Objective/subjective morals

[polymath257]

What if morals can be deduced from human nature? Does that make them objective or subjective?

Is the standard of having stable, happy societies objective or subjective?

It seems that is a good standard for eliminating your bad cases and promoting your good ones.

[The Grand Nudger]

I only believe objective morals can exist with the existence of god otherwise everything is subjective, so this is where the atheist is screwed. 

Your belief is incorrect.

[brewer]

I only believe objective morals can exist with the existence of god otherwise everything is subjective, so this is where the atheist is screwed. 9/11, the three standard perceptions you can have with the moral compass and lack therof is 1. Evil action. 2. just a action(good and evil doesn't exist) 3. good action. Whichever one you pick for your subjective truth there is still two delusions that you're subjectivelyperceiving on a subconscious level. When bypassing the usa law and going straight to the theory there is no chief in command to dictate the absolute answer so all 3 of these perceptions(even though they cancel each other out) are valid with the theory for the individual that wants to perceive it differently than you. All 3 of these perceptions are impossible to be wrong with the theory but you're perceiving two of the answers as delusions so this is a contradiction within itself. If there are two delusion that are compatible with your theory then it means you don't even believe the theory is 100% truthful 100% factual on subconscious levels. That's whats behind the atheist mask of fact, logic, reason, science, intelligence,.They are all sitting on a subjective truth accompanied by two subjective delusion on a subconscious level which means they don't even believe it, It's all a mask to deny god while playing dumb that god doesn't exist.

Sounds/reads like you might be the one playing dumb (or not playing at all). I'm sure you think what you wrote is very profound but it lacks logic, reason and proof. 

Do you understand the term "loose associations"?

[Astreja]

I only believe objective morals can exist with the existence of god otherwise everything is subjective, so this is where the atheist is screwed.

No, morals that come from a god are also subjective, as they are the god's opinion on the subject of right and wrong.

"Subjective" and "objective" are also red herrings.  The more important question:  Does a set of moral precepts improve life for the majority of people, or make it worse?  On the whole I find empathy- and common-sense-based secular morality vastly superior to religious morality.  It isn't even close, FFS.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC they are, I'd be surprised... if you asked a believer why x was wrong... and the only thing that sprung to their mind was "God wills it!".  

Even they imagine that their god has secular reasons for his religious proclamations.

[Fake Messiah]

Actually the biggest teacher of morality for humans is probably video recordings.
Before video a word "massacre" didn't mean much to the people, only when they could see it they could understand what it means.
That's why after WW1 you had all those ant-war movies that it was actually pretty hard to convince young lads to go and fight in war, so much so that Hitler had to invent special kind of war called "Blitzkrieg" in which they could just do it all quickly without the turmoils of the trenches which they were very familiar with.
Then of course after WW2 there were all those videos of of holocaust victims and other people being killed.
And that's why you don't see videos from wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Niger and others on the news, or almost anywhere, so that people wouldn't protest when they see people there suffering, because it would strongly invoke empathy in people.

So this is how it actually works: people have empathy and other people make their cases to invoke that empathy (like slaves, women, gays etc.).
A really good demonstration of this is in the movie "Borat" when Borat goes to the comedy teacher and asks him "Can I make fun of retarded people" and the guy doesn't tell him "No, because god forbids it and you will burn in hell if you do." (which he doesn't forbid btw). He tells him that that is not OK because retarded people have families who suffer because of it. So you see he is playing on his inborn empathy.

[Simon Moon]

I only believe objective morals can exist with the existence of god otherwise everything is subjective, so this is where the atheist is screwed. 9/11, the three standard perceptions you can have with the moral compass and lack therof is 1. Evil action. 2. just a action(good and evil doesn't exist) 3. good action. Whichever one you pick for your subjective truth there is still two delusions that you're subjectivelyperceiving on a subconscious level. When bypassing the usa law and going straight to the theory there is no chief in command to dictate the absolute answer so all 3 of these perceptions(even though they cancel each other out) are valid with the theory for the individual that wants to perceive it differently than you. All 3 of these perceptions are impossible to be wrong with the theory but you're perceiving two of the answers as delusions so this is a contradiction within itself. If there are two delusion that are compatible with your theory then it means you don't even believe the theory is 100% truthful 100% factual on subconscious levels. That's whats behind the atheist mask of fact, logic, reason, science, intelligence,.They are all sitting on a subjective truth accompanied by two subjective delusion on a subconscious level which means they don't even believe it, It's all a mask to deny god while playing dumb that god doesn't exist.

I am one of the few atheists here that accept that there is a source of objective morality, that does not need a god.

First of all, morality based on a god's edicts is not objective. A god could change his mind on what is moral (slavery in the Bible, anyone?). Morality that comes from divine command theory, is not objective. They are subjective to what the god decides is moral.

Here is a model of secular morality that is objective.

I define morality as what is best for well being and the opportunity to flourish for humans and arguably, other sentient beings.

It is an objective fact, that we all live in the same physical universe, subjected the the same physical laws, with the same (with minor differences) physical bodies and minds. This is the objective basis to base morality on.

It is a fact, that the vast majority of humans think that: life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, comfort is preferable to torture, freedom is preferable to slavery, etc.

Add to this, a bit of empathy, and there is nothing else needed to form moral societies.


If you want to know why crashing planes into the World Trade Center and killing 3000 people was an evil act, just ask yourself, "how did this act effect the well being of those 3000 people?". Or, "would I like to have been one of the victims?".

[The Grand Nudger]

If you want to know why crashing planes into the World Trade Center and killing 3000 people was an evil act, just ask yourself, "how did this act effect the well being of those 3000 people?". Or, "would I like to have been one of the victims?".

-and if you want to know why it was the highest good any person could ever achieve, one need only realize that god willed it.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

-Steven Weinberg

[Amarok]

For love of beaver tails  are we going over this shit again 

[The Grand Nudger]

It's an evergreen conversation, lol. I made a master thread, but nobody used it....