My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

What kind of discussions? I'm serious, what's the aim exactly? Just to be heard?

It seems you want us to not challenge what you say.

Thread summary so far:

- This is what I believe. I have no reason for believing it. No evidence for convincing that it even might be right. I'm not trying to convince anyone else to believe it. But it's what I believe.

- Neato

/thread

When did I ever say I have no reason for believing it?? 

Eh, who cares. Straws are fun. 

-Neato.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think the argument Catholic_Lady brought up is to prove:

If objective morality exists, so then does God exist.

The video was about proving this. It wasn't about proving objective morality exists, but that if you do believe in that, you should believe in God.

Then everyone went off all sorts of red herrings and we talked about all sorts of topics.

You know what I remember when I first came on these forums. People always said that William Lane Craig was making up that premise out of his ass. Well this thread shows reasons that indicate it is true.

People than went off topic with all sorts of things.  Her original OP was to the point. It's her view that objective morality and God go together. A lot of Atheists in fact agree upon this, but deny objective morals existing.

^This.

The only thing I would change is the part that objective morality proves God exists. To me, objective morality makes a strong case for God's existence. And as I explained earlier on in the thread, it makes no sense to me for it not to exist. It makes no sense to me that things like rape and torture and murder are just matters of opinion, and not inherently evil acts.

[Chas]

Subjectivity doesn't speak to the truth or falseness of a claim. It speaks to the basis of the claim, the epistemology of it.

Of course a subjective claim can be true.  That doesn't mean it is any less subjective. In my subjective morality, murder is always wrong. That happens to coincide with your allegedly objective view. So clearly, you would agree that this subjective claim of mine is true, even though you might think I am right for the wrong reasons.

You seem to have this idea in your head that "subjective" automatically means "false".  They aren't synonymous.

My understanding is that subjective means there is no right or wrong answer. 

For example, I can say "the color pink is pretty"... that's subjective because it's an opinion. Other people can say pink is ugly, and they are not making an incorrect statement, assuming they actually think pink is ugly.  

Or I can say "the earth is round"... that's objective because it is a fact. Other people can say the earth is flat, and they are making an incorrect statement by doing so. They can say all day long "the earth is flat, the earth is flat, the earth is flat", it doesn't matter what they think/say, they are still wrong.

....Objective morality, looks like the former:   

I can say "rape is evil"... that's objective because it is fact. Other people can say rape is good, and they are making an incorrect statement by doing so. They can say all day long "rape is good, rape is good, rape is good", it doesn't matter what they think/say, they are still wrong.

You can say stealing is wrong.

Is stealing a loaf of bread objectively wrong?
Is stealing a loaf of bread always  wrong?
Is stealing a loaf of bread wrong when otherwise your children will starve?

Morality can clearly be situational. 


It has also been stated that rape is objectively wrong.
As it happens, there are cultures where this is not the case.
Here in these United States, the Fundamentalist Mormons marry off their young teen daughters into polygamous marriages with much older men.
These teen girls are then raped, but that is moral in their culture.
Is raping a 13-year-old more evil that raping a 14-year-old?  How does one measure evil?  What is the objective scale?

No, we measure good and evil by our reactions to it acts, by our personal, subjective feelings.

[Mystic]

Catholic_Lady, I think both you and I should take a break from this forum for a week at least. I think it's getting to us and we aren't enjoying it like we use to.

I can tell by my tone, I've become a little bitter in how I reply to people. And you don't have your happy tone as usual.

Whenever I get like that, I leave the forums for a bit, then come back.

I don't know it's up to you. I'm leaving for a bit.

[Losty]

Thread summary so far:

- This is what I believe. I have no reason for believing it. No evidence for convincing that it even might be right. I'm not trying to convince anyone else to believe it. But it's what I believe.

- Neato

/thread

When did I ever say I have no reason for believing it?? 

Eh, who cares. Straws are fun. 

-Neato.

I'm sure you have personal reasons for believing whatever you believe. My point was only that you have no factual logical reasons that use evidence to explain your beliefs. My point is that you're just saying you believe something and there's nothing left to discuss.

And you should do some more studying of the strawman fallacy. It means that I object to something you haven't said and argue against that. Which I haven't done. I'm not even arguing against you at all. I'm just giving my analysis of the thread. I'm saying I don't see the purpose of starting a thread just to say well it's just what we believe.

[Catholic_Lady]

You guys repeat these things like mantras. And everything I say doesn't seem to click.

Nobody understands you, If you want people to understand what your saying, try making sense.

I understand him.

[Catholic_Lady]

I always respected Tiberius. When I saw him state that he doesn't know whether some Theists have knowledge of God existing or not, simply, he believes he doesn't, I said this has to the be the most honest Atheist I know.

He is awesome.

[Catholic_Lady]

Catholic_Lady, I think both you and I should take a break from this forum for a week at least. I think it's getting to us and we aren't enjoying it like we use to.

I can tell by my tone, I've become a little bitter in how I reply to people. And you don't have your happy tone as usual.

Whenever I get like that, I leave the forums for a bit, then come back.

I don't know it's up to you. I'm leaving for a bit.

Just tired of having to repeat myself, and still sour about all the crap from a few days ago. Not a good combo.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Subjectivity doesn't speak to the truth or falseness of a claim. It speaks to the basis of the claim, the epistemology of it.

Of course a subjective claim can be true.  That doesn't mean it is any less subjective. In my subjective morality, murder is always wrong. That happens to coincide with your allegedly objective view. So clearly, you would agree that this subjective claim of mine is true, even though you might think I am right for the wrong reasons.

You seem to have this idea in your head that "subjective" automatically means "false".  They aren't synonymous.

My understanding is that subjective means there is no right or wrong answer. 

For example, I can say "the color pink is pretty"... that's subjective because it's an opinion. Other people can say pink is ugly, and they are not making an incorrect statement, assuming they actually think pink is ugly.  

Or I can say "the earth is round"... that's objective because it is a fact. Other people can say the earth is flat, and they are making an incorrect statement by doing so. They can say all day long "the earth is flat, the earth is flat, the earth is flat", it doesn't matter what they think/say, they are still wrong.

....Objective morality, looks like the latter:   

I can say "rape is evil"... that's objective because it is fact. Other people can say rape is good, and they are making an incorrect statement by doing so. They can say all day long "rape is good, rape is good, rape is good", it doesn't matter what they think/say, they are still wrong.

(Edited for a dumb mistake.)

No. "Subjective" means dependent upon the views of a subject as to its moral value. "Relative", while we're here, means relative to the circumstances pertaining at the moment.

[Catholic_Lady]

My understanding is that subjective means there is no right or wrong answer. 

For example, I can say "the color pink is pretty"... that's subjective because it's an opinion. Other people can say pink is ugly, and they are not making an incorrect statement, assuming they actually think pink is ugly.  

Or I can say "the earth is round"... that's objective because it is a fact. Other people can say the earth is flat, and they are making an incorrect statement by doing so. They can say all day long "the earth is flat, the earth is flat, the earth is flat", it doesn't matter what they think/say, they are still wrong.

....Objective morality, looks like the latter:   

I can say "rape is evil"... that's objective because it is fact. Other people can say rape is good, and they are making an incorrect statement by doing so. They can say all day long "rape is good, rape is good, rape is good", it doesn't matter what they think/say, they are still wrong.

(Edited for a dumb mistake.)

No. "Subjective" means dependent upon the views of a subject as to its moral value. "Relative", while we're here, means relative to the circumstances pertaining at the moment.

...Meaning there is no set right or wrong answer, correct?