maybe morality is only partially objective

[Chrawnus]

Hi Chrawnus,
And the "sanctity of life" has nothing to do with our emotions?

That's correct. Sanctity of life has to do with the purpose and intent of why God created us, and us respecting that. You can of course feel one way or another about SoT, but what you feel about it doesn't change anything.

If the soul has left the body isn't the true person gone? Jesus didn't see much need for respecting the dead and giving them a proper burial (Matt 8:21).

Even if I did agree with you that this meant that Jesus didn't think that there was a need to respect the dead (which I don't) how exactly does this mean that it's ok to cannibalize?

As for trying to get objective moral values from the bible, it seems impossible when literally no one agrees on interpretation.

Non sequitur. Just because people can't agree on a interpretation doesn't mean that there isn't a correct one.

No, you missed my point. There is no single issue involved, it is always weighing a number of moral issues (as I have shown is happening in Uganda). To say this was once a single issue is to blind yourself to the other moral values involved.

Actually, I didn't miss your point. I'm well aware that it isn't a single issue, so don't try and insinuate that I'm not. It still doesn't change the fact that people used to regard homosexuality as a sin, and now more and more people are starting to view it as something that is not sinful. Which means that a moral view has changed.

.Look at Uganda. The same things that are happening there used to happen most everywhere. The MP from parliament clearly stated what more issues OUTWEIGH the gay rights issue. The gay rights activist tries to focus on a single issue and tries to RELABEL it. He'll have no luck because the Ugandan isn't labeling issues, he's weighing issues. Morals is rarely one single issue; and when it is you'll find that most everyone agrees.

I can't really comment on this issue, since I don't know if the MP thinks that homosexuality in itself is wrong and not.

Emotions are part of it, but not all of it. Our moral standards are much more complicated than that.

Just because people are using emotions to judge in moral issues, doesn't mean they should.

There isn't a moral part to bonding, they're two separate issues. When a parent doesn't bond properly to a child those who have that strong emotional attachment feel the uncaring parent is morally wrong. This doesn't happen by reasoning logically, it's because of the natural emotional attachment most have towards children. The moral judgement wasn't a part of bonding, it's a natural result of bonding.

avalon

Now you're backpedalling. Your original standpoint was this:

I see. So parents don't have automatic emotional attachments to their children; they have to think it through first?

Which was used to support this assertion:

I submit that you (and all mankind) think they are wrong on an emotional level. You say it's for objective reasons, but did you really need to think and reason about it before coming to that conclusion?

It's pretty clear that the issue was whether or not there was a moral component in the bonding process (i.e the mother/father feels that she/he's morally obliged to bond to the child), when there's clearly no such part. What happens after the bonding is another part altogether.

But then again, you seem pretty confused on what objective morality really is. Morality doesn't become objective simply by the fact that people think something is right or wrong, there has to be some external basis outside of human mind and emotion that gives a basis for objective morality. The act you call labeling is only objective if we as humans agree to base our "labeling" on external grounds that have higher authority when it comes to morality than we ourselves have. Otherwise it just becomes subjective, no matter how many people agree that a certain action is right/wrong.

[avalon]

Hi Chrawnus,

That's correct. Sanctity of life has to do with the purpose and intent of why God created us, and us respecting that. You can of course feel one way or another about SoT, but what you feel about it doesn't change anything.

Ok, so maybe you could explain what God-given purpose an elderly bed-ridden relative with Alzheimers is serving? I submit it is an emotional attachment that causes us to keep them alive, you say it's the purpose and intent of what?

Even if I did agree with you that this meant that Jesus didn't think that there was a need to respect the dead (which I don't) how exactly does this mean that it's ok to cannibalize?

The christian concept of soul and the afterlife gives no logical reason to respect a dead human body. Our emotions and instincts give us plenty of reason to respect the dead body because we still recognize that form as the person we knew and are emotionally attached to it and we have a natural inclination to not even touch the dead body much less eat it. Logic alone would not explain our respect for the dead.

Non sequitur. Just because people can't agree on a interpretation doesn't mean that there isn't a correct one.

Fair enough, but a piece of information which is unknown and perpetually unknowable is useless. There may be one correct interpretation, but if everyone considers their own unique interpretation the correct one, well that's the definition of subjective.

In addition, a man who simply follows a set of rules may be called "obedient", but it takes more than that for a man to be called "moral".

It still doesn't change the fact that people used to regard homosexuality as a sin, and now more and more people are starting to view it as something that is not sinful. Which means that a moral view has changed.

If you were talking about "sin" you should have said so. I agree that religious people in general once thought of homosexuality as a sin and many do not now think so. But that is a different topic than immorality. Would you agree that to a Jew you are sinning by eating pork? Is the eating of pork a moral question or a religious one?

I can't really comment on this issue, since I don't know if the MP thinks that homosexuality in itself is wrong and not

He's made it clear that he believes he's doing the morally right thing by protecting society and children; fighting off foreign invasions etc... He can't separate these moral issues and look at gay rights as a single issue if he believes gays threaten other moral values. Things like murder and rape are agreed to be immoral in itself because there's no competing moral values involved. Not so with this issue.

Just because people are using emotions to judge in moral issues, doesn't mean they should.

I agree. If mankind continues to make decisions with their emotions we'll probably condemn the whole human race to extinction.

But then again, you seem pretty confused on what objective morality really is. Morality doesn't become objective simply by the fact that people think something is right or wrong, there has to be some external basis outside of human mind and emotion that gives a basis for objective morality. The act you call labeling is only objective if we as humans agree to base our "labeling" on external grounds that have higher authority when it comes to morality than we ourselves have. Otherwise it just becomes subjective, no matter how many people agree that a certain action is right/wrong.

Yes, I'm aware of the definition. Unfortunately that's not how people use the term. If objective morality means something can be called "right" based on something "outside of human mind and emotion" then logically, something like murder or rape could be objectively "right". Yet no objectivist I've ever talked to would admit to that possibility. What they actually mean by "objective" is the common framework of general moral principles that are 'built in' to the human condition. That is, they simply assume that what 'everyone knows' as right or wrong is in fact an objective moral fact.
Perhaps you're the exception. Do you agree that, since we can't use our minds or emotions to judge, something like rape could be objectively morally right? If not, please explain why.

avalon

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not defending Craig's position. Just stating my own.

Okay, but still, you brought up Platonism, which seems to be Craig's idea of what he calls “atheist moral realism” , even though atheists can be moral realists without resorting to Platonism.

In the case of ethics, God law would be the source or ground for human ethics.

My questions are meant to inquire about the meaning of “source or ground” of X, for any X.

Since you make the claim about God, I would ask what the “source or ground” would be in other cases, to try to ascertain what you mean by “source or ground”.

So, with that in mind, I would ask you what's the “source or ground” of, say, color, or bipolar disorder.

The question is whether statements such as “it's immoral to torture people for fun”, or other statements like “X is immoral”, “X is morally obligatory”, etc., are true, independently of who makes the statement – what else would you need?

Well is it true independently of who makes the statement? From the non-theistic view point? How can that be?

The question is: How would it even matter whether the point of view is non-theistic?

The theistic metaethical argument assumes that there is somehow a burden on the atheist, which allegedly the theist has explained. But there is no good reason to believe so.

Let's consider the following:

1) Non-theism does not entail that the truth of “That ball is green”, or “Light whose wavelength is 550 millimeters is green light” depend on who makes the statement.

2) Non-theism does not entail that the truth of “Joe has bipolar disorder” depends on who makes the statement.

3) Non-theism does not entail that the truth of “Water is H2O” depends on who makes the statement.

4) Why would non-theism entail that the truth of “A moral agent who tortures people for fun is acting immorally” depend on who makes the statement?

Moreover, it's clear that it does not.

If everyone mean the same when they say “A moral agent who tortures people for fun is acting immorally”, and they're not making a statement about the speaker, then it is clear that the truth of it does not depend on who makes the statement.

Of course you can not offer an objective source for human ethics. The concept itself is foolish. Please, if you think otherwise offer one here and now.

You demand an “objective source” as if that is a meaningful expression.

What does it mean, then?

What is, then, the objective source of color? Of bipolar disorder? Of anything else? What does it mean to say “objective source”?

If all of those statements can be objective on atheism, why not moral ones?

Again, as long as the moral sense is tracking some property, and moral language reflects that – so, moral statements have the same meaning in all languages, etc. -, then the statements are objective, just like statements about color, or about bipolar disorder.

I'm not claiming that, on atheism, moral statements are objective. My claim is that you have not provided any good reason – an, indeed, no theist has – to believe atheism entails that they're not.

We can discuss it here. How about this - we will only respond to each other?

That does not work for me:

If I'm challenged by multiple posters but fail to address their claims, I can be seen as lacking a response if I fail to address it.

Since you decline a one-on-one discussion, I'll make these points as long as I can, and then leave the thread.

If you're interested in an in-depth analysis of the matter, we can discuss one-on-one later, or I can try to write a case based on the arguments and ideas I've seen some atheists defend – rather than Platonism -, and then post a link, though it might take me some time.

[Seasanctuary]

Sea, this makes no sense to me. Since I am a Christian and since God has revealed His moral standard I don't see how your relative claim applies.

For the sake of argument, let's say that's true. When God says something is right or wrong, he's making a judgment relative to whichever values he has that he wants others to respect in their actions.

Anyone else can do the same.

Obviously, if someone does this with values that aren't the same as God's values, there will potentially be cases where what this person calls right will be wrong relative to God's values. But this person isn't making any kind of rational mistake. Such an action really will be right relative to one set of values and wrong relative to another set of values. This is just the way moral language works.

[seer]

My questions are meant to inquire about the meaning of “source or ground” of X, for any X.

Since you make the claim about God, I would ask what the “source or ground” would be in other cases, to try to ascertain what you mean by “source or ground”.

So, with that in mind, I would ask you what's the “source or ground” of, say, color, or bipolar disorder.

It's apple and oranges Angra.The color blue has no moral authority over me. It has no moral claims on my life. So when I say that God is our source or the ground for human ethics my point is that He first has a moral claim on our allegiance and second and that He is moral being (He thinks, acts morally) and that our ethical thinking should reflect His moral law.It is in fact required. And finally that His standard exists independently of mankind, it exists objectively. It is not dependent on human whim or cultural considerations.

The question is: How would it even matter whether the point of view is non-theistic?

The theistic metaethical argument assumes that there is somehow a burden on the atheist, which allegedly the theist has explained. But there is no good reason to believe so.

Let's consider the following:

1) Non-theism does not entail that the truth of “That ball is green”, or “Light whose wavelength is 550 millimeters is green light” depend on who makes the statement.

2) Non-theism does not entail that the truth of “Joe has bipolar disorder” depends on who makes the statement.

3) Non-theism does not entail that the truth of “Water is H2O” depends on who makes the statement.

4) Why would non-theism entail that the truth of “A moral agent who tortures people for fun is acting immorally” depend on who makes the statement?

Moreover, it's clear that it does not.

If everyone mean the same when they say “A moral agent who tortures people for fun is acting immorally”, and they're not making a statement about the speaker, then it is clear that the truth of it does not depend on who makes the statement.



You demand an “objective source” as if that is a meaningful expression.

What does it mean, then?

What is, then, the objective source of color? Of bipolar disorder? Of anything else? What does it mean to say “objective source”?

If all of those statements can be objective on atheism, why not moral ones?

Again, as long as the moral sense is tracking some property, and moral language reflects that – so, moral statements have the same meaning in all languages, etc. -, then the statements are objective, just like statements about color, or about bipolar disorder.

I'm not claiming that, on atheism, moral statements are objective. My claim is that you have not provided any good reason – an, indeed, no theist has – to believe atheism entails that they're not.

Angra, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. It really does not make sense to me (but that could be my problem). The color blue for instance exists whether any minds agree it does our not. The sun would exist even if we were blind creatures living in caves. These would be objective, they would exist independently of the observer. Not so with human ethics which are completely mind dependent.They do not exist apart from minds.

Look at it this way, we have two groups of men. One group thinks it is a good thing to torture certain men for fun. They think these acts are perfectly justifiable. You have another group of men who find this behavior deeply immoral.

By what objective standard does one mitigate between these behaviors? And this is the problem - perhaps I can not prove that atheism can not provide an objective moral standard but on principle where would such a standard even begin to exist? Can ethics exist apart from mind? If so where? If the non-theist can not, even in principle, offer such a home for moral standards then I think the theist is justified in his claim.

[Angra Mainyu]

It's apple and oranges Angra.The color blue has no moral authority over me. It has no moral claims on my life. So when I say that God is our source or the ground for human ethics my point is that He first has a moral claim on our allegiance and second and that He is moral being (He thinks, acts morally) and that our ethical thinking should reflect His moral law.It is in fact required. And finally that His standard exists independently of mankind, it exists objectively. It is not dependent on human whim or cultural considerations.

Again, it's not apples and oranges because I'm asking what it even means to be “grounds” or “objective grounds” for anything. For that matter, I can claim that theistic metaethics lacks “cosmic grounds”. It doesn't mean anything, but it sounds big.

The claim that his standards “exist objectively”, etc., is a confusion too.

In the account I provided, and which is compatible with atheism, whether or not moral statements are true also does not depend on human whim or cultural considerations, or on speaker, just as color statements aren't.

That's because, on that account, there is a species-wide moral sense resulting from the evolutionary process, like there is a species-wide color vision, and the usage of moral words results from that moral sense, so the meaning of the terms is the same across cultures.

Moreover, the statements aren't about the speaker, but about the person or situation being judged.

Angra, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. It really does not make sense to me (but that could be my problem). The color blue for instance exists whether any minds agree it does our not. The sun would exist even if we were blind creatures living in caves. These would be objective, they would exist independently of the observer. Not so with human ethics which are completely mind dependent.They do not exist apart from minds.

That's beside the point, since my question is about the meaning of “objective source”. But regardless, if you don't like the color analogy because color does not depend on minds, how about mental illness?

Surely, you cannot have mental illness without minds.

So, the statement “Joe is mentally ill” is an objective statement, and can be true or false. It doesn't require God.

1) Non-theism does not entail that the truth of “Joe is mentally ill” depends on who makes the statement. If health statements are objective, then whether or not the statement is true depends on whether Joe is mentally ill, not on who makes the statement, culture or whim, regardless of whether atheism is true.

2) Non-theism does not entail that the truth of “Tom behaved immorally” depends on who makes the statement. If moral statements are objective, then whether or not the statement is true depends on whether Tom behaved immorally, not on who makes the statement, culture or whim, regardless of whether atheism is true.

Let's assume that morality is objective. Then, it's objective whether or not theism is true.

Look at it this way, we have two groups of men. One group thinks it is a good thing to torture certain men for fun. They think these acts are perfectly justifiable. You have another group of men who find this behavior deeply immoral.

Similarly, we have two groups of men. One group thinks Joe is mentally ill because he believes he's Napoleon. The other group thinks he is not.

By what objective standard does one mitigate between these behaviors?

The species-wide moral sense, of course.

If there is disagreement, assuming there is objective morality, then it seems one of the two groups is mistaken about some of the facts, or are morally blind, but for one reason or another, they're reaching the wrong conclusion.

Note that theism does not help at all.

If there is a powerful entity issuing commands – let's say he exists, for the sake of the argument -, then one group of men believe this entity is morally good, and call him “God”; the other group believes that this entity is morally evil, and call him “Evil Monster”.

By what objective standard does one mitigate between these behaviors?

Clearly, not those of the superpowerful person, since – and this is the key -, moral terms are human words, and as such, their meaning is fixed by human usage. If there is a species-wide moral sense, then usage is in turned determined by that moral sense, so in the end, whether or not the entity is morally good depends on whether it matches the description “morally good”, which is based on the species-wide human moral sense.

And if there is no such species-wide moral sense, then it seems there is no objective morality.

Non-theism does not entail either that there is or that there is no objective morality, just as it does not entail that there is or there is not objective mental illness. Non-theism has nothing to do with whether those things are objective.

And this is the problem - perhaps I can not prove that atheism can not provide an objective moral standard but on principle where would such a standard even begin to exist?

Again, our moral words would be based on a human moral sense which came into existence gradually, like our color sense, or – if you don't like colors as an analogy because they're “not mind-dependent” (though that is irrelevant, as I've explained) -, our sense of what a mental illness is.

[seer]

Again, it's not apples and oranges because I'm asking what it even means to be “grounds” or “objective grounds” for anything. For that matter, I can claim that theistic metaethics lacks “cosmic grounds”. It doesn't mean anything, but it sounds big.
The claim that his standards “exist objectively”, etc., is a confusion too.

Angra, I think my explanation was quite clear. And if God and His law exist then it/they would exist in an objective form – i.e it would not be dependent on human subjectivity. And would exist apart from opinion.

In the account I provided, and which is compatible with atheism, whether or not moral statements are true also does not depend on human whim or cultural considerations, or on speaker, just as color statements aren't.
That's because, on that account, there is a species-wide moral sense resulting from the evolutionary process, like there is a species-wide color vision, and the usage of moral words results from that moral sense, so the meaning of the terms is the same across cultures.

Perhaps I have missed this. If one culture believes that practicing genocide is good, and one believes this practice is not – which belief is true – and why? I would agree that we could say it is an objective fact that men act in certain ways - but finding an objective rule to judge between specific behaviors is what is in question.

So, the statement “Joe is mentally ill” is an objective statement, and can be true or false. It doesn't require God.

Sure, so is the statement that Mao and Stalin practiced genocide. The question is - why is genocide objectively wrong? I have to end here for now, back to work…

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra, I think my explanation was quite clear. And if God and His law exist then it/they would exist in an objective form – i.e it would not be dependent on human subjectivity. And would exist apart from opinion.

It's not clear because it does not explain what it would mean for some X to be “objective grounds” for Y.

If you could either define the expression, or give some examples of what is objective ground for what else – other than morality -, that might be used to understand the meaning of the expression.

Other than that, I might as well say that theistic metaethics lack “cosmic grounds”, and then fail to explain what “cosmic grounds” mean; you wouldn't find the objection very persuasive, right?

If don't let me know what “objective grounds” means, either by defining “objective grounds”, or by providing several examples of usage – clearly, making the claim only for morality won't help, as it wouldn't help in the case of “cosmic grounds” -, then I can keep asking what that means.

Again, the position that I explained holds that there is a moral sense shared by all humans (save, perhaps, for some mentally ill people), that that moral sense tracks some patterns, and moral language developed as a result of that shared moral sense and those patterns.

Usage of moral words is the result of that shared moral sense, and the meaning of them is the same regardless of who makes them. Also, they're not statements about the speaker.

What's the objection to that?

Perhaps I have missed this. If one culture believes that practicing genocide is good, and one believes this practice is not – which belief is true – and why? I would agree that we could say it is an objective fact that men act in certain ways - but finding an objective rule to judge between specific behaviors is what is in question.

Here, the atheist realist can provide the following answers:

i) It should be clear to any competent user of moral terms who has a normal moral sense can tell that humans torturing people for fun matches the description “immoral”, so the question is out of place.

When someone asks for reasons of why a behavior is immoral, we need to present cases that show that this is so, so some cases are obvious (else, we would have infinite regress); this is one such obvious case.

So, the way to figure out who's right is by means of reason, and using one's own moral sense.
ii) Theism can't do better; in fact, it fares worse:

How would theism handle the question: “If there is a powerful creator issuing commands, why is it always immoral to disobey it?”

Note that saying “Because the entity in question is God, so it follows logically that it's immoral to disobey him” is a confusion: it's like saying “It's because the entity in question has such-and-such properties, including moral properties entailing that it's immoral to disobey him, then it's immoral to disobey it”.

But that assumes that it's immoral to disobey this entity!

In other words, the theist is assuming that there is an omnipotent entity that it's immoral to disobey - which is surely not obvious, nor does it follow from the meaning of moral terms -, whereas the atheist is only “assuming” that it's immoral, under many circumstances, to commit genocide – which is obvious to a competent user of moral terms who has a normal moral sense. And so, the atheist is in much firmer ground.

In short, this attempt to “ground” - whatever that might mean - moral duties on God is nothing but rhetoric with no substance; it might convince people only by means of confounding them.

Now, is genocide always immoral, or not?

Usually, it is immoral. That seems obvious.

In some scenarios, it may not be.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Now, suppose a religious group is armed with nuclear and biological weapons, and their objective is to bring about the end of the world if they can – that's what their religion says -, and if not kill as many unbelievers as possible, or cause them as much harm as possible if they can't kill them.

The group carries out acts of mass-murder across the world, killing millions with their WMD.

I wouldn't say that attempting to destroy such a religious group would be immoral.

So, maybe an atheist realist could say that genocide is usually immoral, and sometimes not immoral. The atheist reached that conclusion by means of reasoning and use of his own moral sense.

What if two atheists disagree, even after debating?

Tough. But then again, what happens if two theists disagree – as they often do -, or an atheist and a theist do?


Note that claiming that an immensely powerful entity banned genocide does not put the theist in a better position, because then some questions are: what are the reasons to believe such an entity exists, and why is it immoral to disobey that entity?

And claiming that an entity that we ought to obey banned genocide does not put the theist in a better position, either: because then some questions are: what are the reasons to believe such an entity exists, and why is it immoral to disobey that entity?

If the theist simply assumes that an entity G with such-and-such properties including the property that every moral agent always ought to obey G, exists, and that G banned torture for fun, then once again, the atheist can as well “assume” that it's immoral [for any moral agent] to torture people for fun, and the atheist is, once again, in much firmer ground, since he's just using her moral sense, without making claims about extraordinary entities.

Sure, so is the statement that Mao and Stalin practiced genocide. The question is - why is genocide objectively wrong? I have to end here for now, back to work…

Why is Joe objectively mentally ill?

If Joe can be objectively ill without God, why can't some actions be objectively wrong without God?

In particular, what's your objection to the account I explained, based on the evolutionary process, and which some atheist objectivists defend?

In fact, “objectively wrong” or “objectively ill” is the wrong way to put it; rather, in that case, one should say that moral statements / mental health statements are objective, and that those particular ones are true.

Note that saying that “genocide is objectively wrong because God banned it” does not help, because that's to say that genocide is objectively wrong because an entity which is objectively wrong to disobey banned it, so that assumes that there is an entity that it's [objectively] wrong to disobey.

With that criterion, the atheist realist can “assume” that it's [objectively] wrong to commit genocide – in most cases, anyway -, and he's in much firmer ground than the theist, because the atheist is only using his moral sense to make a moral claim, whereas the theist is not only making a moral claim, but making the extraordinary claim of existence of God, without backing it.

[shunyadragon]

Angra, I think my explanation was quite clear. And if God and His law exist then it/they would exist in an objective form – i.e it would not be dependent on human subjectivity. And would exist apart from opinion.

Natural objective morality is not dependent on human subjectivity nor is it a matter of opinion.

Perhaps I have missed this. If one culture believes that practicing genocide is good, and one believes this practice is not – which belief is true – and why? I would agree that we could say it is an objective fact that men act in certain ways - but finding an objective rule to judge between specific behaviors is what is in question.

Can you explain why God ordered genocide in the Bible is considered good (other than that God ordered it so it is good.), and at times in history Christians considered genocide as good, and at times in history Christians consider genocide as bad.

Sure, so is the statement that Mao and Stalin practiced genocide. The question is - why is genocide objectively wrong? I have to end here for now, back to work…

Good question, Why is God ordered genocide 'objectively wrong or right?

[seer]

It's not clear because it does not explain what it would mean for some X to be “objective grounds” for Y.

If you could either define the expression, or give some examples of what is objective ground for what else – other than morality -, that might be used to understand the meaning of the expression.

Other than that, I might as well say that theistic metaethics lack “cosmic grounds”, and then fail to explain what “cosmic grounds” mean; you wouldn't find the objection very persuasive, right?

If don't let me know what “objective grounds” means, either by defining “objective grounds”, or by providing several examples of usage – clearly, making the claim only for morality won't help, as it wouldn't help in the case of “cosmic grounds” -, then I can keep asking what that means.

Again, the position that I explained holds that there is a moral sense shared by all humans (save, perhaps, for some mentally ill people), that that moral sense tracks some patterns, and moral language developed as a result of that shared moral sense and those patterns.

Usage of moral words is the result of that shared moral sense, and the meaning of them is the same regardless of who makes them. Also, they're not statements about the speaker.

What's the objection to that?

Angra, I really think you are needlessly confusing the issue. If something is objective it exists independently of the viewer. It does not depend on the viewer for its existence. If the Christian God, and His moral law, exist, they exist independently of the viewer (in this case the viewer is mankind) and do not depend on the viewer for their existence. It also means that there is an objective moral law that we are accountable to and should align with. It is no more complicated than that.

Here, the atheist realist can provide the following answers:

i) It should be clear to any competent user of moral terms who has a normal moral sense can tell that humans torturing people for fun matches the description “immoral”, so the question is out of place.

When someone asks for reasons of why a behavior is immoral, we need to present cases that show that this is so, so some cases are obvious (else, we would have infinite regress); this is one such obvious case.

So, the way to figure out who's right is by means of reason, and using one's own moral sense.

Ok, so morality is decide by cultural norms? By the majority? So if the majority believes it is moral to enslave the minority then it is? If the majority believes it is moral to imprison or execute homosexuals it is?

ii) Theism can't do better; in fact, it fares worse:

How would theism handle the question: “If there is a powerful creator issuing commands, why is it always immoral to disobey it?”

Note that saying “Because the entity in question is God, so it follows logically that it's immoral to disobey him” is a confusion: it's like saying “It's because the entity in question has such-and-such properties, including moral properties entailing that it's immoral to disobey him, then it's immoral to disobey it”.

But that assumes that it's immoral to disobey this entity!

In other words, the theist is assuming that there is an omnipotent entity that it's immoral to disobey - which is surely not obvious, nor does it follow from the meaning of moral terms -, whereas the atheist is only “assuming” that it's immoral, under many circumstances, to commit genocide – which is obvious to a competent user of moral terms who has a normal moral sense. And so, the atheist is in much firmer ground.

In short, this attempt to “ground” - whatever that might mean - moral duties on God is nothing but rhetoric with no substance; it might convince people only by means of confounding them.

First, I would say that your very ability to reason and think in moral terms are gifts of God. Which you now use to attack His rightful claim on you . Second, the theist can claim ultimate or final justice. As with Kant's moral argument for the existence of God. That without ultimate justice all moral acts are reduced to absurdity. In the end it matters not how one acts - a Mother Teresa and a Stalin come to the very same end. To believe that "what we do in this life echos in eternity" lifts all our moral acts to a higher realm that the non-theist just can not offer. So even if there is ambiguity on some moral questions there is a standard to which we are moving, and a standard to which we are accountable.

Why is Joe objectively mentally ill?

If Joe can be objectively ill without God, why can't some actions be objectively wrong without God?

In particular, what's your objection to the account I explained, based on the evolutionary process, and which some atheist objectivists defend?

In fact, “objectively wrong” or “objectively ill” is the wrong way to put it; rather, in that case, one should say that moral statements / mental health statements are objective, and that those particular ones are true.

Note that saying that “genocide is objectively wrong because God banned it” does not help, because that's to say that genocide is objectively wrong because an entity which is objectively wrong to disobey banned it, so that assumes that there is an entity that it's [objectively] wrong to disobey.

With that criterion, the atheist realist can “assume” that it's [objectively] wrong to commit genocide – in most cases, anyway -, and he's in much firmer ground than the theist, because the atheist is only using his moral sense to make a moral claim, whereas the theist is not only making a moral claim, but making the extraordinary claim of existence of God, without backing it.

First Angra, as a Christian I use my God given moral sense as well as Revelation. So I have two ethical sources. Second, nothing you presented offers an objective moral standard. How can genocide be objectively wrong if another group of men think it is perfectly moral? You can appeal to the majority or to cultural norms but what if those change like in the above cases of slavery or homosexuality? I mean you speak about using your reason, but if you were born in a warrior culture like that of a Feudal Japan you would believe that executing homosexuals was perfectly just and right.

[avalon]

Problems with objective moral values:

Consider the question: "Do objective moral values exist?" What does this really mean? By "objective" I mean "exists outside of all human minds, independent of a subject's (person's) dispositions, views, feelings, etc. ".

What about the next word, "moral values"? By moral values I mean "standards of good and evil, which govern an individual’s behavior and choices".
"Value" by itself would mean "broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of action or outcomes".

Given these definitions, it would seem that the question, "Do objective moral values exist?" is a nonsense question because the terms are contradictory by definition. If moral values are "standards of good and evil" how could they also exist "outside of all human minds"? Can we label something "good" or "bad" without the use of our minds? If the universe were devoid of all life (and therefore devoid of any thinking mind) could anything be called "moral" or "immoral", "good" or "bad"? Would there be moral standards for the innanimate objects in the universe? Of course not!

The theist may object and say that God would still exist in such a universe, therefore "good" and "moral" would still exist in God's nature. But does the assumption that God exists mean objective moral values exist? Imagine God before the universe existed, before angels, before heaven and hell. Nothing exists except God without time or space. Could we or anyone say such an existence was "good" or "moral"? Without any comparisons (there's nothing else to compare to) God would be neither good nor bad, moral nor immoral. The best we could say is, "God IS". One may object that God is good by His nature, but if only God exists then He is the only standard of anything. He would be good compared to what? To say that even when only God existed He was good is to give objective moral values authority and precedence over God. They would have to exist as standards even before God existed (impossible according to theists since God always existed).

Moral values also pertain to "an individual’s behavior and choices" which is why we don't think of innanimate objects as having morals. Morals require a mind that thinks and chooses. Something which requires a thinking mind cannot, by definition, be "outside of all human minds" or " independent of a subject's (person's) dispositions, views, feelings, etc. ".
To label something as good or bad, moral or immoral; is to say it seems that way in our human minds and in accord with human experience. To say that an objective moral good exists outside of all human minds and independent of anyones views or feelings leaves one open to the possiblity that an objective moral 'good' might be experienced by us humans as something entirely evil. Imagine that every human on the planet experienced objective moral goods as evil for their entire life, from birth to death, and then continued to experience this 'good' as evil even into an eternal afterlife. If that were that case, what meaning would the word "good" have?

avalon

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra, I really think you are needlessly confusing the issue. If something is objective it exists independently of the viewer. It does not depend on the viewer for its existence. If the Christian God, and His moral law, exist, they exist independently of the viewer (in this case the viewer is mankind) and do not depend on the viewer for their existence. It also means that there is an objective moral law that we are accountable to and should align with. It is no more complicated than that.

Similarly, whether Joe is mentally ill does not depend on the viewer. And whether Tom is acting immorally does not have to depend on the viewer, either, regardless of whether or not there is a creator.

As long as the word “immoral” describes some property of Tom, or Tom's action, then he's immoral, or is acting immorally.

You have not shown why theism would be required.

Ok, so morality is decide by cultural norms? By the majority? So if the majority believes it is moral to enslave the minority then it is? If the majority believes it is moral to imprison or execute homosexuals it is?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

How would you decide whether Joe is mentally ill?

First, I would say that your very ability to reason and think in moral terms are gifts of God. Which you now use to attack His rightful claim on you .

But your claim is baseless, and my point is about the failure of theistic arguments to make even a dent on atheist accounts.

Second, the theist can claim ultimate or final justice. As with Kant's moral argument for the existence of God. That without ultimate justice all moral acts are reduced to absurdity. In the end it matters not how one acts - a Mother Teresa and a Stalin come to the very same end. To believe that "what we do in this life echos in eternity" lifts all our moral acts to a higher realm that the non-theist just can not offer. So even if there is ambiguity on some moral questions there is a standard to which we are moving, and a standard to which we are accountable.

That seems to be another one of Craig's mistake. It seems the influence of his argument is truly pervasive; even if you're not following his argument, it seems your source was mostly based on it.

The claim that without ultimate justice all moral acts are reduced to absurdity is baseless, and clearly false. You say in the end matters not how one acts...matters to whom?

First Angra, as a Christian I use my God given moral sense as well as Revelation. So I have two ethical sources.

That's truly tragic, especially if there is objective morality, because then you're sometimes substituing the claims made on an ancient book for your own sense of right and wrong. That has real life consequences – namely, the consequence of the theist acting immorally when believe that he's not.

Saying that if the Bible is correct, then you have a better source, is an error. You would be right just out of sheer luck, since you have no good reason to believe it's true.

Second, nothing you presented offers an objective moral standard. How can genocide be objectively wrong if another group of men think it is perfectly moral?

That assumes that there's something for an atheist objectivist to explain; it's the wrong question. The right question would be: How does the question of whether there is a creator have any bearing on the question of whether morality is objective?

Anyway, to make the point again, on the account I mentioned, Joe can be mentally ill even if another group of men believe otherwise, and the same goes for genocide, as long as the action described by the word “genocide” (in most instances, anyway) matches the description given by the term “morally wrong”.

Note, however, that theism cannot do any better, as I explained in this post; your reply missed the points entirely.

In order to address your points, I would just have to copy and paste and repeat what I said, which would be pointless, so I'll just refer you and readers to my previous posts.

[2cents]

I haven't read all the comments here but here are some questions:

is killing a human wrong? why?
a) when a car do the killing? (the dump trunk just rolled over)
b) when an animal do it?
c) when another human do it?
d) when the environment do it?

[seer]

Similarly, whether Joe is mentally ill does not depend on the viewer. And whether Tom is acting immorally does not have to depend on the viewer, either, regardless of whether or not there is a creator.

As long as the word “immoral” describes some property of Tom, or Tom's action, then he's immoral, or is acting immorally.

You have not shown why theism would be required.

Let's camp here Angra, since this is the core of the issue. Let's say that we were all born with the Down syndrome chromosome and Joe was not - yes we would think that there was something wrong with Joe. So it is, to a degree, culturally driven, and subjective.

And you did not interact with my other ethical examples, ones that are very relevant to today. Say Tom was a practicing homosexual here in the west 50 years ago - would that behavior have been considered immoral? Is it generally considered immoral today? How is that not subjective?

That seems to be another one of Craig's mistake. It seems the influence of his argument is truly pervasive; even if you're not following his argument, it seems your source was mostly based on it.

The claim that without ultimate justice all moral acts are reduced to absurdity is baseless, and clearly false. You say in the end matters not how one acts...matters to whom?

It is not Craig's argument, its Kant's. But the fact remains, that if there is no ultimate justice it matters not how we live - do good or do evil - we all come to the same end. How can you argue otherwise? Stalin and Mother Teresa are both dust - according to you. In my world Stalin does not get off scott free, in your would he does.

That's truly tragic, especially if there is objective morality, because then you're sometimes substituing the claims made on an ancient book for your own sense of right and wrong. That has real life consequences – namely, the consequence of the theist acting immorally when believe that he's not.

Except I was raised in a largely Christian nation and in a deeply catholic neighborhood. So even though I was not a believer most of my adult life I was influenced by that ethic. Which would not be the case, like I said, if I was raised in Feudal Japan.

That assumes that there's something for an atheist objectivist to explain; it's the wrong question. The right question would be: How does the question of whether there is a creator have any bearing on the question of whether morality is objective?

Well yes the atheist objectivist has to explain why he he believes that moral acts can be objectively wrong since that belief is obviously false. Please deal with the homosexual example.

[Seasanctuary]

I haven't read all the comments here but here are some questions:

is killing a human wrong? why?
a) when a car do the killing? (the dump trunk just rolled over)
b) when an animal do it?
c) when another human do it?
d) when the environment do it?

It depends on which moral standard the action is being measured against.