God does not determine right and wrong

[polymath257]

The problem I have in saying that whatever God wants is automatically moral is the number of people who think God is talking to them and think He is telling them to kill their kids.

if God is the standard, and if you really believe God is talking to you, then you *have* to do what the voice in your head says.

And what is that number?

---

To atheists: if there was something good in and of itself would you choose to recognize it as such?

The number is *way* too large.
Human well-being.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Human well-being.

That's vacuous concept.

[polymath257]

I disagree.

But even if you think so, the concept of a God is also vacuous. Nobody seems to be able to agree about the properties of this God thingy.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a useless argument, the two of you don't have to agree on what you're referring to when you recognize good.  The question concerned whether or not a person chose to recognize it as such. It doesn;t even matter if either concept is vacuous. Do either of you find that you have to make a choice to recognize what you consider good? Could either of you choose otherwise?

[GrandizerII]

And what is that number?

---

To atheists: if there was something good in and of itself would you choose to recognize it as such?

I would be logically obliged to recognize it as such.

What's the follow up question, Neo?

[polymath257]

It's a useless argument, the two of you don't have to agree on what you're referring to when you recognize good.  The question concerned whether or not a person chose to recognize it as such.  It doesn;t even matter if either concept is vacuous.  Do either of you find that you have to make a choice to recognize what you consider good?  Could either of you choose otherwise?

Generally, the problem is when there are two opposing 'goods'. Or where a situation looks 'good' from one perspective and 'bad' from another. Such conundrums are pervasive.

Abortion, doctor assisted suicide, and a whole host of questions in medical and bioethics. And that doesn't even get into questions of politics.

There are *many* situations where people have differing opinions on what is 'good'. And yes, we often *do* choose which perspective to adopt so that something is 'good' when a differing perspective would make it 'bad'. Sometimes arguments do point out aspects we hadn't considered and can change minds about the 'goodness' of an action.

And even if neither of us 'chooses' what we consider to be 'good', there is still the issue that we will often disagree. How are such disputes resolved? Is there a standard for such a resolution?

One good argument for the *non-existence* of objective morality is that there are so many moral issues where thoughtful people disagree with no way to resolve the disagreement.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're referring to moral disagreement.  Thoughtful people will have moral disagreements regardless of whether or not morality is objective. That's not a good argument against objective morality because it isn't an argument against objective morality in the first place. None of this, however, has any bearing on Neo's question, or any of mine that you were responding to.

[polymath257]

If there were something that is good in and of itself, that should be something we can all agree upon, maybe after some discussion.

So, for example, Compassion. Fairness.

Does the fact that most agree with these being good make them objectively good? How would that be determined?

[The Grand Nudger]

If there were something that is good in and of itself, that should be something we can all agree upon, maybe after some discussion.

Maybe, maybe not.  It's not as if we don't maintain disagreements over a wide range of other facts and how to contextualize them. 

So, for example, Compassion.  Fairness.

Does the fact that most agree with these being good make them objectively good? How would that be determined?

OFC not, agreement isn't what makes anything objective..no more so than disagreement makes some objective thing less objective. However, you can determine agreement through conversation or (in a wider sense) by a poll.

[polymath257]

So, for things in math, the 'objective' aspect is found in proof from agreed upon assumptions.

In the sciences, the 'objective' aspect is found in repeatable observation.

What could *possibly* constitute a way to objectively test morality?

And if there is no such test, what could it possible mean to say morality is objective?