I believe I understand what you're saying here, but I have to disagree with how you're saying it.

Morality IS entirely relative and subjective, and we shouldn't sway from that assertion if we want to be accurate, but what we should say is that the subjectivity doesn't mean that the morality is uncaused, and that any causes (especially naturalistic ones) of that morality would mean that there are certain commonalities between the majority of perspectives.

It's not crudely simplistic to say morality is entirely subjective, as it's technically right, but it just might confuse people if we don't go beyond that to explain that it is caused by rational selective pressures, both in genetic and in memetic evolution. 

The commonality of cause, and the resultant similarity -outliers aside- between different moral perspectives (in general compliance with the rational nature of relationships we explore through modern game theory) can mislead us to believe that there's objectivity there- we must avoid falling into that trap.

In order to speak of anything beyond pure subjectivity, we must postulate some objective nature- any- that is inherently moral.

But even taking into account the greatest modern understanding of rational forces upon the formation of morality, that's still an absurd endeavor-- that which is practical in accordance with game theory is not objectively good- despite it being a trend that has guided the evolution of our cognitive hardware and software.

There's a reason that we're coming to those agreements- and in our opinions we might agree that we should keep coming to these agreements and progressing in that direction- there are quite the arguments we can make for society adopting these common "moral grounds" based on game theory and social contract, but the rational force itself, no matter how strong, is NOT the pure essence of objective morality- I can give several moral conclusions through extrapolations of any of these forces that are naturally abominable to most people.

Some of the oldest and longest held moral precepts, for example, are mere side-effects of those selective pressures-- vegetarianism, for example.

Pragmatism or purism isn't the answer to morality; those speculated forces of "objective morality" collapse under their own conclusions.

That is to say, given the divergence each of those forces causes from perceived "good", the only "moral" position remains one we're currently in sight of, respective to each person, and irrespective of the forces involved, because the sum total of our morality is all of those forces, and all of the side effects, regardless of rationality.

It's a crude analogy, but you could say we're on a moral "ground", but just because we're standing on the ground right now, doesn't mean we're objectively "down"- or even that there can be an objective "downness"; this is just where we've happened to fall due to a consistent and predictable force of gravity [or selective forces in evolution].  There are potential "downs" all over the universe, and even respective to different reference frames; likewise there are many conclusions of these selective forces.

There is no one and only down, there is no objective morality and no possible objective morality or objective moral force; only forces of a multitudinous variety that cause and shape our subjective moralities- and without anything objective to derive them from, that leaves us with purely subjective morality.

That doesn't mean it's uncaused (of course it has natural causes, and those result in similarities), and that doesn't mean we "can't judge people" (I sure as pie can- relative to my morality, or any I 'choose' to judge them relative to)- it just means that the perception is a very personal and subjective experience for each person, which isn't violated by outliers or any other natural variance we would expect of relative conclusions like this.

There's a simple replacement we can use in arguments about "morality", and that is the sense of taste.  Obviously it has selective pressures that have maximized our nutritional intake in the past and avoided poisons.  The rational direction of those selective pressures is no more the objective essence of delicious than cakes and candy are disgusting.

The "value" of moral behavior is to the evolution of human society. This states it better and more thoroughly than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

there are intrinsic norms within us that operate in various aspects of our lives, science is one. the difference between the good scientist - who acts acording to his training (provided he is well trained) and the bad scientist is that he obeys such norms.

essentially this is a matter of asnsweing questions, what is it? why? (curiosity) is this really true (critical scrutiny, te demand for verification). I am saying that a third question exists, is it really worthwhile? and this is conscience.

on truth, we seek it. we may not attain it, but in our question, is it really so, we know exactly what we mean.

if you ask, is that water in the desert? and i say, it seems so, i see shimering, you will reply, that cd be a mirage!

for "seems" is not yet "is"! One poster heard me say "it kinda seems" and exclaimed "this is gonna be fun" - he thought the critical exigence wd tear me to bits!

our notion of truth has certain characteristics: it's public and universal (what's true for me is true for you, there is just one truth); it's absolute (not relative to the source that originates it "you just say that because you are a man" it's unconditioned (no ifs buts or maybes) ; it excludes error (either there is a god or there isn't) and it constitutes our rational dignity

on this last point a poster said i really don't care what you believe - but his aggrieved tone betrayed him. most likely he has had enough of arguing with silly christians - for truth has a claim on our assent - like conscience it demands respect, it is like a voice saying "don't be silly" or "no more crazies" - this exigence is responsible the principle "whatever is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied" - that you invoked

now a question arises, does curiosity, critical wonder, conscience just arise as an idiosyncratic feature of humans like a giraffes neck? is it a one off in the universe? is the universe indifferent to such norms? this is the question of god.

wd you agree, at least, that the question of god is not gratuitous?

sorry about the delay - i didn see the reply.

well, i have been talking about "affective responses" these are always about something, they are "intentional" in the sense that there is an object .... so joy, just because i am a bit tipsy is different from joy because my friend is coming.

now, of course, good people feel happy about different things from bad people.

as far as i can see, there probably is not too much difference betweeb us ... tho my last statement might raise questions

people like myself tend to argue from the objectivity of morals to God. atheists, it seems to me, have two options, to deny such objectivity, or deny the link. now a great many atheists have very strong moral convictions, they say genocide is absolutely wrong etc - they are what i called "optimistic atheists", dawkins etc. but you are explicitly relativistic - like, say, nietzsche. you are denying the objectivity of morals. have i got this right? for such ppl we get "beyond good and evil" - in theory! i'm sure you are very nice etc

and your relativism concerns the good, value etc - are you a relativist about facts?

I think Dawkins would say that genocide is objectively bad, but there are few, if any, realistic scenarios where genocide would be acceptable if only to prevent a worse evil. there is a difference

Some people might call it genocide, but others might call it "war on terror".  Which is it?

Is it semantics or is it relative?

No, scientists make hypotheses all of the time, and find that they cannot be tested (thus they don't become theories).  There aren't any theories that can't be verified or tested- that would relegate them to the realm of hypotheses.

Science has no preference or limits as such to practicality, as you suggest- it's in the nature of the thing that essential un-testability is not much of a theory.

Those who practice science come in all varieties- some merely curious about what is, and not interested in the application of it.

I'm sorry, this is rather nonsense.  What is worthwhile is a matter of opinion- see above.  Science is only concerned with a means of determining facts.

Critical scrutiny is NOT the "notion of truth".  Objectivity is.  Critical scrutiny only helps assure objectivity by repeating tests and correcting for bias and random errors- it can only assure that science was done correctly (if science was really done, it is unneeded).

A "perfect" scientist- one entirely unaffected by personal whim- would not require critical scrutiny or review to arrive at scientific truths.  However, as humans are flawed, and make mistakes (and have strong preferences for results), we do.

It is not the scrutiny, but the obtainment of objectivity- the ELIMINATION of the subjective.

No, no, and no.

Are you saying that people aren't saying what you falsely believe that they think, they must be wrong, because you are right by default?

Because people aren't consistent with your "fact", then you must be right and they must be wrong?

This seems to be what you are saying.  Seriously?

The "sense of goodness" is emergent based on rational principles- it is evolved.  However, it is DIFFERENT for every single human being, because none of us are identical.  It is fully subjective- that doesn't mean that there are not some common features.

Many people like sweet tasting things, because historically, those have been more nutritious.  This, of course, leads us astray now, because we are overfed.

Many other species of animals like sweet foods- this is a matter of them having evolved in the same universe- that DOESN'T mean that sweet is some magical fundamental good in the universe.  It's just a matter of emergent behavior.

Many other species of animals also have traits of conscience and community similar with humans- again, this is just evolved, and emergent.

It happens everywhere in similar ways because it is emergent- the results are entirely subjective despite any similarities caused by their formations.

This is not the question of a god by any stretch.

The question of what morality people hold is VERY intimate within me- but this is not the question of a god.  I am concerned about the morality people hold because it affects me, and those I care about- those concerns come from *my* personal and subjective morality.

Subjectivity is not unimportant- to the person the morality is relative to (e.g. me, to my morality) it is the most important thing in the world because it IS US.

Can you understand that? 

We are living in a subjective world of personal experience (only loosely affected by fact).  Our morality is subjective- our morality defines us- our morality is us.  It's important NOT because it's objective, but because it's subjective- because it is US.  We, obviously, in our nature, are important to ourselves- we're central to ourselves- we are, to state the most blunt truism, ourselves.

Morality = subjective.  Morality = Individual = Self definition = Self.  Self = important to self.

Seriously, it's not complicated.

Morality doesn't have to be objective to be important.  I find my sense of taste in food pretty important to me (not so much as my moral sentiments, of course, but still important) regardless of its obvious subjectivity. 

Once you understand this, you will understand why this argument has nothing to do with a god.

Yes, it is totally gratuitous.

What?  No.  That doesn't make any sense.

Science is a body of knowledge, and the root of science is the scientific method.  Most people have no grasp of this, as they live in very subjective worlds- in the day to day, even the best scientists do.

The scientific method is not within us, but a rational principle that is derived for determining objective facts- and it has been a long time coming.
 

As I've said before, science has nothing to do with any of those.  Curiosity operates outside of science- and motivates people to seek to use science to discover things.  Not all people end up using science (look at those like Luminon, who "discover" things by way of making them up and having delusions)- that is the antithesis of science.  Curiosity can drive people in different ways- some driven to science (discovering the truth), others driven to delusion and subjective guesses to fill in the gaps in knowledge (inventing fantasy)- both tend to satiate curiosity.

Critical scrutiny, as I have explained, is not strictly necessary in science- and is not exclusive to it.  This is only a result of human imperfection in the  scientific method.  In order to enter the general body of accepted scientific knowledge, information is subject to critical scrutiny, but scrutiny can be just as biased as anything else.

The scientific method is merely about removing bias- any amount of scrutiny is more of a safety net or potential tool set in assuring that this is done correctly.  A post-science process, to make sure science was really done.

Science -> doesn't need scrutiny.

Pseudoscience -> does need scrutiny to discount it.

Telling the difference between science and pseudoscience to determine what to allow into the body of common kowledge as accepted -> Requires scrutiny.

Scrutiny is a gate keeper- not an element of science.  Religious cannon uses scrutiny too- it's just an arbitrary and subjective kind of scrutiny instead of an objective scientific kind.

As to your final suggestion- no, not at all.  This has absolutely, positively, nothing to do with the practice of the scientific method, or even the body of science.  Each scientist- relative to his or her SUBJECTIVE OPINION of what is "good" (SUBJECTIVE!) will pursue different things.  This is highly evident.  Science requires no motivation nor value judgment- it is ONLY the process of obtaining reliable objective information.

It is a fact that my friend here thinks it is good to kill animals for food.

See how both of those moral OPINIONS are facts relative to the person who holds them?

Yes, everything can be boiled down to facts, but facts are relative to others, and contingent on things.

Not fact:  The sun is really bright.

Fact: The sun is brighter than the moon. (see how this was stated relatively?)

Fact: Bob thinks the sun is really bright.

Fact: Bob thinks the moon is brighter than the sun.  (Doesn't matter if what he thinks is true, he still thinks it)

Evey opinion has a position, and a factual nature in that position- that it is there, relative to that person.  When stated without that relative qualifier, an opinion "as fact" is incoherent nonsense.

Incoherent nonsense:  Genocide is evil.

Fact: Bob thinks genocide is evil.

Fact:  99.99% of people think genocide is evil.

"Genodice is evil" has no truth value- that's a statement of nonsense.

It's like saying "Sugar is delicious"- sugar has no objective quality of being delicious.

Incoherent nonsense:  Sugar is delicious.

Fact: 99.99% of people think sugar is delicious.

Fact: Bob thinks sugar is delicious.

Do you see the difference between fact and opinion here?  Facts are very specific, relative things.  Opinions are subjectively stated things from an individual perspective.

That so many people are just in the habit of dropping the "I think" before an opinion and stating nonsense (where the "I think" is implied) should not mislead you into believing that these kinds of statements reflect an objective truth about the universe.

With regards to morality, it is gratuitous.

The subjective nature of morality is obvious, and profoundly evident.  An objective morality is complete nonsense. 

Assuming objective morality and then postulating a god to explain it is the assumption of nonsense and as a result, makes that god nonsensical.

That is to say, if your god is reliant on objective morality, your god can be proved not to exist.  That is a FLAW in god-belief.

Now, if instead you say "in my opinion, god is good- god represents what is good to me"... well, then that's a bit harder to disprove.

If you insist on tying your god to objective morality, you have defeated your own idea the moment you do so.

Yes, and that is incoherent.

Do you know how I disprove your god most quickly and elegantly?  By getting you to define it as objective morality.  Bang!  Disproved.

Doing this- arguing god from objective morality- is self-defeating.

If you can stop doing that, you might actually bring up a question of god that isn't so gratuitous- one that might be worth discussing.

Try it- you might like it.

You mean to acknowledge that the very idea of that objectivity is completely ridiculous?

Those atheists are idiots.

Dawkins does not assert objective morality- he has asserted that the idea of objective evil is absurd.  He has expressed personal opinions, which are subjective.

However, Dawkins, myself, and many atheists who do understand the relativity of morality have NO LESS STRONG moral convictions.

I'm willing to wager that my moral convictions are far stronger than yours. 

Our subjective moralities, in my view- as I have explained- define us.  They ARE us.  My morality is the most important thing in the world to me- I am an expression of my unique and subjective morality, which is emergent from genetic and memetic factors that combined to form me.

When morality doesn't come from such absurdities as an "objective source" (which really serves to cheapen it), that personal morality is more genuine and sincere.  I do what is right by my subjective moral sense because it defines me- not because I'm afraid of hell, or trying to get a good slot in some heaven- not because some authority told me to.

To an extent, I pity those who subscribe to an objective morality- and I question whether we can consider them moral people at all- because they lack that framework for self actualization (something that perhaps they'll never understand the value of).  In the end, the notion of an objective morality just comes off both selfish and lazy in addition to that tragic loss, since the objectivist gets out of having to make hard decisions about the world, and elevates his or her opinions to universal truth- the ultimate of egotism without genuine fulfillment... a shallow and selfish pleasure.

But, of course, that's how I see it...

And no, we aren't relativists about fact, save obviously when facts are relative (e.g. Einstein's relativity)- when you come to understand the difference between fact and opinion, you'll see how and why that is so.

well, if genocide is rationalised as a war on terror this suggests that the warriors think genocide is wrong

The attempt to characterise the complex process by which Science, and scientists, attempt to refine and deepen our understanding of ourselves and the universe, in such crude, simplistic philosophical terms as objectivist, positivist, relativist, etc is just so infantile.

Science is a complex, human-driven activity, with all the mixture of motivation and justification and potential for error that that entails.

Most critical arguments, pointing out the 'flaws' and 'limitations' of science concentrate far to much on the process of forming hypotheses, possible explanatory frameworks for what is being investigated. This process is largely shared with all other approaches to knowledge, and is clearly heavily influenced by subjective factors. Other 'disciplines' typically regard the outcome of such thought processes as the desired explanation, relying largely or entirely on intuition as justification.

The contribution of the scientific approach is to realise that such processes are just the preliminary step in gaining something worth labelling knowledge. It requires some level of independent, less subjective checking and testing be applied to hypotheses to reduce as far as possible the inevitable errors introduced by things like intuition and personal interest, etc. We cannot eliminate the subjective element, all we can do is to explicitly recognise how it may affect the results, and work to minimize it, and never hold any conclusions to be unchallengeable.

Any attempt to characterize this whole process by some philosophical argument, and attach some '-ist' label to it, is going to miss much that is important. Some such analysis is still useful and may indeed give scientists a 'heads-up' that there may be some systematic error or bias creeping in, but it nowhere comes close to accurately describing the process. It is only Philosophy, after all, which used to be 'science' until all the rigorous aspects were removed into serious independent disciplines.

Eh...I think you confused him even more.  

Absolute morality does not require that all, most, or even many people actually do what is right and do not do what is wrong; it only requires that there IS an absolute right and wrong. So, dreems can simply define whatever he personally feels is right and wrong as what is absolutely right and wrong. Yeah, that's not a very good system of morality, but anyways, to make people like him "get it," I think we should try to avoid descriptive relativism.

Dear Blake,

Don't be so annoyed! Honestly, I can be far ruder and more obnoxious than I was, and it would be a shame if you had exhausted all your outrage too early – keep some in reserve!

You accuse me of so many faults I feel I ought to apologise, but my mea culpa would tke too long – and I fear I would be misunderstood. People might think I secretly wanted you to apologise in return, which is ridiculous. If I was sensitive I would have entered kill them with kindness!

If I went astray I plead mitigation. I simply read you as an emotivist – my attack was what I thought was reasonably standard for a moral realist versus emotivist. Perhaps I misrepresented you, but anyway, what follows is how I would attack emotivism.

By emotivism I mean the philosophy associated with the logical positivist AJ Ayer. Moral statements sometimes use words such as right and wrong that look suspiciously like judgements of fact. And because there is a certain objectivity associated with facts (the positivist thinks of such objectivity in terms of empirical verification – this is a controversial issue in the philosophy of science which I shall presind from) any question of values being objective is ruled out as incoherent nonsense. Statements such as "Genocide is objectively wrong", or indeed questions such as "Is genocide wrong?" are meaningless. They purport to be meaningful, and the emotivist knows that the ordinary person and most philosophers have actually thought they are meaningful sentences, but the emotivist revels in the fact that his is a minority view that unmasks pretentious, inflated nonsense. In reality, "Genocide is wrong" merely expresses emotion, "Boo, down with Genocide". Obviously, this in no sense stops the emotivist from forcefully attacking genocide – he may be more vigorous in this than his prefence for marmite – but his position gives him no reason for his preference. In fact, the phenomenon of shrill debates (say on abortion) might be cited as evidence for emotivism. For there is little point arguing for matters of taste, and it is no wonder that we descend into shouting at the opponent.

In opposition stands the moral realist – certain things have an an objective claim on us, the respect for human life that genocide ignores. These are not invented or purely subjective, there really is a claim on us whether we like it or not, admit it or not. Values do not simply reduce to matters of preference. For many philosophers such realism seems incompatible with a purely materialistic view of the universe. It's very natural that some atheists will fault the moral argument because it accepts moral realism as a premise. Many atheists (but not all) see the force of moral realism as pointing to theism – but of course, this some deny. One form of the denial is emotivism.

I argue for moral realism, and point out the reality of "intrinsic norms". This is apt to be misunderstood by the emotivist. They may, for example, think that the only norms which the moral realist appeals to are extrinsic. Or they may think that everything within us is subjective, and that something being "merely" subjective means it cannot be normative. The most natural response of the emotivist is to descry such talk as nonsense.

In return, the moral realist will start to attack the lack of self-knowledge in the emotivist. He will talk of self-appropriation, making what is implicit explicit and so on – in the limit, such lack of self-knowledge leads to self-deception. For the discovery of intrinsic norms is the discovery that we have to live by them. The very discovery (not invention, for such norms are quite real, though hidden!) represents a call to conversion. Conversion leads to the utter dread of losing onself. For the emotivist, of course, has not been indifferent to moral values – and may well seek to define themself – in opposition to moral realists, "idiotic atheists" (those who think atheism is compatible with moral realism) and vocal theists. But such self definition is a definition in terms of a truncated self – and the realisation of their existential plight is apt to produce fury.

The moral realist's strategy is to promote wisdom, and the key to wisdom is self-knowledge, and one rather blunt instrument in the moral realist's armory is retorsion, which I shall explain shortly. Let's point out at this point, an interesting aside. There are certain terms that straddle the fact /value dichotomy, and "self-deceit" is one of them. The moral realist tries to appeal to the fact (emotivists are realists on facts) of the emotivists blindness to the norms within, something that provokes the emotivist, who despite himself doesn't believe a word of his own philosophy. He clearly sees the link between a self-willed blindness (which, if there really are intrinsic norms is a plain fact) and folly, so he gets very annoyed at the moral realist for calling him what he is, a fool.

Well, what are these intrinsic norms? What in actual fact are they? How can we identify them? How can we know, in fact that they are "really there"? One way to become aware is to note that the word subjective can be taken in two senses. There is a wider, neutral sense, and there is the pejorative sense, the "merely" subjective. The subject is the first peron, you and me. It is the person who is aware, conscious. Consciosness begins to emerge as deep sleep enters the phase of "dreams of the morning" whereby we anticipate daily lfe. And then we wake. We are aware of experience (seeing, sensing, remembering), and at another level there is understanding (insight, conceptualisation). A third level is constituted by acts such as judgement and verification – the level by which we know facts such as , there is a computer before you. A fourth level concerns deliberation, evaluation, decision. As we mount the levels we become more and more "awake."

Now such acts are conscious – we are aware when we understand, and they are ours – they are acts of the subject. For this reason, they are sujective in the neutral sense of the word, they simply go on in our heads so to speak. When a scientist sees litmus paper going red, this is an act of sensation, and so subjective. When he judges "This is an acid", again, this act is something subjective – for it is not as if we make discoveries unconsciously. To be aware is to be self-aware. You know you are reading my words, and so you are aware to some extent that you have consciousness, though you do not advert to this all the time.

But the most significant conscious activities – the subjective operations I have called intrinsic norms, the features of you and me and the emotivist that we should advert to if we wish to grow in self-knowledge, are the operations that promote one level to the next.

I spoke of four levels, experience, understanding, judgement, decision. What promotes experience to understanding? What promotes understanding to judgement? What in turn promotes knowing to doing? The answer is, desire. It is a particular form of desire that is manifest in questions. There are three types. There are questions for understanding – we want to understand our experience, when we seek to understand we set up a tension that if we are lucky will bring about a moment of insight.

There are questions for reflection, is it really true? And finally questions of value, is it really worthwhile. It is this last question that is called conscience.

Right now, I hope such questions really do suface in your consciousness, you may be asking, what on earth does he mean? If so, you are intelligent. You may be asking, can this really be true? If so you are reasonable. You may be asking, how can I refute this nonsense, shall i bother reading more? If so, you are attemting to be responsible. What you do supports what I say.

For the questions make manifest intrinsic norms, and in a nushell, such norms are, be intelligent, be reasonable, be responsible.

Because they actually occur – and obviously occur in the emotivist philosopher too – and because theoperations are conscious, and because they form a unity (we judge about the understanding we have of our experience) they are acts of the subject (of you and me) and so subjective.

But such subjectivity is not opposed to objectivity! Rather, objectivity is the fruit of authentic subjectivity, where authentic subjectivity is intelligent, reasonable and responsible.

Such subjectivity is not something to be ashamed of! It's no criticism of a scientist to say "you only think that because you are intelligent and reasonable – you just love to define yourself as impartial and you have a preference for being open minded and as full of intellectual virtues" or of a politician "you only act to stop genocide because you are trying to be reasponsible". No, the person who defines himself by such norms is a good person!

But the fact is, not everything within us is the voice of reason – if we listen carefully, perhaps, there are voices of madness. What, after all, is the burden of the rationalist's case against religion save that the absolutism, the dogmatism, the irrationalism of religion leads to violence, indoctrination, madness? De facto, the rationalist appeals to such norms. But of course, if he does not identify them, he must misrepresent. He will speak of "self-definition" because he wants to appeal to something that is not extrinsic. I understand that. Where he errs is that not everything intrinsic is normative. Those who lack knowledge of their own internal norms – those who deny conscience – have no way of distinguishing those subjective aspects such as whim, prejudice, bias, distortion, undue conservatism, personal taste and so on. For there are some subjective aspects that differ very little from the temper tantrum of the three year old. The neurotic getting angry with the therapist is "defining themself according to their own preferences" sure. But the therapist just carries on with her job.

So, now we see the other meaning of subjective – the merely subjective which we should eliminate.

The rationalist thinks that religion is "subjective" – but clearly, from what I have written, from my point of view, this criticism is only telling if subjective is taken in the pejorative sense. It's no criticism of religion that it attempt to undo the bias of inauthentic subjectivity- and is therefore subjective in what i take to be nrmative subjectivity.

Now, the atheist has a choice. Does he follow the emotivist and play fast and loose with the intrinsic norms, or does he follow the moral realist and attack religion because it is unintelligent, unreasonable, irresponsible. I would point out that it is unintelligent to have your cake some of the time and eat it at other times! The emotivist thinks the moral atheist is an "idiotic" atheist. I happen to agree – but that is another issue. This post simply argues for moral realism on the basis of conscience – which is an internal norm. It's not the moral realism that is idiotic.

So, who will you follow? Who is right? What is the better way? Emotivism or moral realism (which can, i admit be atheistic). This is where retorsion comes in. It's an absolutely deastating form of argument. It generalises the notion of contradiction. If I say "I cannot speak" the very performance of your activity contradicts the content of the theory asserted. You cut off the branch from which you sit. Anyone who thinks emotivism is responsible – for example, because it's true – contradicts themself. Emotivism can't be held responsibly.

Any attempt by the emotivist to argue with this is thoroughly irresponsible!

But what it boils down to is you, the reader. Do you know yourself? Have you ever felt the claim of a valid argument? Have you ever felt persuded, despite your prejudices by the better argument? If so, the self that you are is beyond the self that the emotivist believes you to be. But if you have not, are you not thereby disqualified?

9

Morals are intrinsically emotional and subjective.

The only objective truth about morals is they are based on our feelings and reactions to various actions that affect us and  other people.

This includes the feeling that at least some core moral 'truths' (things which are widely agreed upon) are based on some objective , external standard, possibly defined by a 'God'. That idea is in itself still just an intuition, and therefore subjective, rather than representing some grand truth.

The primary mistake in such a subject is to try and reduce a complex system of social interactions to some simple 'principle', whether it be 'emotivism' or 'moral realism' or whatever other label you can come up with. Philosophers do this all the time - they envy the grand theories of the physical sciences, and try to come up with something equivalent, which is all but impossible in such a complex and 'messy' area of study such as human individual and social behaviour and motivation.

Dreems, please stop using these bullshit terms and be explicit.

Moral absolutist

Moral subjectivist

This is sufficient.

No, not really- some may, but most do not.  Most atheist believe things because they are perceived to be true, and not because they are convenient.  That's usually why they are atheists (and you can find plenty of quotes from disappointed atheists to this effect)- only the rare atheist is as such out of emotional concerns (and those are usually the moral absolutist atheists).

Only moral subjectivism is viable for informed and intelligent people as valid belief- although in public, they may not declare this belief for various reasons- this is merely because it's true.

Just because it's true, doesn't mean it's the "right" belief to hold- claiming so would be absurd.

However, unlike you apparently, most atheists don't get to choose what we believe.  We believe what we perceive to be true- morals are painfully obviously subjective.

Does belief in moral subjectivism harm or improve society based on certain metrics?  That's ANOTHER argument.

Does belief in moral absolutism help people or hurt them?  That's ANOTHER argument.

The argument you are trying to hold, it seems, is whether morals are or are not subjective- you are confusing it with these other issues.

On the point of moral subjectivity, I am happy to help educate you to these issues, but I will not argue the fact of moral subjectivity.  I will also not argue against the claim that the Earth is flat.

Such a debate is a pointless waste of time- if you have a motivation to believe in moral absolutism, and are set on ignoring the facts of the matter, I'm not going to go in circles with you.

Believing something that isn't true is idiotic.  If you believe in moral absolutism, you're probably an idiot- sorry.  An atheist believing in moral absolutism is just as idiotic as a theist doing the same in respect to that belief.

However, professing belief in something that isn't true can be a calculated manouevre.  Some atheists may use appeal to absolute ethics, and this may only be a tactic to help persuade people to their personal sets of ethics-- or more likely, even, it may be a linguistic flaw, wherein our language itself makes it difficult to express things accurately.

This is not necessarily the case.  See politics.

Inconsistent and maybe even hypocritical?  Perhaps.  Unintelligent?  It may be the opposite.

This is, however, ANOTHER argument.

No, all atheists are moral, as are all people; they exist in personal moral frameworks.  We're speaking not of morality, but of the belief of its basis.

Those atheists, along with theists, who believe moral absolutism is true (not merely profess it) *are* being idiots in that regard- subjectivists don't just think they're being idiots.

Your post presents a fully bunk argument which makes no valid conclusions to that effect.  You have failed to correctly use logic, and you have failed to use valid premises.

You are wrong.  The case has been settled for a long time.

I have done my part to answer your questions and inform you- that you are being dense here is your issue.

I'll not argue with you about this.  The fact that morality is subjective is not subject to debate, save by those who are too ignorant or unintelligent to recognize it as such- it is profoundly obvious.

If you wish to instead argue whether moral subjectivism or absolutism is better for society based on certain metrics- that I will argue about, because that is something that is up to debate.  In order to even enter into such an argument, though, you would first need to agree that absolutism is simply untrue (even just for purposes of debate), as the issue may not be confused.
 

Obviously moral subjectivism is correct.  Which one is morally "right" is not a valid question save for opinions.  Which is better depends on the metrics being used.

If you want to argue the latter, agree on the former and we can begin a proper debate.

That morality is subjective is merely true- making a claim about its objective moral quality based on that truth is obviously not possible within its context (truth is not objectively moral, lies are not objective immoral). 

Nobody I've seen here is trying to do this, except by your own misunderstanding of the way people are expressing themselves.

Early early man had no god and no religion. Therefore early man had no concience, no morals, in your seeming estimation. Now keep in mind we have language and have had language since before the creation story. If man had no morals or concience, how did he develop a language, and why? Was it perhaps so he could throw insults and make vocal threats to his fellow man before they stabbed each other in the neck and raped the women? Language it's self is strong evidence of a cohesion, a society. Societal values are required for a society and morality leads veryquickly to values.

There are other animals who have a sense of empathy, stronger in some and weaker in others. Dogs for example, if you get hurt and are laying on the floor moaning and carrying on a dog knows you are hurt and seems to care. Unlike humans however dogs are limited in what they can do, so they will mostly whine and lick you. Dogs as you probably know, do not know a "god". Neither do chimps who show an even stronger sense of morality. You can go down the ladder to reptiles, who have absolutely 0 morality and 0 care about anything in fact.

Now I imagine what you will say is: "but god created the earth and has been here so his presence has been our concience all along." I will argue that science has determined the earth to be far older than the creation story in the bible, so we can go round and round with faith vs science.

It sounds like you are saying if "god" disappeared, -took a vacation if you will- you would lose your concience, and who knows what you might do, you would simply not be able to control yourself anymore. Love and understanding etc would all just disappear, and you would be as a wild animal again.

Looks like he pushed a button!

Wow... the thread's starting to melt down!

BUT THEN SOMEONE JUST SHOVED A DOG'S ASSHOLE IN MY FACE!

Ah so you think snakes and lizards speak to each other, and have empathy on some unhuman level that we just cant detect. Well that's just awesome.

My leopard gecko must be in communication with the mother ship, because his only reactions are to his own discomfort and food.

No, we can detect the ample positive evidence of empathy just fine- you just haven't bothered to, because you're too busy trying to prove yourself right.

Where you were being an idiot was in assuming that there wasn't any without grounds.  Are you the sort of person who sees one green apple, and then asserts that all apples must be green- and moreover that they don't have seeds because you didn't cut it open?

Spend five minutes Google searching for examples of empathy in reptiles- such as protective behavior- if you can't find any, I'll give you a hint or two (although I just gave one).

Huh?

What example of empathy do you have that is not instinctual? All of morality is instinctual.  

Ouch, Blake.  That was pretty weak.

I can find things like Crocodiles caring for their young but not much above that.

Perhaps you should define your standard of empathy for Rob?  A standard of 'empathy=not eating your young' might not be a premise you can both agree on.

With mammals you get things like the experiment with chimps where they put two in seperate cells where they can see each other.  One chimp has a lever and when he pushes it he gets food, but his buddy gets a painful zap.  The chimps wouldn't starve themselves, but they would avoid pushing the lever for a long time.  That is empathy.

How would you demonstrate something as clear in a reptile?

Maybe because truth doesn't depend on belief? 

Precisely.

The fact of different and inconsistent beliefs about some matter is totally unrelated to what the truth of the matter is.

Rational_Theist, this response, along with your reponse to me in the other thread, demonstrates you have no idea how to conduct a logical argument.  You are in fact, fundamentally irrational.

It is not logically necessary, and the virtually universal reaction you describe is fully consistent with the idea that the sense of morality being an evolved instinctive aspect of our minds. The inherently subjective nature of morality is more consistent with the more varied response as we consider scenarios progressively less extreme than what you describe.

It is very dishonest of people arguing for 'objective' morality to focus pretty much exclusively on extreme cases, which they can be confident will get a universally strong negative reaction.

The observed nature and state of the world makes an evil prankster God, or some such variation, much more plausible than an all-loving one.

There is absolutely no logically valid argument that a God must necessarily have the conventionally assumed nature, any more than that It necessarily exists. Both are based on unnecessary but instinctive presuppositions.

Is the Bible or your presumptions/hopes all you have to justify your position? Both are worthless for establishing truth.