas in these discussions, rather than focusing on what is obviously immoral. Our knowledge or understanding of something doesn't make it subjective and this is just a red herring.  If something is subjective, then I don't think that it is a moral truth, but rather something else.

The question 'what in the subject is the basis of morality' just seems like a poorly constructed question with no real meaning to it.

What 'subject' do you mean? The subject of morality? The person doing the moral reasoning?

Why would you think there is something 'in' the subject that is the 'basis' of morality? What could that even mean?

For me, the question of subjectivity is whether there is something in the nature of the universe that determines morality independent of people. So, the sun is something that exists whether or not there is anyone looking at it. But morality is something that only exists because there are humans. That is what makes it subjective as opposed to objective.

When you say that something is 'obviously immoral', that is a matter of your training and education and partly determined by the society you grew up in, not to mention the fact that you are human and not, say, bonobo. If you go back 2000 years, *every* society had slavery and thought it was perfectly natural and moral. That alone shows that it isn't 'obviously immoral'. In almost every society is was OK for an elite to kill an underling if they were insulted. That shows that such killing isn't 'obviously immoral'.

The point is that what you and I consider to be 'obviously immoral' is a matter of the society that educated us. It is very far from being 'obviously immoral' for all societies and for all people throughout time.

That said, I do think we are advancing morally: we are learning how to generalize from tribal notions to humanity in general, we are learning that compassion extends not just to our families and friends but to people in general. This is, in my mind, an advancement. And I think our societies will be better and more able to provide for human well being because of these changes. Our values have changed over the past 2000 years and I think they have changed in a good direction.

But then, I would.

[RoadRunner79]

I've asked a number of times of moral subjectivist, what in the subject is the basis of morality.   They normally dodge and change the subject (I don't believe that I have yet had anyone answer). Often when talking about something that is subjective, it is just a matter of preference or feelings.     And I agree, that we have different opinions on what is moral, the same as their may be different opinions on some matters of science.  That doesn't make either subjective though.  And we do have rules that are not moral, but a matter of social convention.  It doesn't make morals subjective.  It seems that people want to go into moral grey areas in these discussions, rather than focusing on what is obviously immoral. Our knowledge or understanding of something doesn't make it subjective and this is just a red herring.  If something is subjective, then I don't think that it is a moral truth, but rather something else.

The question 'what in the subject is the basis of morality' just seems like a poorly constructed question with no real meaning to it.

What 'subject' do you mean? The subject of morality? The person doing the moral reasoning?

Why would you think there is something 'in' the subject that is the 'basis' of morality? What could that even mean?

For me, the question of subjectivity is whether there is something in the nature of the universe that determines morality independent of people. So, the sun is something that exists whether or not there is anyone looking at it. But morality is something that only exists because there are humans. That is what makes it subjective as opposed to objective.

When you say that something is 'obviously immoral', that is a matter of your training and education and partly determined by the society you grew up in, not to mention the fact that you are human and not, say, bonobo. If you go back 2000 years, *every* society had slavery and thought it was perfectly natural and moral. That alone shows that it isn't 'obviously immoral'. In almost every society is was OK for an elite to kill an underling if they were insulted. That shows that such killing isn't 'obviously immoral'.

The point is that what you and I consider to be 'obviously immoral' is a matter of the society that educated us. It is very far from being 'obviously immoral' for all societies and for all people throughout time.

That said, I do think we are advancing morally: we are learning how to generalize from tribal notions to humanity in general, we are learning that compassion extends not just to our families and friends but to people in general. This is, in my mind, an advancement. And I think our societies will be better and more able to provide for human well being because of these changes. Our values have changed over the past 2000 years and I think they have changed in a good direction.

But then, I would.

Ok.... so you make it sounds here, like it is a matter of personal preference.   One person thinks that they ought to beat and abuse the slave; another thinks that they should care for and help the them.   These are no better or worse outside of a persons personal preference and their own abstract definition and rules?  One isn't any more moral than the other?  If one think that by brutally enslaving a group of people, it is the most pragmatic way to advance the well being of society, then is that moral?

[polymath257]

The question 'what in the subject is the basis of morality' just seems like a poorly constructed question with no real meaning to it.

What 'subject' do you mean? The subject of morality? The person doing the moral reasoning?

Why would you think there is something 'in' the subject that is the 'basis' of morality? What could that even mean?

For me, the question of subjectivity is whether there is something in the nature of the universe that determines morality independent of people. So, the sun is something that exists whether or not there is anyone looking at it. But morality is something that only exists because there are humans. That is what makes it subjective as opposed to objective.

When you say that something is 'obviously immoral', that is a matter of your training and education and partly determined by the society you grew up in, not to mention the fact that you are human and not, say, bonobo. If you go back 2000 years, *every* society had slavery and thought it was perfectly natural and moral. That alone shows that it isn't 'obviously immoral'. In almost every society is was OK for an elite to kill an underling if they were insulted. That shows that such killing isn't 'obviously immoral'.

The point is that what you and I consider to be 'obviously immoral' is a matter of the society that educated us. It is very far from being 'obviously immoral' for all societies and for all people throughout time.

That said, I do think we are advancing morally: we are learning how to generalize from tribal notions to humanity in general, we are learning that compassion extends not just to our families and friends but to people in general. This is, in my mind, an advancement. And I think our societies will be better and more able to provide for human well being because of these changes. Our values have changed over the past 2000 years and I think they have changed in a good direction.

But then, I would.

Ok.... so you make it sounds here, like it is a matter of personal preference.   One person thinks that they ought to beat and abuse the slave; another thinks that they should care for and help the them.   These are no better or worse outside of a persons personal preference and their own abstract definition and rules?  One isn't any more moral than the other?  If one think that by brutally enslaving a group of people, it is the most pragmatic way to advance the well being of society, then is that moral?

Well, humans are rule makers and tend to prefer general rules as opposed to lots of special cases. That implies we will prefer those systems, in the long run, based on fairness. We are also a social species, so we tend to prefer systems tending to compassion.

But yes, if you could get everyone to agree on a position, that position becomes moral. Since most people are basically decent, you won't get wife beaters or murderers being moral based on this.

This is also why morality changes over time.

[RoadRunner79]

Ok.... so you make it sounds here, like it is a matter of personal preference.   One person thinks that they ought to beat and abuse the slave; another thinks that they should care for and help the them.   These are no better or worse outside of a persons personal preference and their own abstract definition and rules?  One isn't any more moral than the other?  If one think that by brutally enslaving a group of people, it is the most pragmatic way to advance the well being of society, then is that moral?

Well, humans are rule makers and tend to prefer general rules as opposed to lots of special cases. That implies we will prefer those systems, in the long run, based on fairness. We are also a social species, so we tend to prefer systems tending to compassion.

But yes, if you could get everyone to agree on a position, that position becomes moral. Since most people are basically decent, you won't get wife beaters or murderers being moral based on this.

This is also why morality changes over time.

So then you can’t judge/compare morality, based on a different basis? You really have no grounding to make moral judgement on another.

[polymath257]

Well, humans are rule makers and tend to prefer general rules as opposed to lots of special cases. That implies we will prefer those systems, in the long run, based on fairness. We are also a social species, so we tend to prefer systems tending to compassion.

But yes, if you could get everyone to agree on a position, that position becomes moral. Since most people are basically decent, you won't get wife beaters or murderers  being moral based on this.

This is also why morality changes over time.

So then you can’t judge/compare morality, based on a different basis?  You really have no grounding to make moral judgement on another.

Of course I do. But I make those judgements based on the values and viewpoints I was educated with, just like everyone else does. Everyone has 'grounding' to make moral judgements. That is part of being one in a social species.

I don't think moral values need to be objective and eternal to be useful as guiding principles. I think we can learn how to live with each other in more mutually beneficial ways as we learn.