(December 13, 2012 at 1:23 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: That you can use objective data and reasoned arguments to make yourself seem like the "better" candidate is irrelevant because "better" is in the context of how well the candidate follows the desires of the voters, desires which are arbitrary.
...and this is another reason why morality can never be considered "objective". Not only must we exercise what we call "moral judgment" to determine what is good or bad (our very language underscores some acknowledgement that there is subjective evaluation involved in the process), but we do so based on our values of such things as life over death and joy over suffering.
Invoking a deity does nothing to make morality objective because, by definition, you have a being, however wise, knowledgeable or powerful, who is exercising judgment on moral issues. All they've done by saying "GodWillsIt" is move the question back a step.
My other point is to say that just because we say "morality is subjective" this is not to say "anything goes" because some subjective evaluations are stronger (better supported by reason and objective facts) than others.
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
