Morality

[Solomon Zorn]

Already answered.

[JohnnyB1993]

Already answered.

'No, it implies that I still see it from my own sensibility, and not from their hypothetical one. They might see it as right, but the universe doesn't care'- Would this count as the answer you already gave?

Your position-
Morals derive from our evolved sensibilities about how to behave towards other people.  Our evolved sensibilities tell us that events such as the Holocaust are morally wrong. 

BUT- In a world where people's evolved sensibilities tell them that events such as  the Holocaust are right, would that make the Holocaust in that world right or wrong?  If morality is subjective by nature then the Holocaust in the fictional world is morally right because that is where peoples evolved sensibilities led them to believing.  If the Holocaust in the fictional world is wrong, then that implies the existence of objective morality.  This would also mean that morals do not come from our evolve sensibilities, because despite where people's evolved sensibilities have led them, the Holocaust in the fictional world is still wrong.  The question then becomes, if morality is thus objective, then where does it come from? 

[Solomon Zorn]

In a world where people's evolved sensibilities tell them that events such as  the Holocaust are right, would that make the Holocaust in that world right or wrong?

The problem with your question is this:

You are asking if,

in a world where the subjective morality of people tell them that a given action is morally right,

it is therefore objectively right. 

I have already stated that there is no objective right or wrong from an extra-human point of view. There is only our subjective understanding.

So, it is still not "Right" in either sense.

Not in the subjective sense because the morality I have evolved, tells me it's wrong,

and not in the objective sense, because the objective sense doesn't exist.

Do you finally understand my answer?

[Solomon Zorn]

Let me offer a hypothetical world as well:

I would like you to consider a hypothetical world in which men have tried to control each other for millennia through the use of divine laws, given by men who claim, for one reason or another, to have the authority of God. Let's imagine that hypothetically these men give faulty, unsustainable, unpleasant, and inequitable laws that divide the whole world into sects, all claiming divine guidance. Let's further suppose that some of these sects decide theirs is the objective morality that must be enforced on all, and start killing members of other sects. Just hypothetically.

[aitm]

if morality is thus objective, then where does it come from

You're simply stupid.  Go to a daycare sometime, (that is if you're legally allowed to) observe the behavior of children. They take from others without permission, they will steal, they will assault others and if left alone, the strongest or simply the meanest will be the ruler. As parents or guardians we are responsible to teach proper behavior and morals. IF your POS god had any involvement we would still be knuckled draggers, (though it appears some of us still are)

[Solomon Zorn]

I think he went to church. I also think he's been reading CS Lewis.

[undercoverbrother]

I have a confession to make.

I am God and you should start obeying me now. You can start by believing me even though there is no evidence.

If you don't do what I say, I'm going to come to your house for payback.

Wow! I really do sound like a monster.

[Solomon Zorn]

Johnny, while I await your return, I want to clarify what I mean by an evolved sensibility. I am not talking about a simple instinct, but a value system that is part instinct, part parenting, part social example, part social pressure, part reading, and a lot of personal experience.

[stromboli]

But if you claim an objective morality, what standard of objectivity are you using?  Buddhism and Hinduism are both older than Christianity and Islam. They have a very old and rich religious tradition, and a set of standards quite different than later religions. In the strictest sense Buddhists ought to be vegetarian but I know some that aren't. Hindus also, but I know there are some that aren't.
it doesn't matter what claims are made by any religion. What matters is the actual working situation in terms of how moral behavior is applied. If one belief set applies one standard and another applies another standard, then objectivity in the real world doesn't exist.

It also goes back to the validity of your belief set. Like applying standards of behavior towards LGBT people. Various sects of Christianity have different standards and application of morality towards them, so there is not consensus even within the religion. We as atheists can show that there are serious problems in the validity of the bible, existence of Jesus and so forth. So regardless of any claims made, if the actual validity of the religion is suspect, how can you claim that any concept derived from it is valid?

[GSOgymrat]

The question then becomes, if morality is thus objective, then where does it come from? 

Human lives have inherent value to other humans and human suffering is inherently wrong. No one has to tell you suffering is bad, as a human organism you know you don't like pain. Humans are social creatures, we care about each other and we don't like seeing other humans, or even things that appear human, in pain. Morality was not handed down from a god, it evolved up and is part of what makes humans what humans are. Despite culture, people care about themselves, they care about other people and they don't like to suffer. The problem is, generally speaking, people care about their children's suffering, their own suffering, their kin, their social group and then other people around them and they will sacrifice the wellbeing of others the protect themselves or their group from suffering. This doesn't make the suffering of others right, it is still fundamentally wrong. Genocide, rape and slavery are always wrong because they always cause human suffering.

[Aletheia]

It's all been said before:

[Jason78]

Quick question before I continue.

Do you assume your God is All-powerfull, All-knowing and All-loving?

Yes

It's mathematically impossible to know everything.

[Aroura33]

If god is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, etc, then HE created humans with flaws.  You cannot use the excuse that the old testament god allowed humans to have slaves because it was so ingrained in their culture if you believe god is Omni-everything, and here is why:

God creates humans with the traits that would cause them to own slaves, and then he allows them to own slaves because it is a deep part of their culture/nature.
Do you see the circular logic you are using here?  Not to mention the cherry picking, because he forbids other things that are equally ingrained in human culture or nature. 

You don't blame God for that rule or for that human behavior, you blame the humans, even though you admit your believe your god is Omni-everything.
This is circular logic at it's absolute worst.

[Solomon Zorn]

...and human suffering is inherently wrong.

Agree with everything you said, including this, if you reinforce your earlier qualifier, by adding, "to humans." Otherwise it sounds like you are drawing an objective morality from a subjective one, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

[kilodelta]

There is no "objective" without measurement. We can't measure the "super natural." e.g. "God" or a "God's words." Therefore, saying "God" gives objective morality is false. It's quite simple really.