Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[Jax Agnesson]

My dog likes stinky old cowbones and doesn't like getting washed.
Is there any possibility that the above statement could be objectively true?

I feel that it is always wrong to use personal power to your own advantage and to the disadvantage of persons in less powerful positions.
Is there any possibility that the above statement could be objectively true?

Almost all human cultural groups abhor the random slaughter of children for entertainment.
Is there any possibility that the above statement could be objectively true?

Can you clarify whether any of the above statements, if true, would constitute objective moral truths, in your interpretation of the term?

[whisperit]

No, in my interpretation, those would be subjective moral truths.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 3 by whisperit]

Yes, I agree the moral preferences described are subjective. But are the statements about the subjective preferences objectively true? (eg Could it be objectively true that that my dog likes stinky cowbones and hates being washed?)

[whisperit]

What is the foundation for objective moral values?

[whisperit]

[Replying to post 3 by whisperit]

Yes, I agree the moral preferences described are subjective. But are the statements about the subjective preferences objectively true? (eg Could it be objectively true that that my dog likes stinky cowbones and hates being washed?)

Yes, I agree the statements are objectively true.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 6 by whisperit]
So do you agree that a claim about a universally held moral value could, in theory at least, be objectively true?

[Divine Insight]

If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?

Without a God there wouldn't be any moral objective values. And that's probably the truth of reality. Morality itself is a human created concept. So it stands to reason that since humans invented it they should be able to subjectively define what they mean by it.

Far more importantly is to ask what the foundation for objective morality would be if a God did exist?

Would it simply be based upon what this God subjectively decides he thinks should be moral? Also can this God change his mind? If so, then his so-called objective morality would be fleeting and unstable. He could simply change his mind at any time and the so-called objective morality would instantly change. All this would be would be a form of subjective morality where God is the subjective judge of what he would like to be moral at any given moment in time.

The Biblical God is a prime example of a God who changes his subjective morality from time to time. In the Old Testament this God commands that men are to judge each other to be sinners and to stone sinners to death. So that would be considered to be the "moral" thing to do in the Old Testament because it is the will and commandment of God.

However, in the New Testament Jesus teaches men not to judge one another and not to cast the first stone. So now not judging and not stoning people to death becomes the "moral" thing to do. So in the Biblical picture there is no objective morality, but rather God changes his own mind subjectively concerning what is moral from moment to moment.

Now let's move on to considering a God where morality truly is carved in stone and unchangeable objective.

In this case the God himself cannot be deciding what is moral or immoral but rather he too would be subject to this higher objective morality. Such a God could then necessarily not be the "Top Dog". So that runs into problems as well.

In short, even inventing a God can't make morality objective unless we hold that God himself is subject to this higher objective morality. But that would mean that God himself would be a puppet of something higher than him and he could not act in a way to violate that higher objective morality.

Clearly the Biblical God cannot be such a God. The authors who invented the Biblical God made him into the subjective creator of morality. A God who can change his mind on what he considers to be moral or immoral. So the Biblical God's morality is subjective and not objective anyway.

May as well just let humans have their own invention of subjective morality in the first place. After all, humans are the ones who invented the idea in the first place.

[Divine Insight]

What is the foundation for objective moral values?

There isn't any.

Why should their be?

Morality is a human invention.

[whisperit]

What is the foundation for objective moral values?

There isn't any.

Why should their be?

Morality is a human invention.

Based on what?