Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

Empathy does not make a moral act right or wrong.

It may make it desirable, preferable, but not right or wrong.

If something is desirable or preferable, it is subjectively right.  That's as close as we can get to morality.  When someone's subjective idea of right and wrong is in disagreement with that of the culture he lives in, as long as he isn't harming anyone else there is no cause for action.  If, on the other hand, his actions violate others' rights by causing them harm, that's a matter for law enforcement -- not for gods or philosophers.

You cannot use the words subjective and right in the same sentence. If something is subjective, then you are admitting such facts do not exist.

Taste in food is subjective, if i say olives are disgusting, am i right or wrong? Neither. What if you find olives delightful? Then how can it be a fact that olives are delightful and disgusting at the same time? It would violate the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

At best we say, Little Henry finds olives to disgusting and Astreja finds them delightful. Thats all they are,expressions of preference and taste.

we are not making a claim about the olives ITSELF. Just our position in regards to it.

Again, you are speaking on both sides of your mouth, you say " as long as he isn't harming anyone else there is no cause for action"...are you saying it is a fact that is wrong to harm others? If you deny OM, then how can you say that? At best you can say i hope they dont harm others or i find it undesirable, but it cannot be wrong.

---

---

Actually its not William Lane Craig's quote. It is from Michael Ruse who is an atheist.

Sorry, my mistake. Found it in an article by WLC. Does it matter who you took it from without giving credit? Or do you plan to dodge and by default take the moral high ground?

I actually did. Check out page 8.