(April 9, 2019 at 9:18 am)Thoreauvian Wrote:(April 9, 2019 at 9:12 am)Acrobat Wrote: Try harder. In my view you haven’t really thought through your belief in morality as subjective, and that you’re going to stumble your way into inconsistencies and contradictions. Trying to work through those, would probably help you get a better grasp on what’s true here.
You clearly take issues with suggesting your moral beliefs, are akin to taste, like your likes and dislikes. In my view thats because like me you recognize it as objective, even if some other part of you wants to deny this, or finds it problematic for your other beliefs, like your atheism.
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.
Exactly this. It absolutely is a false dichotomy. Setting goals for the common well being of a society, and then arriculating a moral code that governs society with those objectives in mind is not anything so whimsical or simplistic as whether or not a person likes pizza. If you start with agreed upon objectives (well-being, minimizing harm, etc), actions can then be deemed objectively right or wrong within the framework of those foundational goals.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
