How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

I don't understand how you can be a non-vegan while you think that one should get upset about injustice. The exploitation and murder of sentient organisms are among the worst injustices in the universe.

It’s because I don’t see carnivorism as an injustice. I could be wrong about that, unless atheism is true. Therefore, I don’t understand what you mean by injustice. If atheism is true (I know you are agnostic), then there is no such thing as injustice; there are only things that go against your taste and go with a being that has a different taste.

I already said that both theism and atheism provide subjective morality. Religions can not and do not provide us with objective morality.

It may be true that theism cannot provide us with objective morality either, but we are tabling that question until we are done with this part. We are just talking about the atheism side of things. And, on that side, I don’t see how “injustice” exists as a concept in the way you are using it.

[Compassionist]

I don't understand how you can be a non-vegan while you think that one should get upset about injustice. The exploitation and murder of sentient organisms are among the worst injustices in the universe.

It’s because I don’t see carnivorism as an injustice. I could be wrong about that, unless atheism is true. Therefore, I don’t understand what you mean by injustice. If atheism is true (I know you are agnostic), then there is no such thing as injustice; there are only things that go against your taste and go with a being that has a different taste.

I already said that both theism and atheism provide subjective morality. Religions can not and do not provide us with objective morality.

It may be true that theism cannot provide us with objective morality either, but we are tabling that question until we are done with this part. We are just talking about the atheism side of things. And, on that side, I don’t see how “injustice” exists as a concept in the way you are using it.

I disagree with you on all counts. Atheism and theism can both declare something to be unjust and something else to be just. I have Christian friends who are vegans, I have Muslim friends who are vegans, I have Jain friends who are vegans, I have Agnostic friends who are vegans and I have Atheist friends who are vegans. All morality is subjective - theistic and atheistic.

There are only three things I am 100% certain about:
1. I am a sentient being.
2. I can't do an infinite number of things even though I want to do them desperately e.g. make all living things forever happy, go back in time and prevent all suffering, injustice and deaths, make all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, etc.
3. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do e.g. sleeping, dreaming, aging, breathing, etc.

There is one thing I am 50% certain about:
1. The reality I perceive through my senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin) is actually real as opposed to being a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream. This includes having a body, the existence of the universe, the existence of other organisms, etc.

[The Tanager]

I disagree with you on all counts. Atheism and theism can both declare something to be unjust and something else to be just. I have Christian friends who are vegans, I have Muslim friends who are vegans, I have Jain friends who are vegans, I have Agnostic friends who are vegans and I have Atheist friends who are vegans. All morality is subjective - theistic and atheistic.

I am not saying atheists can’t say something is unjust; I’m saying they are inconsistent with their atheism in doing so. It’s not injustice if their worldview is true (and logical consistency is required for something to be true). What they call “injustice” is a different taste. Believing one shouldn’t harm others is one taste; believing one should harm another is another taste in the same way believing indie folk is beautiful music and believing indie folk is horrible sounding. You have offered no good reasons to the contrary.

[Compassionist]

I disagree with you on all counts. Atheism and theism can both declare something to be unjust and something else to be just. I have Christian friends who are vegans, I have Muslim friends who are vegans, I have Jain friends who are vegans, I have Agnostic friends who are vegans and I have Atheist friends who are vegans. All morality is subjective - theistic and atheistic.

I am not saying atheists can’t say something is unjust; I’m saying they are inconsistent with their atheism in doing so. It’s not injustice if their worldview is true (and logical consistency is required for something to be true). What they call “injustice” is a different taste. Believing one shouldn’t harm others is one taste; believing one should harm another is another taste in the same way believing indie folk is beautiful music and believing indie folk is horrible sounding. You have offered no good reasons to the contrary.

"Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare. I agree with him. Theists and atheists can both think of something as good or bad. For example, vegans think veganism is good while non-vegans think veganism is bad.

[The Tanager]

"Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare. I agree with him. Theists and atheists can both think of something as good or bad. For example, vegans think veganism is good while non-vegans think veganism is bad.

So, then you agree that (if atheism is true), regardless of one's emotional reactions, one's rational reaction to someone being okay with harming another being (when one's self is not emotionally okay with harming another being) should be that it's on par (rationally, not emotionally) with that person liking a different kind of music? If not, why not?

[Compassionist]

"Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare. I agree with him. Theists and atheists can both think of something as good or bad. For example, vegans think veganism is good while non-vegans think veganism is bad.

So, then you agree that (if atheism is true), regardless of one's emotional reactions, one's rational reaction to someone being okay with harming another being (when one's self is not emotionally okay with harming another being) should be that it's on par (rationally, not emotionally) with that person liking a different kind of music? If not, why not?

There are theists who are vegans, just as there are atheists who are vegans. There are theists who are non-vegans, just as there are atheists who are non-vegans. What we judge to be good or bad depends on our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, I would be you and think and feel and speak and act as you do and vice versa.

[The Tanager]

So, then you agree that (if atheism is true), regardless of one's emotional reactions, one's rational reaction to someone being okay with harming another being (when one's self is not emotionally okay with harming another being) should be that it's on par (rationally, not emotionally) with that person liking a different kind of music? If not, why not?

There are theists who are vegans, just as there are atheists who are vegans. There are theists who are non-vegans, just as there are atheists who are non-vegans. What we judge to be good or bad depends on our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, I would be you and think and feel and speak and act as you do and vice versa.

So, you don't want to answer my question above? That's fine if you don't. I am always interested in challenging my views rationally, if you change your mind in the future. I've enjoyed our engagement here. If you are ending it, thank you for the time and thoughts you offered me and I hope to engage you on future topics as well.

[Compassionist]

So, then you agree that (if atheism is true), regardless of one's emotional reactions, one's rational reaction to someone being okay with harming another being (when one's self is not emotionally okay with harming another being) should be that it's on par (rationally, not emotionally) with that person liking a different kind of music? If not, why not?

There are theists who are vegans, just as there are atheists who are vegans. There are theists who are non-vegans, just as there are atheists who are non-vegans. What we judge to be good or bad depends on our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences, I would be you and think and feel and speak and act as you do and vice versa.

So, you don't want to answer my question above? That's fine if you don't. I am always interested in challenging my views rationally, if you change your mind in the future. I've enjoyed our engagement here. If you are ending it, thank you for the time and thoughts you offered me and I hope to engage you on future topics as well.

I don't know the answer to your questions. If I knew, I would have answered them.

There are only three things I am 100% certain about:
1. I am a sentient being.
2. I can't do an infinite number of things even though I want to do them desperately e.g. make all living things forever happy, go back in time and prevent all suffering, injustice and deaths, make all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, etc.
3. I am constantly doing things I don't want to do e.g. sleeping, dreaming, aging, breathing, etc.

There is one thing I am 50% certain about:
1. The reality I perceive through my senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin) is actually real as opposed to being a simulation or a hallucination or an illusion or a dream. This includes having a body, the existence of the universe, the existence of other organisms, etc.

Both theism and atheism provide subjective morality. If you disagree that's fine. If you want to explain the basis for your disagreement please do. If you don't want to explain that's fine. Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

[The Tanager]

I don't know the answer to your questions. If I knew, I would have answered them.

Okay. I was just confused as to why you repeated what you had already said as a response to those questions.

Both theism and atheism provide subjective morality. If you disagree that's fine. If you want to explain the basis for your disagreement please do. If you don't want to explain that's fine. Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

I definitely owe it to you. The quick version (that will need further exploration, clarifications, support, etc.) is that a creator would be responsible for designing humans in the way they are designed, including whether or not they are moral agents. God would be responsible for making humans to be concerned with their own flourishing (and whether part of that includes the flourishing of non-humans) and what objectively leads to that flourishing.

On atheism, we can see what objectively leads to different goals (say, that human flourishing involves not causing injustices on other creatures), but we have no way to say one goal is objectively better than another. A creator would be responsible for giving humans a specific goal (or not).

[Compassionist]

I don't know the answer to your questions. If I knew, I would have answered them.

Okay. I was just confused as to why you repeated what you had already said as a response to those questions.

Both theism and atheism provide subjective morality. If you disagree that's fine. If you want to explain the basis for your disagreement please do. If you don't want to explain that's fine. Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

I definitely owe it to you. The quick version (that will need further exploration, clarifications, support, etc.) is that a creator would be responsible for designing humans in the way they are designed, including whether or not they are moral agents. God would be responsible for making humans to be concerned with their own flourishing (and whether part of that includes the flourishing of non-humans) and what objectively leads to that flourishing.

On atheism, we can see what objectively leads to different goals (say, that human flourishing involves not causing injustices on other creatures), but we have no way to say one goal is objectively better than another. A creator would be responsible for giving humans a specific goal (or not).

Thank you for your explanation. Why do we need God to discover what leads to the flourishing of humans and non-humans? If I deprive you and many other animals of oxygen, you will all die. I don't need God to tell me that you and many other animals need oxygen to stay alive and flourish.