Argument from Conscience

[Whateverist]

.. and so we lived happily ever after.

The end

[Kingpin]

stupid quoting system erased my response.

[Angrboda]

I think the reason you get no responses to the question of what theists would do if God announced a reversal of morality is because it exposes the fact that a God based morality is just as open to arbitrariness and whim as they suggest relative morality is. It puts this "objective morality" on the same footing as relative morality from the position of absolutes, and the theist can't risk exposing that truth.

Theists claim we need morality to be objective for it to work. Unfortunately none of them can tell us how to determine what is objectively moral without falling back on the undesirable foundation of subjective opinion. One group says the bible, another only the new testament, a third the Quran, and among those there are innumerable subjective interpretations of what that means. So, ultimately, the theist is left with subjective opinion, whether they postulate that there exists an objective morality or not. An objective morality that is inaccessible is no better than no morality at all. Fortunately we do have social processes which coalesce around general standards of morality. I agree that it would be nice to have an objective moral standard. But we don't have that, even if one exists in some inaccessible, far off realm - it's not here today. We have no alternative but to work from subjective opinions of morality which are shaped into systems of justice by political processes.

[downbeatplumb]

stupid quoting system erased my response.

I feel your pain.

[Pyrrho]

Scenario to all theists:

God shows up and announces to everyone in the world that we need to know what is moral and what is not, things have not been clear enough up to this point.

"Murder and rape are moral. Helping people is immoral. Everything else is neither moral or immoral. Bye."

Now. Will you live by this moral code? It's the universal moral code, we just didn't know exactly what it was until now. Would you be fine with me murdering and raping your family? If not, on what grounds can you object? God just said it's moral, and he is the only authority.

According to the Bible, God has already ordered murder and rape many times.  Both at once in Numbers 5:

http://www.parallelbible.com/numbers/5.htm

[Neo-Scholastic]

One group says the bible, another only the new testament, a third the Quran…So, ultimately, the theist is left with subjective opinion… An objective morality that is inaccessible is no better than no morality at all.

What you are basically saying is that imperfect knowledge is no better than no knowledge at all. It would be like saying that because there are many different languages you cannot know anything about linguistics. Subjective moral reasoning, despite its flaws, has as its object some source of moral authority. Religious texts are an instrumental source of authority, tools religions use to gain knowledge of God, who is the ultimate and objective source of authority.

[Redbeard The Pink]

One group says the bible, another only the new testament, a third the Quran…So, ultimately, the theist is left with subjective opinion…  An objective morality that is inaccessible is no better than no morality at all.  

What you are basically saying is that imperfect knowledge is no better than no knowledge at all. It would be like saying that because there are many different languages you cannot know anything about linguistics. Subjective moral reasoning, despite its flaws, has as its object some source of moral authority. Religious texts are an instrumental source of authority, tools religions use to gain knowledge of God, who is the ultimate and objective source of authority.

What you have in those texts is not an imperfect picture of an objective morality. It's still subjective morality because all these different scriptures exist, not to mention the fact that every sect (every person, in fact) interprets those texts differently. What we're saying is that, concerning objective morality, you do not have imperfect knowledge, nor does anyone; what you have is no knowledge because an objective source of moral truth cannot be shown to exist. There are objective facts from which we can try to derive morality (i.e. humans objectively exist, suffering objectively exists, empathy objectively exists, etc.), but the fact remains that an ultimate, universal, absolute source of moral guidance simply does not exist, or if it does we can't prove that it's ever spoken to us.

[Whateverist]

One group says the bible, another only the new testament, a third the Quran…So, ultimately, the theist is left with subjective opinion…  An objective morality that is inaccessible is no better than no morality at all.  

What you are basically saying is that imperfect knowledge is no better than no knowledge at all. It would be like saying that because there are many different languages you cannot know anything about linguistics. Subjective moral reasoning, despite its flaws, has as its object some source of moral authority. Religious texts are an instrumental source of authority, tools religions use to gain knowledge of God, who is the ultimate and objective source of authority.

I have an aunt who finds the meaning she is looking for in a horoscope.  Whatever gets you through the night I suppose.  But I will never understand the impulse toward literalism.

[downbeatplumb]

There seems to be a line here that some people are taking that morals are set and immovable.
This position is demonstrably wrong.

I agree that morality is linked to communities.

Our society now is the most moral ever ..

Don't think that I would go that far.  There may be less extreme physical suffering but there is enormous tolerance for gross inequities.  There was more brutality in the past but I'm not sure we aren't just as far from hitting the moving moral target as we ever were.

By this I mean the world comes together to help stricken countries in ways they never did in the past.
There are agencies like the UN and medicin sans frontier who set out to aid people in need where in the past when people set off it was to invade, or worse, preach.

Laws tend to be more secular and so are more amenable to human need rather than appeasing some unknowable diety.

People are generally more tolerant of differences or are at least aware that not tolerating is frowned on.

In these ways society has moved on a little from the actions and attitudes of the past.

[Whateverist]

Agreed.