(December 13, 2012 at 12:48 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: And there really isn't a reason I can see based on non-arbitrary values to be concerned with such things as hypocrisy or credibility. It seems that for all the "good" moral values that most people hold, a person could just as easily hold the exact opposite set of values.
See my previous argument about how not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some can be better supported by logical argument and objective data than others.
To use another example, let's say two people are running for political office, an incumbent for re-election and a challenger. The incumbent will obviously claim to have done a "good job" while the challenger will say the opposite. The public doesn't just call this a wash, that both subjective opinions are equally valid and reality is up for grabs anyway. No, both candidates are then expected to support their case with objective data and reasoned arguments. The one who can support their subjective evaluation with objective data and logic has a stronger case.
The same is true for moral issues. Admitting that morality is a subjective matter doesn't mean all moral codes are equal.
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
