RE: Do you wish there's a god?
April 9, 2019 at 9:36 am
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2019 at 9:37 am by Alan V.)
(April 9, 2019 at 9:30 am)Acrobat Wrote:(April 9, 2019 at 9:18 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: I think Robvalue and other atheists who think morality is subjective are laboring under a false dichotomy. Absolute objectivity or subjectivity are not the only choices. Objectivity can be relative too. I think it is perfectly reasonable to be an atheist who supports objective morality rather than moral nihilism if one acknowledges that morality is relative to human concerns rather than merely subjective. We do, after all, possess common objective characteristics, our human nature, upon which we can build our moral considerations.
I think atheists that subscribe to moral realism, are sort of like YECs. They might have developed their own systems and libraries of arguments defending and articulating their views, and this might work to satisfy other YECs, but is seen as convoluted, and contradictory nonsense to everyone outside their circle.
I think atheists who believe in objective morality, believe it more so because they want it along with their atheism to be true, than for any truly compelling reason. They think they’ve resolved the is ought problem, and fail to recognize why they continually fail to resolve it.
Please explain to me how objective morality based on relative human nature (rather than, say, the interests of ants) is "convoluted and contradictory nonsense."
The "ought" problem is only a problem if you don't recognize it as based on if-then statements. For example: "IF you want a civil society, THEN you ought to police murders." In other words, relative morality -- relative to human thriving.