General question about the possibility of objective moral truth

[LastPoet]

Because if that's what you're trying to say, you're not just wrong, you're an asshole.

Well, meet Chad, the swedenborgian. I undetstand you are relatively new to the forum.

[Mudhammam]

While I don't think Chad's an asshole, his beliefs - which include all of the silly and morally repulsive tales of the Bible (I don't know if he thinks these are to be taken as historical events or not) - obviously aren't well thought up or evidenced so as to justify the confidence or smugness he conveys in defending them, and if he thinks philosophy can cover for his bald assertions about God or morality being this or that, he, like probably many atheists here, certainly hasn't given enough consideration to seriously grasp or deal with the problems.

[robvalue]

One point about morality I haven't mentioned yet:

It depends also on knowledge. Someone's action may be considered moral if they have a certain set of knowledge, or immoral with another, however you are rating morality.

[Chad32]

Ok, there are obviously 2 sides here. I only have one question. If you don't believe in God, what if you are wrong and go to hell? It only takes a minute to be saved so that you can be sure.

Whether you're christian or not, you're still risking going to hell, because you're not a muslim. And vice versa.

[robvalue]

Better pick the right denomination, too!

Including out of the thousands yet to be made.

[Chad32]

Part of the problem is that whether morality is objective or subjective, it doesn't rely on worshiping a god to be moral. Either it's objective, and doesn't come from any being, and we're perfectly capable of being moral whether a god approves or not, or it comes from a god and is as subjective as anyone else's beliefs on morality.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

While I don't think Chad's an asshole, his beliefs - which include all of the silly and morally repulsive tales of the Bible (I don't know if he thinks these are to be taken as historical events or not) - obviously aren't well thought up or evidenced so as to justify the confidence or smugness he conveys in defending them, and if he thinks philosophy can cover for his bald assertions about God or morality being this or that, he, like probably many atheists here, certainly hasn't given enough consideration to seriously grasp or deal with the problems.

True. Whether or not you're a Christian (or an atheist), being smug while completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding your own position and/or that of your opponents is assholery. Assholish? Assholy?

He's still an asshole.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Gee wiz, RocketSurgeon, that’s quite a bit of venom for relying on my memory to spell a difficult Greek name and relying too much on spell check.

Apparently you do not fully understand the Euthyphro dilemma (thank you for the correct spelling) as it applies to monotheism. That is understandable since your knowledge of it appears to come directly from a quick scan of Wikipedia. In classical monotheism the divine good and the divine will are inalienable aspects of god’s essential nature. As such, the dilemma has no meaning .

With respect to my point about the ancient Hebrew theocratic laws’ in-applicability of this dispensation (sorry about the earlier spell-check error), you merely responded with an argument from incredulity.

Your response to my critique of secular based moral systems often misrepresented my position. Perhaps my brevity did not provide you adequate context for an intelligent response.

First I acknowledged the absurdist position as consistent. For some reason you thought I did not.

Secondly, nearly all of the atheists on AF hold to either nominalism or conceptualism. Both of these stances deny essentialism. Therefore by logical extension they must deny any essential nature shared by all humans.

Thirdly, most AF atheists will tell you that they get their moral guidance from empathy and attribute the source of that empathy as natural selection. Why do they privilege empathy as the voice of conscience? No reason at all. Evaluating between competing natural impulses requires making reference to some higher, more authoritative standard. In this respect, evolutionary psychology is of little help. It purports to describe the survival value of certain behaviors mathematically, but it does not address the moral value of behavior.

For example the SF story “Feasibility Project.” Aliens test various intergalactic species, including humans, to see which would be most suitable to serve them as a slave race. They kidnap a small town for evaluation. Having an advanced alien society depending on your survival would be a definite advantage. However, whe the people learn that their own survival would doom all of humanity to slavery, they opt to commit mass suicide to preserve the transcendent value of Freedom for everyone else.

Finally, when I spoke of enlightened self-interest and the highest Good, I was mostly thinking about Aristotle’s Nicomachean (sp) Ethics. You might try reading it sometime.

[Faith No More]

True. Whether or not you're a Christian (or an atheist), being smug while completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding your own position and/or that of your opponents is assholery. Assholish? Assholy?

If that's the way you feel, you're in for a real treat.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Gee wiz, RocketSurgeon, that’s quite a bit of venom for relying on my memory to spell a difficult Greek name and relying too much on spell check.  

It's a common misspelling found on fundamentalist forums that discuss the issue. If it had been a simple error of memory, I doubt it would have precisely duplicated the error of others. "Eurthyphro" or somesuch, I could believe was plain error, but an exact duplicate... not so much.

It's not an argument from incredulity, in the sense that you mean it. You are the one claiming you have a Book of Ultimate (and thus Objective) Morality, yet when I look in there, I find numerous things that are plainly immoral to the modern (subjective, admittedly, but only if you think such radical post-Enlightnment thoughts as "all are created equal" and "women are people") concept of personhood and inherent, unalienable rights... rights which we constantly expand and improve upon, because they are subjective and manmade. That is not a bad thing!

You say that I am presupposing that God's best play was to go along with the culture of the time and slowly dispense moral knowledge, yet "God" in the Old Testament forbade several things which were common in the societies surrounding the ancient Israelites, with the Ten Commandments and other similar instructions. To say that He had to slowly dispense such basic ideas as "slavery, rape, and unequal treatment of women is BAD, m'kay?" slowly over time is the height of insanity.

The source of my venom is at anyone who claims to have the Ultimate Moral Authoritarian's direct guidebook, yet can't see that humans have been "updating" His Ultimate Morals for centuries, and that the Bronze Age versions are really really bad... but they didn't have to be.

Seriously, why is there not a Commandment saying something like, "Thou shalt not physically, sexually, or emotionally abuse children", or "Thou shalt not have sex with anyone without their affirmative consent", or "Slavery and genocide are beneath you, People of Israel, thou shalt not do those things", "thus saith the Lord"?