what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?

[MindForgedManacle]

Many theists are far too willing to just accept moral realism and many atheists far too willing to abandon it, neither generally having very good reasons for doing so.

Our experiences and beliefs are a product of viewing reality through the lenses of experience and human cognition. Objective morality is an untenable abstract ideal necessary to maintain because it gives us a goal to strive towards.

Our morality doesn't have to come from an outside source to reach toward a goal, any less than Honor needs to be objective for people to behave honorably.

They're fables we tell ourselves, because we realize they improve the human condition for everyone.

What feels morally right or wrong objectively isn't actually objective. It's historical consensus.

That's why slavery seems objectively morally wrong now, but wasn't in the past. It's why treating women as property seems objectively wrong now, but wasn't universally considered as such in the past. Because an objective source does not exist. In the Bible you see Lot appeal to a moral standard outside of God to convince God to spare the innocent of Sodom.

That standard is Don Quixote's untraceable star. Doesn't matter if it doesn't exist; it matters that we tell ourselves it does.

I was going to do my usual point by point deconstruction here, but I'm too tirec and lazy right now (why the hell am I still awake past 1am?), so I'll just do a general rebuttal.

You gave a pretty rote and flawed run through of support of moral relativism there. Part of the problem here is the way you're wording things. As I've said on the forums many times, the phrase "objective morality" is a bit of a misnomer, and demonstrably leads many astray. This is because the word "objective" usually refers to that which is mind-independent. But morality as, by definition, about what entities with minds should and shouldn't do. So it makes no sense to talk about morality being objective in that sense. However, what neither you nor many others realize is that this is a stupid (and fallacious) point to criticize moral realism over. Guess what? Logic (and hence mathematics) and science are necessarily NOT mind-independent either. This is especially problematic with logic (and maths), because - in essence - to say that since X isn't mind-independent, and thus is subjective, and thus is just a "consensus" and changes throughout history, is to render logic itself just such a thing. But wait a second, you're using logic to try and establish that very point. After all, logics are just man-made systems of deriving conclusions from accepted styles and inference rules, and there zre TONS of differing and incompatible logics out there. And if that's the case you're making (which it is, i.e that being mind-dependent somehow renders it inert and not true), then your claim is self-refuting. Further, your (and those making similar claims) are making a fallacious objection. Specifically, you're begging the question against moral realism by claiming it needs to appeal to a type of supporting evidence that wouldn't support it in the first place.

Moral frameworks are similar to logical, mathematical and scientific frameworks. They take on axioms, inference rules and data, and try to derive conclusions from them. To me, that shows that moral realism is clearly defensible, unless you want to be consistent with what you're saying about moral realism and conclude that, therefore, logic, mathematics and science are merely historical consensus and subjective? That sounds rather post-modernist, I must say.


The only people who say that moral realism (i.e what you're calling "objective morality") comes from "an outside source" are people who hold to something (or something like) Divine-command theory, and those are theists. Amongst philosophers, ~72% are atheists and approximately 60% are moral realists. Hence, most philosophers who are moral realists are also atheists. So it is not the case that those most well-versed on this issue are theists, and hence do NOT believe moral realism comes from some external source. So it's just demonstrably false to think that is what is thought about it.

Now, you bring up slavery and such, but I don't quite see the point. I'm going to have to pull out one of William Lane Craig's responses to this, because he's actually right. You're confusing moral ontology (what is actually right and wrong, and to what degree) with moral epistemology (i.e how we come to know what is moral). Moral progress (and regress for that matter) are completely compatible with moral realism being true. We aren't omniscient, much less omnibenevolent or omnipotent.

However, if you really just think its consensus, then I wonder how you couch your moral proclamations? Is thievery (when one's life isn't on the line) wrong, or is that just your opinion?