If morality is subjective...

[abaris]

Even chimps shun the ones killing members of their own group.

But religious people don't look at chimps, since the chimps might stare back at them when they look into the mirror.

[Mudhammam]

[bold mine]

Does this mean there is some objective or "not so subjective" morality in every human society? And isn't the emphasised measuring of "pain", "bad" and "evil" a subjective opinion as well? - We could argue all day on what can be considered evil or not, and I'm sure AF members would disagree on the validity of some conducts as immoral or not.

Yes, it's undoubtedly subjective, but given an objective reality from which we all partake and exist in different but equal regions both definite and indefinite, we are governed by certain intuitive instincts evolved through the necessity of survival advantages to dominate. So, for one, we can compare cultures and still judge which fits better with our ideal world, though it is an ideal we can hope to argue for on the basis of human interest alone (in a VERY broad sense), because disinterest in that is akin to a denial of reason for all reason. Many definitions of good depend on fanciful conceptions of teleos, that is, when it doesn't justify its terms on the evidence of experience alone but appeals to some arbitrary but unspecified rule that allows for truly gruesome brutality, as is often the case in bloody political revolutions and religions born on absurd egotism.

[watchamadoodle]

Probably nothing is truly objective anyway. Take science, we accept something as "objectively true" after a large number of people are persuaded through their individual subjective experiments.

There is usually no objective way to know that one government policy is better than another, but we have votes and everybody agrees to abide by the majority. The same applies to morality - no big problem.

[Mr.wizard]

Then how do we answer the theist argument - If there are no objective or absolute moral standards then every individual's moral spectrum is equally valid, and therefore practices, actions and habits like murder, sex assault, violence, mutilation, torture...[the list goes on] should be perfectly acceptable and not censored in human societies.

[I'm sorry if the answer is obvious but I don't know how to refute this one]

What do you mean by "censored"?

[Angrboda]

Morality is contingent, but not subjective. It depends on things like human nature, and the family and community we learn our morality from. If I grow up in a racist family, there's a good chance I will end up racist, too. That's a contingency; I didn't decide that I would have that influence on my morality, nor do I really have much say in how I react to that environment, whether I rebel or not, it's a matter of contingent factors in my life. Morality is part human nature and part inheritance. If I grew up in a country where racism was accepted, I would develop a different morality than if I grew up in a country that abhorred racism. It's contingent, not subjective.

[Dystopia]

Then how do we answer the theist argument - If there are no objective or absolute moral standards then every individual's moral spectrum is equally valid, and therefore practices, actions and habits like murder, sex assault, violence, mutilation, torture...[the list goes on] should be perfectly acceptable and not censored in human societies.

[I'm sorry if the answer is obvious but I don't know how to refute this one]

What do you mean by "censored"?

In a broad sense censored could mean that people shouldn't look down on others for thinking murder or terrorism are morally commendable conducts

[AFTT47]

I always point out that they don't have an objective morality either. Even if one exists, they don't know what it is. Otherwise, individual Christians would have identical morals - which they clearly do not. Put a bunch of Christians who believe they follow an absolute morality in a room and ask them a few tough moral questions. Then stand back and smile as you watch them disagree with one another.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Then how do we answer the theist argument - If there are no objective or absolute moral standards then every individual's moral spectrum is equally valid, and therefore practices, actions and habits like murder, sex assault, violence, mutilation, torture...[the list goes on] should be perfectly acceptable and not censored in human societies.

[I'm sorry if the answer is obvious but I don't know how to refute this one]

"What makes you think a morality based on your faith is objective?"

[Dystopia]

Then how do we answer the theist argument - If there are no objective or absolute moral standards then every individual's moral spectrum is equally valid, and therefore practices, actions and habits like murder, sex assault, violence, mutilation, torture...[the list goes on] should be perfectly acceptable and not censored in human societies.

[I'm sorry if the answer is obvious but I don't know how to refute this one]

"What makes you think a morality based on your faith is objective?"

Arguing from the POV of a theist - Since God exists, then moral values commanded by Him are undeniable and absolute - Therefore objective

[Mr.wizard]

What do you mean by "censored"?

In a broad sense censored could mean that people shouldn't look down on others for thinking murder or terrorism are morally commendable conducts

Isn't that kind of the point? If we accepted whatever anyone else's moral position was, wouldn't we find ourselves in contradictory positions? It really is what you would expect to get from a subjective morality.