Why Must Morality Be Objective?

[rookiebatman]

I watch a lot of debates between theists and atheists, and one point that comes up a lot (especially by William Lane Craig, who unfortunately has done a lot of debates) is the Argument from Morality, that without God, we couldn't have an objective sense of morality. The thing that I don't get is, they act like saying "if atheists are right, then morality would only be subjective" somehow proves their point. It seems to me that theists are presupposing that morality is objective, and so they would conclude that any system which indicates subjective morality must therefore be false. But why? Where's the support for the initial premise that morality is objective? Not that it should be, or that the world would be better if it was, but that objective morality is a known and accepted fact, which means that any line of thought which leads to subjective morality must be false.

Also, as a preemptive follow-up question, if you believe that morality is objective, how do you rectify that with the observable fact that people can't agree on what that objective morality is? Even people who say that the Bible is the objective source for morality can't agree on interpretations and nuances and what parts of the Old Testament should still be followed or not.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 1 by rookiebatman]


Why Must Morality Be Objective?


Without being a supreme power, knowing the consequence of everything, the longterm effect of everything, what else can it be but opinion?

Organisms evolved instincts like the survival instinct and the instinct to procreate. Survive good, die bad and to be avoided. What was good and bad, right and wrong was determined for organisms long before humans came along with their opinions.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 51 by Artie]

Instict is inborn law, "rules" which oganisms automatically abide to, and there has never been proven to be a law without a lawgiver. So again, without a universal lawgiver (and the laws/instincts) that those laws abide to, then we only have opinion.

Happily for society we have the "conscience" or inner laws (read: instincts) instilled in us by the universal lawgiver our Creator.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 51 by Artie]

Instict is inborn law, "rules" which oganisms automatically abide to, and there has never been proven to be a law without a lawgiver.

An instinct is of course no "law". We evolved instincts, no instinctgiver "gave" them to us. I suggest you read up on the evolution of instincts.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 53 by Artie]

Fair enough.

[Bust Nak]

Without being a supreme power, knowing the consequence of everything, the longterm effect of everything, what else can it be but opinion?

The opinion of a supreme power with the knowledge of the consequence of everything, is still an opinion. Introducing omnipotence into the equation doesn't solve anything.

[JehovahsWitness]

Without being a supreme power, knowing the consequence of everything, the longterm effect of everything, what else can it be but opinion?

The opinion of a supreme power with the knowledge of the consequence of everything, is still an opinion. Introducing omnipotence into the equation doesn't solve anything.

No it would change everything because if you know everything, you are always right. If you could see around every corner, would it be your opinion what's round the corner or would whatever you say be truth? If you knew exactly what the weather will be tomorrow, and indeed if you could control the weather, and someone asked you what the weather will be like tomorrow, would your answer be mere "opinion" or a statement of absolute truth? If you knew every repercussion of every action as it effected direrectly or indirectly every person or living thing that is alive or will ever live, when you said "such and such is harmful" would that be "opinion" or a statement of fact?

[Artie]

If you knew exactly what the weather will be tomorrow, and indeed if you could control the weather, and someone asked you what the weather will be like tomorrow, would your answer be mere "opinion" or a statement of absolute truth?

If you control the weather it would be your opinion that determined what the weather would be like tomorrow. "It's my opinion that it should rain tomorrow so it'll be raining."

[Bust Nak]

No it would change everything because if you know everything, you are always right. If you could see around every corner, would it be your opinion what's round the corner or would whatever you say be truth? If you knew exactly what the weather will be tomorrow, and indeed if you could control the weather, and someone asked you what the weather will be like tomorrow, would your answer be mere "opinion" or a statement of absolute truth? If you knew every repercussion of every action as it effected direrectly or indirectly every person or living thing that is alive or will ever live, when you said "such and such is harmful" would that be "opinion" or a statement of fact?

You tell me, what am I really saying when I say 1+1=2? It is certainly my opinion that 1+1=2, it is also my belief that 1+1=2. Is 1+1=2 "opinion" or a statement of fact? Regardless of what one calls it, I would say 1+1=2 is fundamentally different type of statement to one such as "it is good thing that 1+1=2." The latter is mere opinion and knowing 1+1 does indeed equal 2 for a fact doesn't change anything about said opinion; and if knowing 1+1=2 for certain doesn't mean anything for opinion about the statement of 1+1=2, then why would knowing everything rise an opinion about said truths are above mere opinion?

[wannabe]

[Replying to rookiebatman]

Here is my opinion :

A morality must be objective to the point of its own conclusion, for morals are conclusive ,for if not then they hold no meaning at all. A moral is assembled within each of us at a point of understanding the correct procedure for the next meaningful imprint one might impact upon the next recipient of your own behaviour.
Moral issues are your own struggle with ,"whether you think you handled something correctly."
So each of us has our own personal set of morals which guide us to our next step (point) in life.

If you believe in the tree of good and evil then you know your morals are God given. And even though an atheist may not believe of God , science can not equate to morals, nor does a unanimous decision , necessarily support morality . But the conclusive set of Jesus's moralities lends a lot of support for the god of my choosing.

In the end, a person's own view on morality is the sumation of their own perspective of good values to retain, as part of their personality. But it is probably a good idea to ensure that you are not alone in your moral perspective in regards to your social media , because moral disagreements can create great unrest. And moral obligation should concern all who are, or who should be, affected.

[anontheist]

I haven't read all the posts, but has someone brought up the issue of Euthyphro?