Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

IC You appear to be very SMUG about you're knowledge of God

I really have no interest at all in how I appear to you, in particular, DAM. I no longer find a thing you have to say relevant to anything that matters.

[Dontaskme]

Say something intelligent and relevant, or just don't bother.

If there was something other than God then God would not be God.

I see. It was too much to ask of you. Gottit.

Who is the 'other' that is invited to seek God, if God is already everything, all pervading, all one God?

[Dontaskme]

I no longer find a thing you have to say relevant to anything that matters.

I know what you mean, I've thought that about what you say too, and I think many others here do too, you're not alone with that thought.

[Harbal]

Well, since both law codes and moral codes started with religious prohibitions and approbations, I would say that the "real life" way was to go the other direction. However, that's not so important.

What is important, however is that there's really no way to do what you're suggesting, I think.

Let's take homosexuality as an example. How do we go about moving from that to a commandment, since the matter under dispute is the moral status of homosexuality itself? We can't deduce from our visceral approval of, or antipathy to it, because what we want to find out is what its objective moral status is, not merely our subjective emotional reaction to it.

So where do we go from there? We can't assume that because, say, Harbal has an instinctive sympathy for homosexuality that a code that prohibits it would be immoral, or that a code that allows or lauds it would be moral. That's the question we're trying to decide: so we would be committing the logical fault of "assuming our conclusion," if we judged various moral codes by their conformity to our existing prejudices, wouldn't we?

I don't think I quite follow you, but no matter, we can go to the 10 commandments if you like.

Well, if you don't have a particular interest in the Decalogue, we can do something more neutral, maybe.

Let's take something really fundamental, one of the few things about which objective morality and subjective morality really do seem to agree...there's not much, but there is this: incest. All societies, and practically every subjective index human beings have seem to agree that this one action is absolutely morally reprehensible.

Can you and I agree that incest...not, say, the mere marriage of cousins, but predatory fornication among consanguinous cellular family members, like a father or mother and a child...is really a morally wrong act?

if it is, what makes it wrong? Is it merely that, totally arbitrarily, society doesn't like it? Or is there really something fundamentally, objectively wrong with a person performing that sort of action?

I am going to answer this as honestly as I can; I hope you will accept that. I can't give you a straight forward answer, because I am not made that way, and I hope you won't interpret this as my being evasive or devious.

I have a very strong aversion to the thought of incest between parents and children -and I mean adult offspring by children, as we are not discussing child abuse. I don't, however, feel that aversion with siblings; in fact, I don't really have any feelings about it at all, morally speaking. I obviously had parents, and I have children, but I don't have any siblings, and I can't help connecting the dots regarding the reasons behind this attitude. I can't even say that I think of incest between parents and children as being morally wrong; I can only say I don't like the idea. If any such relationship were allowed to lead to pregnancy, then I would consider that to be morally wrong, mainly for two reasons. It is well known that genetic defects are common in children whose parents have a close genetic relationship, and I also imagine a child with knowledge of their incestuous parentage could well experience psychological problems because of it. If there were any kind of coercion or manipulation involved, I would also condemn that as being morally wrong. So, the best answer I can give you is that I feel a general disapproval of incest, but I can't say how much of that is due to my own (subjective) sense of morality -right and wrong- and how much to my social conditioning.

I hope you can work with that.

[Dontaskme]

Doesn't one typically only test for what they think might exist? Generally, if someone goes looking for something, they are already motivated to find it.

Well said.
We are not the seeker, we are what is sought after.

Again, many atheists were previously theists, believing in and talking to a god, and receiving answers from that god, only to eventually recognize the hypnotizing power of human belief and potential that can tie one to a theist framework and create one's dependency on it. Can you perceive such a thing (underlined) when you look at other theist belief systems than your own? Many atheists have demonstrated heartfelt desire and commitment to explore theism -- they simply came to different perspectives than theists.

Well said.
Once you begin to notice that everyone's God hates what they hate, and loves what they love, it becomes obvious that man created God, not the other way around.

[Iwannaplato]

You're presentation to him was as if there was one religion to check out and that THE situation is all or nothing.

No, I've told him he's free to try other things. And of course, he is.

My point was not that you were restricting his freedom or demanding it. My point was that you painted the situation in overly simplistic terms is a few different types of ways.

[Immanuel Can]

I hope you can work with that.

I can. Thank you for being so honest. I sense there's no evasion in your answer.

But you can sense the difficulty, can't you? Despite the fact that your subjective feeling about incest may be equivocal, your sense that it's wrong to allow a situation to issue in a genetically-damaged offspring, when the means to prevent it were obvious, feels "wrong" to you.

But why? What makes some actions feel "bad," and others feel "good"? Why shouldn't we just say, "C'mon, Harbal...your reservations about incest or your antipathy to creating genetically damaged children are just tastes. You can get over them"?

And perhaps you could respond, "I don't WANT to get over them." And that might be how it is. But even in these extreme cases, you'd not be able to explain to anybody else why they shouldn't do those things,..assuming they don't share your distate for incest and its risks, of course.

But what if incest is objectively wrong? What if your subjective distaste for the incest-genetic damage situation is not just a taste, but is reflective of a much deeper moral truth, one written into nature itself by the Creator? What if the reason you feel it's unnatural is that it IS unnatural. Do you have any reason to suppose that a taboo so general couldn't be of that sort?

And if it could be, perhaps it is. It would be worth considering. And if it were a universal natural law, that incest is wrong, then is there any reason to suppose that a Creator powerful and intelligent enough to create the whole universe in the first place would be somehow incapable of telling us so?

[Immanuel Can]

You're presentation to him was as if there was one religion to check out and that THE situation is all or nothing.

No, I've told him he's free to try other things. And of course, he is.

My point was not that you were restricting his freedom or demanding it. My point was that you painted the situation in overly simplistic terms is a few different types of ways.

It is simple. The only way it looks complex is if somebody hasn't done it.

[Iwannaplato]

No, I've told him he's free to try other things. And of course, he is.

My point was not that you were restricting his freedom or demanding it. My point was that you painted the situation in overly simplistic terms is a few different types of ways.

It is simple. The only way it looks complex is if somebody hasn't done it.

There's no it for Harbal. There's them. And he seems to have little interest in any.
I'm sure it's happened but it would be interesting to see you speak other theists who think their deities are the obvious ones and Harbal's situation would be described by them also as it. But their it wouldn't be your it. And Harbal watching sees a them.

[Skepdick]

The important point is rather that the Atheist claims to have no evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence. It's exactly what one would expect: no test, no results.

1) Doesn't one typically only test for what they think might exist? Generally, if someone goes looking for something, they are already motivated to find it.

2) Life is continually full of proof and revelations that human beings do not expect or test for, so why would proof for an all-powerful, ever-present god rely on individual human belief and tests, such that an unproven god is the fault of a human being?

Suppose we change the setting from something as emotionally charged as theism/atheism to something less nuclear: solipsism vs realism.

Suppose my skepticism goes wee bit too far and I doubt the existence of reality.

So why would the proof for an ever-present, everywhere-present, always-present reality rely on individual human belief and tests, such that an unproven reality is the fault of a human being? Why is it the solipsist's fault?

If the solipsist cannot provide any criterion, any test, any condition or observation which would convince them of the existence of reality; if they can't present you with the experiment which would convince them their doubt has gone too far - the dialogue is pointless. They are trapped in their own dogma and have no idea how to escape it.

Same goes with atheism.

[Harbal]

I hope you can work with that.

I can. Thank you for being so honest. I sense there's no evasion in your answer.

Thank you, and I will continue to be honest, even if it puts me in a position of weakness, because I am a man of integrity.

Although I can't unequivocally say that incest, per se, is morally wrong, I suspect that in most instances of it I would be able to say it. I somehow doubt there are many cases that don't include some element of abuse.

But you can sense the difficulty, can't you? Despite the fact that your subjective feeling about incest may be equivocal, your sense that it's wrong to allow a situation to issue in a genetically-damaged offspring, when the means to prevent it were obvious, feels "wrong" to you.

I can think of two ways of preventing it. One way, and the one I imagine you are alluding to, is simply to not commit it, the other would be by means of contraception. If the situation carried no risk of producing children, my attitude towards it would then depend on the family relationship of the participants, and the circumstances under which it occurred. I suppose my yardstick would be, is anyone being damaged or hurt by it, but that is my main yardstick for most, if not all, moral issues.

But why? What makes some actions feel "bad," and others feel "good"? Why shouldn't we just say, "C'mon, Harbal...your reservations about incest or your antipathy to creating genetically damaged children are just tastes. You can get over them"?

Well unless I were in a position to prevent the creation of genetically damaged children, which I usually am not, it wouldn't make any difference what you say to me. If I were in a position to do something about it, I honestly don't know if I would intervene or not, and if I found your reasons for suggesting I just get over it convincing, I may well try; I don't know. But it isn't all that unusual to find yourself wrestling with your conscience and to be told by someone that you are making a mountain out of a molehill and it really isn't such a big deal. If you are making the point that I do not have the power to enforce my moral verdicts, you are right, I very often don't.

And perhaps you could respond, "I don't WANT to get over them." And that might be how it is. But even in these extreme cases, you'd not be able to explain to anybody else why they shouldn't do those things,..assuming they don't share your distate for incest and its risks, of course.

There is nothing to prevent me from explaining why I think somebody shouldn't do something, it's just that I can't force them to agree with me.

But what if incest is objectively wrong? What if your subjective distaste for the incest-genetic damage situation is not just a taste, but is reflective of a much deeper moral truth, one written into nature itself by the Creator? What if the reason you feel it's unnatural is that it IS unnatural. Do you have any reason to suppose that a taboo so general couldn't be of that sort?

If our distaste for incest turned out to be innate, rather than just cultural, I would, indeed, conclude that nature had a hand in it. Genetically damaged individuals would not be conducive to the survival our species, so incest would be a prime candidate for elimination by the processes of natural selection. Even so, I don't see nature as a moral agent. If I did have reason to think there were a creator, such as God, then I may well go along with the rest of your reasoning in this instance.

And if it could be, perhaps it is. It would be worth considering. And if it were a universal natural law, that incest is wrong, then is there any reason to suppose that a Creator powerful and intelligent enough to create the whole universe in the first place would be somehow incapable of telling us so?

If it could be, then you might be right about the rest, but I really don't think it could be.

My lack of belief in God is not my main stumbling block here; because even if I believed in God, I still wouldn't recognise his commandments regarding our behaviour as morality; I would just see them as a set of rules issued by my superior. No matter how much authority is behind those rules, and no matter how much we believe them to take precedence over our personal views, it does not constitute morality to my mind, because morality is founded purely on our own sense of right and wrong, and what God does is something else. And no matter how wrong you think I am, and no matter how wrong I might actually be, that is truly and honestly how I see it.

[Lacewing]

The important point is rather that the Atheist claims to have no evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence. It's exactly what one would expect: no test, no results.

1) Doesn't one typically only test for what they think might exist? Generally, if someone goes looking for something, they are already motivated to find it.

God fits that. We have no particular reason to think He doesn't exist...

So you're skewing this to focus on your beliefs, rather than answering the simple and straight-forward question that was posed. We're talking about atheists, who don't believe in God -- and your suggestion was that they seek God and find out. Why would someone seek something they don't believe in? Not only might they see no reason to believe in it, but they might see reasons not to.

2) Life is continually full of proof and revelations that human beings do not expect or test for, so why would proof for an all-powerful, ever-present god rely on individual human belief and tests, such that an unproven god is the fault of a human being?

The meaning of the wording here is not clear to me. God doesn't "rely" on things, nor does His existence require the assent of "human beings." So maybe you can reword?

The wording is about "the proof". I've highlighted the phrase above. Here are some more ways of wording:

Why wouldn't an all-powerful, ever-present god clarify the singular truth for all, providing proof that is witnessed by everyone?

Why is it left up to humans to see and agree despite so many diverse paths that claim to be the ONE path?

Why would any archaic book be the guide book for all time?

3) Again, many atheists were previously theists,

This is true in some cases. But statistically, there aren't "many" Atheists.

Again, you are skewing this and ignoring the question that was posed (repeated here):

Many atheists were previously theists, believing in and talking to a god, and receiving answers from that god, only to eventually recognize the hypnotizing power of human belief and potential that can tie one to a theist framework and create one's dependency on it. Can you perceive such a thing (underlined) when you look at other theist belief systems than your own?

Many atheists have demonstrated heartfelt desire and commitment to explore theism

This is the opposite of what you said above. You said Atheists "were previously theists," and then that they had a "heartfelt desire to explore theism."

It's not the opposite at all. I'm referring to atheists who were previously theists and who had a heartfelt desire to explore theism when they were theists. This is in response to your claim that atheists have no test results because they haven't tested theism for themselves. You do not know what people have tested for themselves -- or what they are able to perceive beyond the scope of your particular beliefs.

[Lacewing]

Once you begin to notice that everyone's God hates what they hate, and loves what they love, it becomes obvious that man created God, not the other way around.

Yes, pretty funny.

God is what each human mind thinks.

[Walker]

Once you begin to notice that everyone's God hates what they hate, and loves what they love, it becomes obvious that man created God, not the other way around.

Yes, pretty funny.

God is what each human mind thinks.

If man created God, where is the evidence of this creation?

[Dubious]

The important point is rather that the Atheist claims to have no evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence.

The test has already been ongoing since the first humans invented the first gods; "invented" because there was no sign of a real one existing. We have long ceased to invent gods though many may still believe in them which, of course, all derive from ancient times when customs and beliefs due to lack of knowledge, were very different from ours. Nevertheless, theistic beliefs remain as throwbacks to those times.

The one thing theists and atheists have in common is the impossibility of knowing whether any such entity actually exists. It lies beyond the confines of formal logic to prove either way without asking the ultimate absurd question, where did god come from! The only thing we know for certain is that history contains ONLY the gods WE invented and that no other agency external to nature ever manifested throughout history or gave the slightest indication for its requirement.

There is nothing in the universe which demands the services of a divine captain at its helm guiding it to its final shore. It offers no insight and explains nothing. The universe is self-functional and guided accordingly, where its incipience already contains all the conditions for its ending making any type of superintendence superfluous.

It's psychology, not physics, which have created its multitude of gods throughout history. If there were a god all the other ones would have disappeared long ago; a single fact burying all the imaginary artifacts of there being such.

It seems this was already understood and made fundamental and precedent by the ancient Jews in the First Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. This was Yahweh's way of rubbing out the competition in order to reify an abstraction into existence by mandating itself into a state of unconditional belief...a prime directive in which even belief is forced to retreat and surrender to Yahweh's absolute acceptance and authority...that being the story of the gods in general but especially so in the Judaic derived ones.