Atheists only vote please: Do absolute MORAL truths exist? Is Rape ALWAYS "wrong"?

[wiploc]

... I was arguing for subjective-and-universal rules for morality.

Thanks, that helps.

...
Getting back to why I consider morality "subjective", consider that in our discussions of morality, there are some implicit assumptions that can't be objectively proven:

• Life is preferable to death
  
• Pleasure is preferable to pain
  
• Health is preferable to disease
  
• Wealth is preferable to poverty
  
• Justice is preferable to injustice
  

etc.
...
Why do we prefer life over death or pleasure over pain? We just do. It's in our nature. Where our actions impact the life, well-being, happiness, etc. of others, questions of morality apply.

I might argue that those don't yet have to do with morality:

Suppose you wanted to get to the magnetic north pole. Your compass would take you right to the place. The desire to go there is subjective, but the means is objective.

Preferring happiness to unhappiness is (arguably) subjective, but the means of achieving happiness is more and more part of the realm of objective knowledge.

By the end of your post, you seem to be suggesting that objective things are those that can be measured.

...assuming we have enough knowledge and accurate measuring devices, yes. By definition, at least as I understand it, is objective means "not subject to opinions, values or judgment". So, it's measurable then?

Let's say you live in a pre-tech village on the edge of an ocean bay. People debate how deep the bay is. At first, you can only be sure of the depth as far out as people can wade. But, later, a guy floats around on a log, sounding with a pole. You know more about the depths. Later, the canoe is invented, and the lead line; you know even more. And now, your next door neighbor, Joe, says he's working on something he calls "downward looking sonar."

Is the depth of the bay subjective? Just because you can't measure all of it yet, so sometimes you guess and argue, does that make it subjective?

I incline, at least in this conversational context (notice me hedging here) to say that the dept of the bay is an objective thing, no matter how little we know about it. Likewise morality.

And now let me backpedal: My real position is that atheist morality is exactly as objective as theist morality. I don't care what definition of "objective" they use. Let them offer any one definition, and I'll hold them to that definition, and my morality will turn out to be exactly as objective as theirs.

The essence of the moral argument is equivocating on the word "objective." So it's not my job to bring a definition to the table. My job is to identify their definition, and prove that the argument fails when we use that definition.

So I don't care what it means. I'll go with any definition they field.

Which means I'm a little embarrassed to be talking as if I know the one true definition. But what I never want to do is to call atheist morality "subjective" if I don't call theist morality "subjective" in the same sentence.

That said, once we decide what our goals are (which process I don't generally regard as moral), the system of reaching those goals (which I'm happy to call "morality") seems as likely to be objective (for any value of "objective" that would make god-based morality objective).

Okay, now I get to disagree with you. Lots of people believe the world really exists (not just inside your head) but that moral claims are not truth-apt.

OK, how about relativism to me only makes sense if you also waste time wondering if the outside world is real. I say this because actions have consequences in the real world. It genuinely confounds me that someone can seriously observe barbaric religious practices that clearly result in increased misery and decreased joy in life and decide it's not less moral but just a matter of culture.

Okay. As long as you're saying that---in your opinion---relativism entails solipsism, you're good. I'm may think you're affirming the consequent, but that's beside the point.

So why aren't you calling morality objective?

Objective data used to support a subjective evaluation doesn't make the subjective matter objective.

And conversely ...

I think we may be tripping up over semantics more than anything else.

Yes, I think that's what we're discussing.

But why is flourishing preferable over suffering? This is a value. The objective data shows us the most effective path to reach our value but that doesn't make our values objective.

That "most effective path" stuff is the stuff of morality, don't you think?