Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

What is there to rebut, Henry?

If a person has or thinks their morality is meaningfully subjective, then what's the problem?  That they can't, then, think that something is wrong?  They obviously can and do.  That they can't tell another person that what they think is right..is wrong?  They obviously can and do.  I know, you think it's "attached to a wider belief-set" -which ofc is christer code for non-belief, but it probably isn't eh?  It's not as if an atheist has to hold the position that morality is subjective - after all, I don't

Is the problem, more accurately stated, that -you- couldn't figure out how to make sense of-your- life..if you didn't have what you felt to be an objective morality, from god?  That you..apart from whatever ghostly list you have, can't tell right from wrong?

Well, they aren't you, they don't have your problems, they can tell right from wrong, all by their one-sies.  That you can't understand how they do that is probably why you have your problems.  Huh.

Maybe this deficiency is attached to your "wider belief-set".

"If a person has or thinks their morality is meaningfully subjective, then what's the problem?  That they can't, then, think that something is wrong"

What does that even mean? You are either not reading my posts carefully enough or you do not understand.

If something is not factual, then there is nothing to DECIPHER opinions against it and deem it right or wrong.

By saying something is subjective, then you are admitting there are no facts about it, hence effectively nothing to decipher statements against it as right or wrong.

I wrote a number of examples in my post and you still dont get it.

There is ONLY person so far in this entire thread who understands what i am getting at. It is absurd that none of you have not picked up on it and actually attacked my argument by providing counter examples.

---

I'm always amazed when someone insists morality *must* be objective.  If you're in a sane and decent culture, the collective subjective morality of the citizenry will tend to produce positive results.  If your culture is neither sane nor decent, you have bigger problems than whether or not something is considered moral.

No i am NOT saying that at all. Please read carefully.

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.

Seriously, again, only 1 PERSON here has picked up on my argument.

---

Human instinct alone appears to be capable of producing the moral goods, as it were.  Objective moral frameworks, subjective moral frameworks, the collective opinions of my culture; are these things the reason I don't rape?

Nope.  I just don't want to.  Probably born that way.  I seriously doubt that my mind is even -subconsciously-  filled with rape calculus all day erryday.

Speaking of.  Those rapists?  Do they not have a subjective or objective moral framework?  Are they unaware of the collective opinion of their society that tells them not to rape?  No, and no.  They want to, they're rapists.

These do NOT make them objective, and hence does not make them right or wrong.

If you are even remotely interested in understanding my argument, you would ask why.

---

Sigh all those words and you still have not escaped my objection or the dilemma .You essentially just restated it as if you had . Not surprising because you can't escape it . Gods nature can only be  asserted as good as can any moral attribute assigned to him by men.

As for your silly objection nope one can say morality is objective and still reject wider idea's and you last statement is an argument from motivation.

By God we mean a MAXIMALLY great being. Moral perfection, holiness, etc are attributes of an MGB.

If OM does not exist, then there is no fact to decipher statements against it and label them right or wrong.

---

I would definitely not approve of your hobby and in my view it would be wrong. Indeed society in general views these things as being wrong but it is nor true for all societies at all times. This is why an evolving morality is superior to the ones set down eons ago in harsher societies. Societies were you would send your dughters to be raped rather than offend a male guest. Societies were slavery was A ok.
Morality shifts.
At the moment its shifting for the better. 

Our society accepts being gay as not immoral and that is better we are more tolerant of other faiths or no faiths, better.

A few problems here. Wrong according to what? Your opinion?

Now your getting it, Yes my opinion

Which if morality is subjective, is just as valid and equal as a child rapist. But its even worse. There is no right and wrong.

How can child rape be both right and wrong at the same time? 

Thats like you and i playing a game of tennis with no lines on the floor and as soon as the ball lands you scream that it is out. Well, no lines exist on the court then how can it be out? Essentially you are comparing where the ball landed against some imaginary line you created in your head. Exactly the same if you say OM does not exist then say such acts like rape are wrong. Well, you are comparing it against some imaginary line in your head.

You are talking about rules. Rules are set by society. For example in Saudi Arabia they will arrest a woman for not having her head covered or walking without a male. That is the rules and morality of their society.

But if OM does not exist, then these rules are also just things made up in someones head. They have no grounding in reality.
Seriously, did you bother to read Michael Ruse's quote.

Societies? Which societies? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea?

Yep those sorts of things.

If OM does not exist, are what those societies do wrong?

Exactly...and it is the ONLY reason why something is right or wrong because you can compare it against it.

Can we have that again in English! Thanks awfully.

Its pretty easy. It really is.

I think it is morally wrong to condemn homosexuality, that is subjective opinion. If morals were objective everyone would think it immoral to condemn homosexuals, but they don't do they!

How can something be wrong if it is subjective?

Because in my opinion it is wrong.

I also think that pineapple on pizza is an abomination.

If someone likes pineapple on there pizza, are they wrong? If i eat a pineapple pizza are you going to tell me i am doing something wrong?

Is genocide wrong?

Funnily enough the bible says no.
But then I have superior morals to the Abrahamic god.

Forget the bible for a second.
Tell me why genocide is wrong?

---

By admitting certain acts such as child rape for fun are wrong, you are essentially admitting God exists.

You are admitting that moral facts exist. These facts exist regardless of anyones opinion or attitude about them.

Remember moral facts are prescriptions, not descriptions.

Prescriptions or propositions come from minds/intelligence.

---

Funny enough your God doesn't say Child rape for fun is wrong.  Nor does he say Rape is wrong.  Yet you assert with certainty that Child Rape is wrong.

Any sex outside marriage is a sin.

What is child rape then champ?