What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

I do find the notion that morality is completely relative and completely subjective, a deeply flawed one. And I don't even say this as a Catholic, I say this as a person who really does try to think logically. Even if I were an atheist, I don't think I could ever make sense of the notion that morality is always subjective.

The argument from incredulity cuts no ice. You cannot even defend your own morality, instead preferring to avoid the point.  You've yet to demonstrate your assertion that morality is objective and universal. You've yet to explain why an evil your god commits is only evil when humans commit it.

Given that, while I don't for a moment doubt your inability to conceive of moral relativity and subjectivity, I find that inability to be entirely unconvincing.

Hi Parkers Tan. I am not sure what you are referring to. What point am I avoiding? And I actually did address the "evil my god commits" a couple of times now.

This would mean that as long as a particular society or culture thinks something is moral, it is.

Not necessarily.  There are several different views on the matter, not one oversimplified view.  You should perhaps read up on the topic before you opine:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-...ivism.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

Hm, someone else on here already confirmed that that is what they meant...

I could never see killing infidel children or burning alive women who were rapped or cutting off a 12 year old's clitoris as ever being moral.

And that is because you cannot see it. You have to explain why your moral sensibility is privileged.

I can explain it to you if you want. I do have an answer for it.

Regardless of whether or not that particular culture thought it was, I would still believe those things are intrinsically immoral and so it would follow that I would still believe in some sort of moral truth.

You say that, but the fact is that you weren't raised in a culture that held those acts to be good. That you find such acts immoral is no surprise.

That still doesn't explain why your morality is privileged.

Fair enough. I guess you are right that I can never claim to know what I would be like if I was something that I am not. But I would like to think I'd believe those things were still immoral.

---

Subjective means that it can be moral for one person, but not moral for another person. What I was saying is that I believe some things are either moral or they aren't. Kind of like an animal is either a dog or it isn't. There is no "it's a dog if you think it's a dog, but if you don't think it's a dog then it isn't one." Morality is something that is actually a reality rather than just a subjective thought or idea that can change from person to person.

Your problem is that you do not reason logically.

You are attempting to make comparisons were there are none to be made.

What do you mean?