(March 12, 2013 at 8:07 am)John V Wrote: Always amazes me when people argue that all morality is subjective, but then argue that their own morality is superior. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
I think where you're getting confused here, as do many who offer similar arguments, is that "subjective = anything goes". Like with many Christian apologetic arguments, you over-simplify and create false dichotomies. In this case, either there is a celestial overlord or anything goes.
In reality, not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are better supported by objective data and rational argument than others.
Let's say, for example, that I employ a salesman who claims to be doing a "great job" by his own estimation. I differ, saying he's doing a "terrible job". These are two subjective evaluations of his performance. So, since they are subjective, both are equally valid, right?
Wrong. I can point out that this hypothetical salesperson hasn't brought in any new customers over X number of months, hasn't successfully cross-sold on any product lines, etc. He has nothing but his bare assertion and feelings to offer.
Quote:This presumes that we can determine "what really IS right or wrong," i.e. it presumes an objective morality. You need to prove an objective morality for this argument to have merit.
"Objective"
Perhaps we're tripping over different ideas of what that word means. When you say "objective morality", do you mean that we can mathematically determine the most moral course of action in any given situation? Can we plug numbers into a spread sheet to provide analysis on the best thing to do? Are there units of morality, that can measure it as we can with temperature, mass or velocity?
What does this term mean to you? Let's establish that first before we discuss what morality is.
Quote:No, that doesn't follow from the statement you quoted.
??? Wait, you said...
Quote:I'm just suggesting that more people might agree with God if they had his knowledge.
So by "agree", you mean we would come to the same conclusion. If we come to the same conclusion, we evaluate morality the same way. If we evaluate morality the same way, we can discover the same moral code with sufficient knowledge.
Where did my analysis of your statement go wrong?
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
