Morality is an evaluation of how our intentional behavior impacts our fellow sentient beings. It is not something that can be objectively measured, as in you can't plug numbers into a spreadsheet to determine the course of action that produces the highest number of moral units.
The closest that any philosopher has come to measuring morality objectively was Jeremy Bentham who advanced the utilitarian ethic, by which morality could be measured by the promotion of the sum total of pleasure in the universe and reduction of the sum total of pain. Even this approach requires some subjective judgment, as measuring pleasure and pain are almost subjective by nature.
A belief in God does nothing to make moral issues any less subjective. Saying "GodWillsIt" is every bit as unsatisfying an answer as to why something is moral as "GodDidIt" is unsatisfying an answer to matters of science. Such simple statements don't fully and satisfyingly answer the whys and hows. If something is moral because God says so, then morality is by God's decision and therefore still relative to God's judgment.
Saying morality is subjective is not to be confused with amorality or "anything goes". It is to admit the issue is complex and requires judgment. Personally, I live by three commandments which I feel measure morality well enough: act with integrity, respect the rights of others and take responsibility for your actions. I came by these rules by my own analysis as to why I react negatively to some things, that is thinking something is "wrong" "evil or "immoral". Typically, things I find immoral are violations of these three rules. I have yet to find any exceptions and will add more to that list if I do.
I will say, in a rare praise of Christianity, that Jesus' admonishment that we do unto others as they would to us, essentially empathizing with others, is an excellent rule. The reverse, expect not from others what we aren't willing to do for them, is also useful. Such rules touch upon the very thing that morality is an evaluation of.
If Christians would spend more time adhering to that "golden rule" and less time trying to force their beliefs on others (an ironic violation of that rule), I think we'd all get along much better.
The closest that any philosopher has come to measuring morality objectively was Jeremy Bentham who advanced the utilitarian ethic, by which morality could be measured by the promotion of the sum total of pleasure in the universe and reduction of the sum total of pain. Even this approach requires some subjective judgment, as measuring pleasure and pain are almost subjective by nature.
A belief in God does nothing to make moral issues any less subjective. Saying "GodWillsIt" is every bit as unsatisfying an answer as to why something is moral as "GodDidIt" is unsatisfying an answer to matters of science. Such simple statements don't fully and satisfyingly answer the whys and hows. If something is moral because God says so, then morality is by God's decision and therefore still relative to God's judgment.
Saying morality is subjective is not to be confused with amorality or "anything goes". It is to admit the issue is complex and requires judgment. Personally, I live by three commandments which I feel measure morality well enough: act with integrity, respect the rights of others and take responsibility for your actions. I came by these rules by my own analysis as to why I react negatively to some things, that is thinking something is "wrong" "evil or "immoral". Typically, things I find immoral are violations of these three rules. I have yet to find any exceptions and will add more to that list if I do.
I will say, in a rare praise of Christianity, that Jesus' admonishment that we do unto others as they would to us, essentially empathizing with others, is an excellent rule. The reverse, expect not from others what we aren't willing to do for them, is also useful. Such rules touch upon the very thing that morality is an evaluation of.
If Christians would spend more time adhering to that "golden rule" and less time trying to force their beliefs on others (an ironic violation of that rule), I think we'd all get along much better.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
