List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Amarok]

Tell me why a pro-abortion stance is not extremely subjective.

Tell me why your pro killing of women* stance is moral.

*At least my characterisation of the anti abortion movement has the virtue of being more accurate than its characterisations of both itself and the pro choice movement.

Pretty much if we wanted to be equally vicious and demonize our opponents . Pro killing women would be a title we could use .As it's all anti abortion laws will lead too. After all woman will still abort no matter what . Also if you believe in the death penalty for murder any murder. You must be consistent and demand woman who have abortions be put to death. And don't wanna even get into the draconian idea's your going to need to embrace about woman's bodily autonomy and social standing to make "Pro life " viable and consistent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay, let's discuss the mechanics of reasoning to an objective moral fact. 

Sure.

Morality almost always has to do with assessing comparative value between two or more different options. Value is influences by culture. Every generation exhibits at least small changes in culture which translates into small changes in how the population assesses value.

The geometry of desert. 

That is why abortion is a great example. 200 years ago, no one made the same arguments as supporters do today. So, obviously the early 19th century and 21st century culture reflected differing views on the morality of the issue and if the claim of the existence of objective morality is to be supported, one of them was wrong. But we are to believe there is an objective moral fact-of-the-matter that can be discovered. Please walk me through how that works.

No problem.  Let's take a look at the justifications that were offered 200 years ago for why abortion was immoral and see if they report true facts?  That's really all there is to it.  Care to set your favorite Victorian objections to abortion up for consideration? We can compare them with current observations on the relevant facts of the same matter as seen today.

(reminding you again..that we are only discussing moral disagreement, and moral disagreement in no way implies or demonstrates moral subjectivity - regardless of the specific issue under consideration. It could be that both competing positions are wrong and this -still- won't demonstrate or imply moral subjectivity.)

[SteveII]

That is why abortion is a great example. 200 years ago, no one made the same arguments as supporters do today. So, obviously the early 19th century and 21st century culture reflected differing views on the morality of the issue and if the claim of the existence of objective morality is to be supported, one of them was wrong. But we are to believe there is an objective moral fact-of-the-matter that can be discovered. Please walk me through how that works.

No problem.  Let's take a look at the justifications that were offered 200 years ago for why abortion was immoral and see if they report true facts?  That's really all there is to it.  Care to set your favorite Victorian objections to abortion up for consideration?

No, that's not even close to a complete answer. First, you want us to look at 19th century justification through a 21st century cultural lens. Second, you totally ignored how we are to evaluate the 21st century: which has anything but consensus. Third, whatever method you are going to propose in your next post must be capable of producing a moral fact that is good for all time in human past as well as the future--in order to be considered objective.  

Now, imagine you are in the 19th century and you are defending moral realism. Would you have arrived at the same conclusion on abortion you are going to show us? If not, then your view that moral facts exist is hypothetical and can't really be known for sure--which is useless as a moral theory.

[The Grand Nudger]

No problem.  Let's take a look at the justifications that were offered 200 years ago for why abortion was immoral and see if they report true facts?  That's really all there is to it.  Care to set your favorite Victorian objections to abortion up for consideration?

No, that's not even close to a complete answer. First, you want us to look at 19th century justification through a 21st century cultural lens. Second, you totally ignored how we are to evaluate the 21st century: which has anything but consensus. Third, whatever method you are going to propose in your next post must be capable of producing a moral fact that is good for all time in human past as well as the future--in order to be considered objective.  

That's not what it means for something to be objective, as I've repeatedly explained to you across threads and time.  It's easy to explain why.  If someone had measured the water level on the seawall in some town in 1800 - that would produce an objective fact.  If they made the same measurement in 1900 and 2000 (and then in 2100) it would not be surprising to find that the water level had changed and at no point would any of the disparate measurements be any less objective or accurate than the previous or next measurement on grounds of having been different from each other.  

Relevant facts of a matter can change, if and when they do change, any objective moral system must change to remain -objective-.  It would be incoherent to toss out todays measurement, or claim that it were a subjective measurement..just because the water was an inch higher or lower than it was 100 years ago or would be 100 years from now.  

Do you understand?

Now, imagine you are in the 19th century and you are defending moral realism. Would you have arrived at the same conclusion on abortion you are going to show us? If not, then your view that moral facts exist is hypothetical and can't really be known for sure--which is useless as a moral theory.

Me, sure?  It's not really a fair question to you, though..because I've never been (and likely would not have been) the kind of person who subscribed to victorian morality.  There were people in victorian times arguing against victorian morality....and if all things were equal then I would have been one of those folks.  

I take it, by your refusal to engage in your own line of questioning..you had no interest in following it through?  That it was pretext for a trivial reassertion of your own objections to objective morality and moral realism?  I have to ask..which of us is the moral realist, again?

[Amarok]

No, that's not even close to a complete answer. First, you want us to look at 19th century justification through a 21st century cultural lens. Second, you totally ignored how we are to evaluate the 21st century: which has anything but consensus. Third, whatever method you are going to propose in your next post must be capable of producing a moral fact that is good for all time in human past as well as the future--in order to be considered objective.  

That's not what it means for something to be objective, as I've repeatedly explained to you across threads and time.  It's easy to explain why.  If someone had measured the water level on the seawall in some town in 1800 - that would produce an objective fact.  If they made the same measurement in 1900 and 2000 (and then in 2100) it would not be surprising to find that the water level had changed and at no point would any of the disparate measurements be any less objective or accurate than the previous or next measurement on grounds of having been different from each other.  

Relevant facts of a matter can change, if and when they do change, any objective moral system must change to remain -objective-.  It would be incoherent to toss out todays measurement, or claim that it were a subjective measurement..just because the water was an inch higher or lower than it was 100 years ago or would be 100 years from now.  

Do you understand?

Now, imagine you are in the 19th century and you are defending moral realism. Would you have arrived at the same conclusion on abortion you are going to show us? If not, then your view that moral facts exist is hypothetical and can't really be known for sure--which is useless as a moral theory.

Me, sure?  It's not really a fair question to you, though..because I've never been (and likely would not have been) the kind of person who subscribed to victorian morality.  There were people in victorian times arguing against victorian morality....and if all things were equal then I would have been one of those folks.  

I take it, by your refusal to engage in your own line of questioning..you had no interest in following it through?  That it was pretext for a trivial reassertion of your own objections to objective morality and moral realism?  I have to ask..which of us is the moral realist, again?

Theists seem to have this bizarre obsession with objective being unchanging . Never got that line of thinking as it kills moral progress and assumes we can't learn anything new about moral facts .

[The Grand Nudger]

We have here a person who thinks that a fairy chiseled into a rock, and maybe later scribbled down a magic book.  That nothing relevant has changed, or will ever change (lol) to make obsolescent any jot or tittle contained therein. Strangely, until, he has to engage in biblical slavery apologism or explain why he's not beholden to OT laws......more of that selective amnesia.

This is what has been confused as "objective morality".  This is why a person so confused cannot comment on objective moral systems -or- accept moral progress.  This is why so much nut twisting has occurred in the centuries since to prop up dusty old tomes full of the opinions of ghosts.  

It's easy to get, it's just wrong.

[Amarok]

We have here a person who thinks that a fairy chiseled into a rock, and maybe later scribbled down a magic book.  That nothing relevant has changed, or will ever change (lol) to make obsolescent any jot or tittle contained therein.  Strangely, until, he has to engage in biblical slavery apologism or explain why he's not beholden to OT laws......more of that selective amnesia.  

This is what has been confused as "objective morality".  This is why a person so confused cannot comment on objective moral systems -or- accept moral progress.  This is why so much nut twisting has occurred in the centuries since to prop up dusty old tomes full of the opinions of ghosts.  

It's easy to get, it's just wrong.

Fair enough . But i can't agree on the ease of accepting such a idea. I guess i'm just strange . 

[The Grand Nudger]

Billions of christians can't all be wrong, can they? 

For all it's troubles, ease of assumption aint one of em.

[SteveII]

No, that's not even close to a complete answer. First, you want us to look at 19th century justification through a 21st century cultural lens. Second, you totally ignored how we are to evaluate the 21st century: which has anything but consensus. Third, whatever method you are going to propose in your next post must be capable of producing a moral fact that is good for all time in human past as well as the future--in order to be considered objective.  

That's not what it means for something to be objective, as I've repeatedly explained to you across threads and time.  It's easy to explain why.  If someone had measured the water level on the seawall in some town in 1800 - that would produce an objective fact.  If they made the same measurement in 1900 and 2000 (and then in 2100) it would not be surprising to find that the water level had changed and at no point would any of the disparate measurements be any less objective or accurate than the previous or next measurement on grounds of having been different from each other.  

Relevant facts of a matter can change, if and when they do change, any objective moral system must change to remain -objective-.  It would be incoherent to toss out todays measurement, or claim that it were a subjective measurement..just because the water was an inch higher or lower than it was 100 years ago or would be 100 years from now.  

Do you understand?

Okay, let's clear up the definition of objective:

A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

What "relevant facts of a matter can change" on a moral question like abortion that does not involve "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject"? Is there metaphysical reasoning you can employ? Is there scientific reasons you can trot out? Please be specific because it really seems the crux of the abortion issue always was, is, and always will change based on an opinion of relative value of the mother's reasons against that of the unborn baby.

[The Grand Nudger]

What "relevant facts of a matter can change" on a moral question like abortion that does not involve "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject"? Is there metaphysical reasoning you can employ? Is there scientific reasons you can trot out? Please be specific because it really seems the crux of the abortion issue always was, is, and always will change based on an opinion of relative value of the mother's reasons against that of the unborn baby.

You'd have to be more specific in asking the question and more specific in providing the exact justifications for a position yay or nay to get a meaningful answer to that question....and what happened last time you asked as much?

Ya failed to follow through, didn't ya?    Would you like another opportunity to provide an example of a victorian moral objection to abortion....so that we can assess whether or not it accurately reported any fact that was true then or now, and now..additionally..whether it reported some fact that might have been true then but is not true now?