Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Amarok]

Quote:My opinion is that most people believe in objective morality no matter what they want to call it. It is only the atheists who is more philosophical in nature that discovers that it must be subjective and label it so out of loyalty to the cause. 

Once again steve resorts to this rhetoric .It does not matter what most people believe . No one here is claiming atheists are more philosophical in nature. Nor is there an atheist cause. Nor any reason for anyone to take up a position in the name of said nonexistent cause. That's once again you projecting.

---

---

Situational, that is why i am arguing for objective morality, not moral absolutes.

---

---

What are these 2 levels?

---

Good and bad are value judgements. Not right and wrong.

By denying an objective standard exist, you are declaring right and wrong dont exist in regards to the issue you are discussing.

Good and bad are value judgements. Again, if OM doesnt exist, then there is no such thing as objective good or bad.

Your problem my friend is that you like everyone else absolutely realises objective morality exists, but you are trying to ground it in something else other than God.

You cannot ground it in things like the victim. By doing so and being adamant that OM does not exist just really means that you are sufferring from a delusion. But it is obvious to you that you are not sufferring from a delusion because our moral experience indicates so strongly to us that certain acts are factually right and wrong. 

You are going around in circles. Your argument which i dont even think you believe to be true would result in a scenario where the victim thinks the rape is wrong while the rapist thinks its right.

I want you to think carefully now, how can something like rape be both right and wrong at the same time without the violating the law of non contradiction?

Its like saying the earth is both flat and spherical in shape. 

If you really DENY OM existing which i know you dont, at best you can only say, the victim finds it undesirable, but not wrong.

You really dont want to bring the country's laws into this discussion because at one stage it was legal to gas Jews and homosexuals in a particular country. Does that make it right?

---

Show me how.

Just to show how incoherent this notion is. Lets pick something that IS subjective and lets pretend it is asked in an exam.

Q. Chocolate ice cream ITSELF tastes better than vanilla ice cream.

Is the answer right or wrong?

Suppose you answer yes. The marker gives you a cross. 

Unless there is an external standard OUTSIDE both of you, ie the fact itself to decipher, then NO ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

Please REFUTE THIS.

Well you are right, choice of ice cream is preference and not an important moral decision. Choice of ice cream does not(actually it could if you had a medical condition predicated on avoiding ice-cream, but I am assuming as a hypothetical that's not true), affect wellbeing, It does reflect on personal responsibility, which may affect my response in parentheses. So, in a broad brush response to this question their is no right or wrong. But it is not an important moral decision. Morality is about wellbeing, it's difficult, but there is no way your answer makes a supernatural omnibot necessary.

I know I am dim, but I don't see how how being a Christian would make me any brighter on this issue?

He will just keep repeating it and ignoring you it's all he's got