Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Is Harbal a communist, for example?

Comrade Harbal, if you don't mind.

[Immanuel Can]

What happens if all people are wrong about it?

Once, all people were wrong about the earth being flat. What happened then?

They observed that Earth isn't flat and self-corrected.

Right. And people can observe what the true moral status of an action is, and they can correct...or not. That's what moral free will entails: the option to do the right thing, or to do the wrong thing.

It's not the option to do anything at all and "make" it right. That's not available to anybody, anymore than somebody can wish the earth flat.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you suggesting that human beings are no different to any other animal?

Is that not exactly what you assume? For do you not believe that humans are just a kind of animal that has evolved from the muck by time and chance? On what basis, then, would we regard his "biological" processes to be "moral," and others not?

Perhaps some other animals do have a sense of morality of some sort, who knows?

Dogs? Implausible, because they don't appear to have self-awareness. Fish? Highly implausible, because they lack the cognitive equipment. Paramecia? Impossible.

But let's assume, say, dogs do have some rudimentary faculty you want to call "moral." Implausible, but I'll grant it to you. The question returns: why do you hold us and the dogs to a standard you can't assign to the fish and paramecia? Since all are merely accidental byproducts of an indifferent universe (according to Atheism), then why should ANY creature be held to ANY moral standard?

[Immanuel Can]

That's why it's very important to drill down into the question beyond the mere level of broad Theism, and get to what kind of Theism, and what particular beliefs, each group had.

Then it's very important to drill down beyond the mere level of broad Atheism.

There is no "deeper" Atheism. All Atheism is simply the claim, "There is no God." Absent that claim, one isn't even an Atheist in any literal sense; and Atheists themselves routinely point out that Atheism does not commit them to more.

I don't think anyone here has been advocating for autocratic rule/communism.

Well, in point of fact, I never even brought Communism up. You did. And it was to say that it was some kind of opposition to Hitler. But it wasn't. It was clearly more of the same and worse: and that's just a statistical reality, by body count.

If one gets to cherry pick the theists, the atheists and agnostics should be able to also.

Agnostics, yes: they can come in a wide range. Atheists, no: since they profess they have but one claim.

I was talking about German communists.

Well, the Communists were quite a nasty, disruptive faction in the Weimar Republic, as they are today, and one which far from impeding Hitler made the German people all the more ready to accept him, since Germans were desperate for unity, a working economic and political system and an end to the sort of partisan in-fighting that was typical during the interwar period. But you only have to look at what every Socialist regime in history, without exception, has done, to know that they are birds of a feather, in that both are homicidal, totalizing, Socialist-utopian ideologies that inevitably capitulate to dictatorship. Of the two, Hitler or Stalin, it would be worse to live under Hitler as a Jew, but worse to live under Stalin as a Russian or Kulak.

...there was no reason to talk to me like that.

Sorry: I admit it was an indelicate way to make the point, and I didn't intend by it to point out more than that your description of the history was wrong on this occasion. I should have put it better. My apologies.

[Iwannaplato]

Is Harbal a communist, for example?

Comrade Harbal, if you don't mind.

And even if you were, it's a special subgroup of communists that do the killing or order it. High ranking communists in utterly non-democratic countries. Even high ranking communists in, say, Scandanavia, don't have high kill rates.

[Immanuel Can]

Is Harbal a communist, for example?

Comrade Harbal, if you don't mind.

I don't know.

What do you regard yourself as, Harbal? A Labour voter? You don't seem Conservative, but you don't seem Communist, of course.

Feel free to tell me to "get stuffed" if you don't feel comfortable saying.

[Harbal]

Is that not exactly what you assume? For do you not believe that humans are just a kind of animal that has evolved from the muck by time and chance? On what basis, then, would we regard his "biological" processes to be "moral," and others not?

Perhaps some other animals do have a sense of morality of some sort, who knows?

Dogs? Implausible, because they don't appear to have self-awareness. Fish? Highly implausible, because they lack the cognitive equipment. Paramecia? Impossible.

But let's assume, say, dogs do have some rudimentary faculty you want to call "moral." Implausible, but I'll grant it to you. The question returns: why do you hold us and the dogs to a standard you can't assign to the fish and paramecia? Since all are merely accidental byproducts of an indifferent universe (according to Atheism), then why should ANY creature be held to ANY moral standard?

I have no idea what you are asking me.

[Iwannaplato]

There is no "deeper" Atheism.

I didn't say anything about there being a deeper atheism. I quoted you talking about drilling deeper into the question. I am not sure how you managed to incorrectly interpret your own language there.

All Atheism is simply the claim, "There is no God." Absent that claim, one isn't even an Atheist in any literal sense; and Atheists themselves routinely point out that Atheism does not commit them to more.

And if one drills deeper into the question, we find that the main killing by atheists was perpetrated by communists.

I don't think anyone here has been advocating for autocratic rule/communism.

Well, in point of fact, I never even brought Communism up.

I didn't say you did.

You did.

I did, because it is members of those kinds of atheists that have perpetrated the extremely large numbers of killings.

And it was to say that it was some kind of opposition to Hitler. But it wasn't.

Oh, but it was communists, trade unionists and socialist who resisted Hitler. In Germany. You know, I was talking about Germans being Christian, then went on to mention communist resistance there.

If one gets to cherry pick the theists, the atheists and agnostics should be able to also.

Agnostics, yes: they can come in a wide range. Atheists, no: since they profess they have but one claim.

To end up in either category you generally have one claim, but of course as humans they have more claims. If you get to eliminate all sorts of Christians from the category Christian, then it makes perfect sense to look at whether atheism is causal or if only atheists who adhere to extreme ideologies are the ones who kill. In fact, it might just be the extreme ideologies that put tremendous power only in the state that leads to mass killing.

I was talking about German communists.

Well, the Communists were quite a nasty, disruptive faction in the Weimar Republic, as they are today, [/quote]They, unlike most Christians there, resisted Hitler. It was merely that irony, in the context of your comments, which led me to bring it up. I'm not a communist apologist. I mentioned it before you said that you would not consider any of the German Christians real Christians.

Sorry: I admit it was an indelicate way to make the point, and I didn't intend by it to point out more than that your description of the history was wrong on this occasion. I should have put it better. My apologies.

Thank you. As it turns out it wasn't wrong, but I could have been clearer.

[LuckyR]

Well, there, you've just assumed the conclusion you were intending to defend...you haven't provided any defense for it.

The alternate interpretation is at least just a plausible, and perhaps more plausible: that morality is objective, but many people are wrong about what it is.

If your supposedly "more plausible" alternative option was correct, there would be consensus with a few outliers,

No, that's not correct. There have been many cases throughout human history when the consensus -- even of all the people on earth -- was plain wrong. At one time, everybody believed the earth was flat, and that diseases were caused by curses. It didn't make them right.

Huh? We're talking about moral codes not microbiology (which was itself impossible before the microscope).

Nice try at obfuscation though.

[Harbal]

Is Harbal a communist, for example?

Comrade Harbal, if you don't mind.

I don't know.

What do you regard yourself as, Harbal? A Labour voter? You don't seem Conservative, but you don't seem Communist, of course.

Feel free to tell me to "get stuffed" if you don't feel comfortable saying.

I've only ever voted twice, and the last time was over 40 years ago. I voted Conservative both times. Had voting been compulsory here, I would have voted for both major parties at various times, and maybe even one of the others, but not with any enthusiasm.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no idea what you are asking me.

How you draw the line. Why do you say that man's "biological" processes are "moral," but not say the same about other animals like blue whales or paramecia? What do man's "biological" processes have that makes them "moral"?

[Immanuel Can]

I've only ever voted twice, and the last time was over 40 years ago. I voted Conservative both times. Had voting been compulsory here, I would have voted for both major parties at various times, and maybe even one of the others, but not with any enthusiasm.

Well, it sounds as if you and I at least share an antipathy to politicians. So that's something. Maybe we're both just not really political people.

(I'm dying to ask if you voted for Maggie T. )

[Immanuel Can]

If your supposedly "more plausible" alternative option was correct, there would be consensus with a few outliers,

No, that's not correct. There have been many cases throughout human history when the consensus -- even of all the people on earth -- was plain wrong. At one time, everybody believed the earth was flat, and that diseases were caused by curses. It didn't make them right.

Huh? We're talking about moral codes not microbiology (which was itself impossible before the microscope).

Nice try at obfuscation though.

Not obfuscation. Illustration.

All I'm saying is that there is no automatic connection between how many people believe in a thing and how true it is. So no, we do not need to expect "there would be a consensus with a few outliers." There might well be a few who get it right and a lot who get it wrong.

That's often been the case, historically speaking.

[Skepdick]

And people can observe what the true moral status of an action is

How and where can I observe the true moral status of my actions in a society where everybody gets morality wrong?

Where do I look? What source of morals do I consult?

That's what moral free will entails: the option to do the right thing, or to do the wrong thing.

Once you know what the "right" thing is then it's easy to self-correct. But you seem to have glossed over that part.

How do you obtain this knowledge?

[Harbal]

I have no idea what you are asking me.

How you draw the line. Why do you say that man's "biological" processes are "moral," but not say the same about other animals like blue whales or paramecia? What do man's "biological" processes have that makes them "moral"?

I don't know how biological processes work, I'm a retired truck driver, not a scientist.