Objective Morals+

[DeistPaladin]

No, I don’t think that subjective=anything goes.

Oooooookeeeey, I'm confused then. Perhaps you can help me understand what you are saying when you said:

The king has one set of subjective morals. You have a different set of subjective morals. As both are subjective, you cannot prove that your set is more sound than his. The above is merely an appeal to emotion.

Now the hypothetical "king" (hereafter, KT for short) that you referenced from TA's post was described as such:

King Theist, decrees that all women are property, have no rights at all, and are basically slaves to Males. King Theist proceeds to decree that homosexuality is a such a heinous crime, that anyone who is caught gets executed, same with aldultery, speaking out against the King, or his government, ect. King Theist is also a child molester.

So, correct me if I got anything wrong here, you seem to suggest that KT's "morals", which include slavery, persecution and child molestation, are equal to TA's morals, which seem to condemn such things. You said TA "can't prove" that his morals are "more sound" than KT's. You accused TA of the logical fallacy of "appealing to emotion".

Really? Are you serious?

So what is this but "subjective = anything goes"?

At this point, your evaluation is no longer subjective. This bait-and-switch is the typical atheist tactic on this issue.

Rather than get emotional with me, why not realize that I'm trying to relate to you how I am working out what opinions are "objective" and "subjective" and how many "subjective" opinions are still supported by "objective" data.

My central point was...

In reality, not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are better supported by objective data and rational argument than others.

Part of a debate is batting around different subjective evaluations of our world. We do so by offering objective facts to support our subjective evaluations, hopefully to discard weaker subjective evaluations (those not supported by facts or rational arguments) in favor of stronger ones.

Let's take the "King Theist" example. You said TA can't prove his morality is more sound than this hypothetical child molesting king. How about showing the damage that child molestation does to the victim? How about discussing how the child's rights are violated? How about arguments that involve "The Social Contract" (i.e. "how would you feel if that happened to you"). I think TA would be able to make a strong case that his subjective evaluations are stronger and better supported than KT's.

As you note later, an objective morality would be something which could be discovered and presented in a way that all reasonable people would agree with it. Like your sales figures above – they are what they are.

I would interpret this as a stronger subjective evaluation better supported by the objective data but I dislike semantic quibbling so I will just accept your definition for now...

OK, so morality can be discovered then with sufficient wisdom, right?

So morality exists independent of God, potentially discovered by anyone with sufficient knowledge (i.e. "discovered") and rational capacity (i.e. "all reasonable people")?

I said more people might agree. You ignore the more and might, focus only on the agree, and incorrectly restate it as “we would come to the same conclusion.”

My mistake is humbly noted and it's beside the point.

If just ONE person would come to the same conclusion, it demonstrates that morality can potentially be discovered with sufficient knowledge, which answers my question.