Does Objective Morality Require the Existence of God?

[wiploc]

The Peanut Gallery is here:
viewtopic.php?t=33976

Those who wish to comment on this discussion may do so there. Once this thread is closed, Tanager and wiploc may post there too. In the meantime, we may respond here to comments made there.

Topic: Does Objective Morality Require the Existence of God?

Tanager's position -- if I understand it -- is that objective morality is possible if a god exists, but not possible otherwise.

My own position is this prejudice: If objective morality is possible with a god, then it is also possible without a god; if it is not possible without a god, then it is also not possible with a god.

I invite Tanager to expound on his position.

[wiploc]

I see good/evil as the value judgments on moral actions.

Then there's no point in talking about them being objective.

Why do you think so? Perhaps my wording confused you.

Good and evil are judgments, you said. What could be more subjective than someone's judgement?

Why does saying that actions have a certain moral value negate it's objectivity? To me it's just like saying that the shape of the earth has a certain physical value to it or that an equation has a certain mathematical value to it.

You argue that utilitarianism is subjective because one person is happy and another is unhappy. One could equally argue that the equator of the earth is subjective because it looks like a circle to a person at a pole, but looks more elliptical to other people.

Can you show us how morality is objective if gods exist and subjective otherwise? Because I don't mind if you call morality subjective, as long as you're not saying it would be different if gods existed.

So we are comparing two different sources of 'goodness' here. Your view finds this source in happiness.

I say that good is the sources of happiness. You're saying that I say that happiness is the source of good?

If god(s) exist, they become the source of goodness. If happiness (pleasure) is good and unhappiness (pain) is bad, then the action of rape is both good and bad. It is good to one person and bad to the victim. That's subjectivity.

That's subjectivity like looking at the equator from an angle and calling it an ellipse. But the objective facts remain in both cases.

Are you saying that anything someone can have an opinion about is made subjective thereby? Because that argument would work on god-based morality too.

The source of goodness is found in each individual being and is different for different beings.

Maybe you're still thinking that I think happiness is the source of goodness? That's backwards.

That's different than the objective fact of the shape of the earth and mathematical facts.

It is an objective fact that rape tends to reduce net happiness. Some people like it, and some people dislike it, but the net change in happiness remains an objective fact.

If a god(s) is involved, then it could conceivably make (through command and/or creation) the action of rape wholly bad, in spite of the pleasure it brings to one party.

How would that work?

Let's have the god make rape objectively good. What would be good about it? If it still made people unhappy, what would be good about it? Under that system, why should anyone want to be good?

You believe in gods. For all we know, rape is--according to your system--already objectively good. Why should we care about this kind of magical goodness? How could it be in any way significant to humans?

Good/bad isn't about felt happiness/unhappiness, but finds it's source in an intelligent being(s) outside of every individual human, which is like the shape of the earth and mathematical facts (that is, being outside individual humans, not necessarily sourced in an intelligent being, although I believe it is, but that is a separate question).

If it's based on the judgement of an intelligent being, it is subjective, right? And why should we care about that inhuman's judgement more than our own?

Suppose Joe raped Sara, with the result is that Joe is happy, and Sara--not to mention Sara's friends and relatives and neighbors and women who hear about the rape and no longer feel safe going out at night, and the male friends and relatives of those women--is unhappy. That doesn't depend on perspective. It's what happened. Joe was made happy and Sara and others were made unhappy. If that's what happened, then it's a truth from anybody's perspective.

Now, of course, I view rape as immoral.

You say "of course," but many Christians, including William Lane Craig, say that they don't know of anything wrong with rape aside from the fact that a god forbids it. I give Craig the benefit of the doubt; I assume he's lying.

And I hope using that as an example does not add to the tragedy of anyone who has undergone such an atrocity. I'm willing to change the example, if people feel it should be.

Likewise. We use this example on the assumption that most readers agree that rape is bad. The other common example of a bad act is "torturing babies for fun." If we didn't use these extreme examples, we'd have to either spend much of the debate negotiating about what we agree is bad, or else we'd have to use abstract symbols like TBT (the bad thing).

To be continued.

[wiploc]

But how do we measure this? You still seem to be talking about truth from a perspective, it's just the perspective of the majority.

I reject and repudiate that claim. I haven't mentioned majorities, and you're the one who keeps throwing perspectives into the mix.

If rape causes more unhappiness than happiness, then that is a fact, regardless of the fact that the rapist is happy. Perspective doesn't come into it.

Suppose I used the same move on you: You say god makes rape objectively wrong, and I say, "But the rapist likes it, so you're just talking about perspectives. That's subjective."

You would reject that move just like I do.

In your scenario, let's say 1000 people learn of Sara's rape and ache for the trama she unjustly went through. What happens if the rapist had a buddy taping the rape. They then upload the video to the internet and 2000 perverts come across it and find enjoyment in watching it. Does this new majority make the act moral now, because there is a greater surplus of felt happiness?

I'm a rule utilitarian. Since rape has a strong tendency to make people unhappy, there is a rule against it. You can't look at your specific circumstances and try to rationalize your way around the rule on this occasion. We would be better off without any rapes, so rape is morally wrong.

[The Tanager]

I wasn't sure if you wanted to keep responding to the posts in whole or for me to jump back in. I'm fine waiting as long as needed. I'll post my responses, but feel free to return back to my previous posts as well. Then just let me know if you want me to wait until you respond in total to these next posts. I've broken them into two categories for my own benefit in keeping the two analyses straight.

1. If god(s) do not exist...

Good and evil are judgments, you said. What could be more subjective than someone's judgement?

That is why I said my wording might have confused you. One could also say that it is their judgment, from looking at the scientific evidence, that Earth is round. That doesn't make the shape of the earth subjective.

You argue that utilitarianism is subjective because one person is happy and another is unhappy. One could equally argue that the equator of the earth is subjective because it looks like a circle to a person at a pole, but looks more elliptical to other people.

That's an objective feature of physical perspective. In this analogy, the equator is an objective feature while 'how the equator looks to individuals' changes based on the individual's perspective (which is also objectively true). If morality depends on happiness and happiness/unhappiness of a specific act changes from person to person, morality seems to me analogical to 'how the equator looks to individuals' rather than 'the equator.' How it looks is found in each individual. The objective features of the equator itself is not found in or different for each individual.

I say that good is the sources of happiness. You're saying that I say that happiness is the source of good?

That is a bit confusing to me because you also said "or, by extension, happiness itself." If morality is happiness, then a certain act is not always good or bad, because that act causes happiness for some, but not others or causes happiness at one time, but not another. Here I was thinking of it in the sense of "happiness makes something good" versus my view of "god(s) make something good."

Are you saying that anything someone can have an opinion about is made subjective thereby? Because that argument would work on god-based morality too.

I am not. There are two senses of the word 'subjective' here. An opinion is something that comes from an individual, and in that sense is called subjective. But we can have an opinion (which, of course, is our opinion) about an objective feature of reality.

II'm n reject and repudiate that claim. I haven't mentioned majorities, and you're the one who keeps throwing perspectives into the mix.

If rape causes more unhappiness than happiness, then that is a fact, regardless of the fact that the rapist is happy. Perspective doesn't come into it.

I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but understand your claims. When you say rape causes more unhappiness than happiness are you talking about hedons (units of pleasure) or number of people? I might have wrongly surmised you were talking about the number of people involved. That is why I said you seemed to be talking about the majority perspective. I thought you were saying more people would be unhappy than people who would be happy as a result of the rape and that this imbalance of people to one side (i.e., a majority) was why the act is considered immoral.

I'm a rule utilitarian. Since rape has a strong tendency to make people unhappy, there is a rule against it. You can't look at your specific circumstances and try to rationalize your way around the rule on this occasion. We would be better off without any rapes, so rape is morally wrong.

Rape makes some people happy and some unhappy. You've said above that it's not about majorities, so that it makes more people unhappy than happy doesn't seem to come into the equation for you. So, what do you mean when you say rape has a strong tendency to make people unhappy? There are people out there who disagree that we would be better off without any rapes. You and I disagree with them. Why is our rule correct?

[The Tanager]

2. If god(s) do exist and are the origin of morality...

How would that work?

Let's have the god make rape objectively good. What would be good about it? If it still made people unhappy, what would be good about it? Under that system, why should anyone want to be good?

You believe in gods. For all we know, rape is--according to your system--already objectively good. Why should we care about this kind of magical goodness? How could it be in any way significant to humans?

You critique might go through against a view like Descartes (I think) held, i.e., that God could have decided to make rape objectively good (or could change His mind even now). But this is a minority view, at least among Christian philosophers. The kind of god I believe in logically could not make rape objectively good, because this kind of god is essentially good.

If it's based on the judgement of an intelligent being, it is subjective, right? And why should we care about that inhuman's judgement more than our own?

Not necessarily. Not if the intelligent being is good by nature and created humans to flourish by doing what is good. We should care about this inhuman's judgment because it built us to find the greatest fulfillment through doing good.

You say "of course," but many Christians, including William Lane Craig, say that they don't know of anything wrong with rape aside from the fact that a god forbids it. I give Craig the benefit of the doubt; I assume he's lying.

I think what Christians like Craig mean (as I understand the context of those kinds of statements) is that if strong atheism is true there is nothing that makes rape objectively wrong. They would still not want to do it, just like I don't want to eat lima beans. But if someone came along thinking that rape would be fun, they both Craig and the rapist would be on level playing ground, morally speaking. Neither reaction would be right or wrong.

I reject and repudiate that claim. I haven't mentioned majorities, and you're the one who keeps throwing perspectives into the mix.

If rape causes more unhappiness than happiness, then that is a fact, regardless of the fact that the rapist is happy. Perspective doesn't come into it.

Suppose I used the same move on you: You say god makes rape objectively wrong, and I say, "But the rapist likes it, so you're just talking about perspectives. That's subjective."

You would reject that move just like I do.

But I think there is a big difference. In your scenario it's one human perspective against another human perspective. In the theistic scenario it's the creator's perspective against the creature's perspective. There is a clear heirarchy in the theistic scenario, but I'm not sure there is in the entirely human scenario.

[wiploc]

I wasn't sure if you wanted ...

I keep abandoning unsatisfactory drafts, so thanks for jumping in.

1. If god(s) do not exist...

Good and evil are judgments, you said. What could be more subjective than someone's judgement?

That is why I said my wording might have confused you. One could also say that it is their judgment, from looking at the scientific evidence, that Earth is round. That doesn't make the shape of the earth subjective.

So you get it!

You argue that utilitarianism is subjective because one person is happy and another is unhappy. One could equally argue that the equator of the earth is subjective because it looks like a circle to a person at a pole, but looks more elliptical to other people.

That's an objective feature of physical perspective. In this analogy, the equator is an objective feature while 'how the equator looks to individuals' changes based on the individual's perspective (which is also objectively true). If morality depends on happiness and happiness/unhappiness of a specific act changes from person to person, morality seems to me analogical to 'how the equator looks to individuals' rather than 'the equator.'

Or you don't get it.

Joe says the equator is a straight line (because Joe is viewing it from 0 degrees latitude).
Sara says it's a circle (she's at 90 degrees latitude).
Mike, at 45 degrees, says it's an ellipse.

These are subjective views, just like the rapist's view when he says rape is good because it makes him happy.

But there is, as you point out, an objective view of the equator, which is that it is a circle which will be seen as a straight line, a circle, or an ellipse, depending on where it is viewed from.

And there is, as I point out, an objective view of the harm rape does. This view acknowledges that rape makes some people happy and others unhappy, but notes that rape generally decreases happiness overall.

So, if the equator is objective, then is the net-unhappiness caused by rape is also objective.

And if the unhappiness caused by rape is subjective because some people like rape, then the shape of the equator is subjective because some people see it as an ellipse.

So, if we use one definition of "objective," then both the shape of the equator and the badness of rape are objective.

But if we use the other definition, then neither of them is objective.

In my experience, the moral argument always comes down to this equivocation. The theist always wants to use one definition so that god-based morality is objective, and then wants to use a different definition in order to show that atheist morality is subjective.

I say that good is the sources of happiness. You're saying that I say that happiness is the source of good?

That is a bit confusing to me because you also said "or, by extension, happiness itself."

Good is literally the sources of happiness; the sources of happiness are literally good. Anything that makes someone happy is good to that extent.

A very common figure of speech is to call happiness itself good. Thus, the problem of evil is also known as the problem of suffering. Thus, happiness is not literally good, rather it is the result of good.

I hope that helps.

Now let's look at how you define good. Sometimes you say it has to be dictated to us by a nonhuman--would a sea turtle suffice? That seems arbitrary and self serving since you want good to be determined by your nonhuman god.

Other times, you say god is good even though no non-god dictates the nature of goodness to him.

Sometimes you say that god is good by his nature, just happens to be good. At that point you are obviously judging god by some standard other than god's nature. Because there's a note of approval when you say god is good. You like that. But you wouldn't like it--you'd be indifferent to it--if all you meant is that god's nature is like god's nature.

If a scorpion god created the world for the pleasure of stinging us to death, his nature would be like his nature, and therefore--according to your test--he would be good. That kind of goodness is meaningless.

If morality is happiness,

It is moral to try to increase happiness.

then a certain act is not always good or bad, because that act causes happiness for some, but not others or causes happiness at one time, but not another.

Yes, the real world can be complicated and ambiguous. It turns out that sending donations of food to an earthquake ravaged city is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Sometimes, for instance, it wipes out the local farmers by destroying their markets.

Sometimes, like when it's self defense, it's okay to kill someone; and other times not.

You might argue that genocide is bad when Hitler does it but good when Jehovah does it.

I don't see any of this as helping your case.

When you say rape causes more unhappiness than happiness are you talking about hedons (units of pleasure) or number of people?

"Hedons" smacks of hedonism, which is a negative term. I prefer "utils," (utilitarian units) which may be the same thing but with a classier spin.

So if Joe declines to rape Sara because it would probably take more utils from her than it would give to him, he's done a good thing even though he doesn't outnumber her. So it's not about majorities.

If Joe and Sara each give up an ounce of happiness so that Mike can have a pound of happiness, then they've done good even though the happiness of the majority (two out of three) is reduced.

I might have wrongly surmised you were talking about the number of people involved. That is why I said you seemed to be talking about the majority perspective. I thought you were saying more people would be unhappy than people who would be happy as a result of the rape and that this imbalance of people to one side (i.e., a majority) was why the act is considered immoral.

You're not alone. I've recently read several claims that utilitarianism is about making the majority happy. I think that's misleading and wrong.

I'm a rule utilitarian. Since rape has a strong tendency to make people unhappy, there is a rule against it. You can't look at your specific circumstances and try to rationalize your way around the rule on this occasion. We would be better off without any rapes, so rape is morally wrong.

Rape makes some people happy and some unhappy. You've said above that it's not about majorities, so that it makes more people unhappy than happy doesn't seem to come into the equation for you.

It comes into the equation. We just don't stop calculating when we've got a head count. Suppose two people could get a little happiness by torturing a third person to death over a period of weeks. If we said, "Well, that's okay because two are happy and only one unhappy," we'd get a bad result. The amount of happiness matters as well as the number of people involved.

So, what do you mean when you say rape has a strong tendency to make people unhappy?

Sometimes the answer to a question is so obvious that I don't know how to approach it. A rape victim may be traumatized for life. Her friends and family may be traumatized. Women who hear of her misfortune may be afraid to go out at night. It adds up to a lot of unhappiness. If you don't see that as outweighing the happiness of the rapist, then I don't know how to help you.

Hitler may have been happy about murdering millions of Jews, but he caused a great deal of unhappiness.

There are people out there who disagree that we would be better off without any rapes. You and I disagree with them. Why is our rule correct?

Because rape reduces people's happiness on average. Even if the rapist is happy, the resulting unhappiness outweighs that.

Now let's look at your way: Rape is bad because god says so. Why should anyone care?

Don't you like that example (rape) because the god-based rule happens to accord with our utilitarian instincts? Suppose we talked about the god-based rules where you don't get to wear two kinds of fabric, or don't get to eat shellfish, or have to murder your children if they talk back to you. Those rules don't accord with our utilitarian instincts, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to go along with them. So you'd get no traction if you tried to base your moral argument on those.

Imagine yourself on a soap box (or in the Prophet's Alley in Life of Brian) haranguing people with this: "If your kids talk back, you have to murder them. That's morality. But how would you justify that morality if there were no god? You couldn't do it. You'd have to let your children live? Wouldn't that be terrible? You'd better believe in gods."

You wouldn't get converts with that. If you want the moral argument to even seem plausible, you have to use examples where your god-based rules accord with utilitarianism.

[The Tanager]

1. If god(s) do not exist...

Or you don't get it.

Joe says the equator is a straight line (because Joe is viewing it from 0 degrees latitude).
Sara says it's a circle (she's at 90 degrees latitude).
Mike, at 45 degrees, says it's an ellipse.

These are subjective views, just like the rapist's view when he says rape is good because it makes him happy.

But there is, as you point out, an objective view of the equator, which is that it is a circle which will be seen as a straight line, a circle, or an ellipse, depending on where it is viewed from.

And there is, as I point out, an objective view of the harm rape does. This view acknowledges that rape makes some people happy and others unhappy, but notes that rape generally decreases happiness overall.

Here I see you saying the equator has an objective shape: circle. Person A says it is a straight line. Person B says it is a circle. Person C says it is an ellipse. Person B is correct. The others are wrong because they are taking the wrong things into account in making their judgment (for one, not rightly understanding how physical perspective can be skewed by viewing angles).

Now, the analogy. The action of rape has an objective truth: it is bad. Person A says it is bad. Person B says it is good. Person A is correct. Person B is wrong because they are taking the wrongs things into account in making their judgment.

The question becomes why rape is objectively bad. I was mistaken at first about how you answered that question:

And if the unhappiness caused by rape is subjective because some people like rape, then the shape of the equator is subjective because some people see it as an ellipse.

The context of my critique there was if one says happiness is goodness and unhappiness is badness (which I thought you might be saying, but I don't think you are now). If goodness is happiness, then the exact same specific rape is good to one and bad to another. That would be moral subjectivity, just like if the equator actually changed it's shape to those at different perspective angles. But the equator is a circle, it just looks like it's something else to Joe and Mike. And we both agree rape is only bad. It is a bad act made up of felt happiness and felt unhappiness by different people.

So, if we use one definition of "objective," then both the shape of the equator and the badness of rape are objective.

But if we use the other definition, then neither of them is objective.

In my experience, the moral argument always comes down to this equivocation. The theist always wants to use one definition so that god-based morality is objective, and then wants to use a different definition in order to show that atheist morality is subjective.

I don't see two different uses of 'objective' going on here. The equator's shape is a circle, independent of the differing answers of Joe, Mike and Sara. The equator's shape as it appears to someone viewing it at a 45 degree angle is an ellipse, independent of someone who claims: "no, it would look like a square to Mike." The action of rape is bad, independent of how the rapist or victim or victim's family opinions about it.

So, if the equator is objective, then is the net-unhappiness caused by rape is also objective.

First, this assumes there is a net-unhappiness. Can you prove there is? You seem to measure it in terms of overall utils rather than number of people on each side. How can we judge this?

Second, let's assume there is a net-unhappiness. We still must ask the question of why someone ought to care about the net-happiness of everyone. It's an objective fact that doctors need medical training. Okay, but that doesn't obligate the stay at home mother to go through that same medical training.

[The Tanager]

2. If god(s) exist...

Now let's look at how you define good. Sometimes you say it has to be dictated to us by a nonhuman--would a sea turtle suffice? That seems arbitrary and self serving since you want good to be determined by your nonhuman god.

This gets into sufficient and necessary conditions. I'm saying being nonhuman is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for anchoring human morality. The source of morality is outside of individual or majority human opinions; we don't invent it ourselves. It seems like you would agree that humans don't just make morality up themselves.

Other times, you say god is good even though no non-god dictates the nature of goodness to him.

Someone or something has to "dictate" it to humans for it to be objective to us, whether that is a god or a natural law or reason or whatever. Whatever "dictates" goodness must have a different relationship to it. Goodness is not independent from its ultimate source; that would be a logical contradiction. If goodness had to have that goodness dictated to it from something else, it wouldn't be the ultimate source of goodness. We would find ourselves in an infinite regress. That seems logically impossible to me here; it's got to stop somewhere. I'm not saying it can only stop at a god. I'm saying the other alternative stopping points fail for various reasons.

Sometimes you say that god is good by his nature, just happens to be good. At that point you are obviously judging god by some standard other than god's nature. Because there's a note of approval when you say god is good. You like that. But you wouldn't like it--you'd be indifferent to it--if all you meant is that god's nature is like god's nature.

I'm not judging it by another standard. Here we must analyze my view to see if it remains consistent. We start with my view: God is good by his nature. God creates humans in His image. Humans then judge what is good and bad from this knowledge, which is grounded in God's nature. God's nature is the standard. It may look like we are using a different standard to judge an action from God, but we actually aren't. Of course we aren't saying anything new by calling the standard of goodness good. I don't see the problem there. Whether it is true or not is another matter.

If a scorpion god created the world for the pleasure of stinging us to death, his nature would be like his nature, and therefore--according to your test--he would be good. That kind of goodness is meaningless.

If we were made in the scorpion god's image, we too would find pleasure in stinging things to death. And, in our language, this would be called 'morally good'. This is true of anything. If the natural laws were different, then the Earth might not be round. This doesn't mean the shape of Earth is meaningless or subjective.

Now let's look at your way: Rape is bad because god says so. Why should anyone care?

Don't you like that example (rape) because the god-based rule happens to accord with our utilitarian instincts?

I'm not saying utilitarianism is completely off on everything. I'm just saying it doesn't go all the way to objectivity. We should care because god's commands lead to true happiness and fulfillment, because god created us that way. That is what makes it fit. And the person who thinks rape leads to more happiness or doesn't care about net-happiness is wrong because they were actually made differently by god. If the god(s) don't exist, who is to say we are right and they are wrong? Socio-biological evolution has led us to our desires and beliefs and the rapist to their desires and beliefs. Why are they errors, but not us?

Suppose we talked about the god-based rules where you don't get to wear two kinds of fabric, or don't get to eat shellfish, or have to murder your children if they talk back to you. Those rules don't accord with our utilitarian instincts, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to go along with them. So you'd get no traction if you tried to base your moral argument on those.

Imagine yourself on a soap box (or in the Prophet's Alley in Life of Brian) haranguing people with this: "If your kids talk back, you have to murder them. That's morality. But how would you justify that morality if there were no god? You couldn't do it. You'd have to let your children live? Wouldn't that be terrible? You'd better believe in gods."

You wouldn't get converts with that. If you want the moral argument to even seem plausible, you have to use examples where your god-based rules accord with utilitarianism.

We shouldn't get bogged down in specific examples, at least not yet. I'm willing to talk about any and all of them. It may be that some of the Biblical rules are immoral. That doesn't change anything I've said so far. It would mean the Bible (at least as it stands now) is not the inerrant word of god(s). That is certainly something for Christians to look at, but I don't see how it's pertinent to this part of our discussion. I'm not trying to convert you to Christianity or even theism. We're trying to figure out if strong atheism and theism are consistent with objective morality.

[The Tanager]

Since it's been awhile with no new posts, I just wanted to thank you for your thoughts, challenges and the way you've conducted yourself here. You definitely increased my happiness and I hope it was the same with you. I hope to talk with you in the future on other topics as well (head to head or in general).

Peace,

Jason

[wiploc]

The ball was in my court. I don't know how I missed that.

Thanks for the nudge. I'll get on it.

[wiploc]

The context of my critique there was if one says happiness is goodness and unhappiness is badness (which I thought you might be saying, but I don't think you are now). If goodness is happiness, then the exact same specific rape is good to one and bad to another. That would be moral subjectivity, just like if the equator actually changed it's shape to those at different perspective angles. But the equator is a circle, it just looks like it's something else to Joe and Mike. And we both agree rape is only bad. It is a bad act made up of felt happiness and felt unhappiness by different people.

Often, I imagine, the rapist enjoys it. And anything that brings someone happiness is in that degree good.

So rape is a net evil, but not a pure evil.

So, if we use one definition of "objective," then both the shape of the equator and the badness of rape are objective.

But if we use the other definition, then neither of them is objective.

In my experience, the moral argument always comes down to this equivocation. The theist always wants to use one definition so that god-based morality is objective, and then wants to use a different definition in order to show that atheist morality is subjective.

I don't see two different uses of 'objective' going on here. The equator's shape is a circle, independent of the differing answers of Joe, Mike and Sara. The equator's shape as it appears to someone viewing it at a 45 degree angle is an ellipse, independent of someone who claims: "no, it would look like a square to Mike." The action of rape is bad, independent of how the rapist or victim or victim's family opinions about it.

It's bad because it makes people unhappy. That can hardly be independent of how people feel about it.

If it didn't make people unhappy, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. And, presumably, you wouldn't think your god forbids it.

So, if the equator is objective, then is the net-unhappiness caused by rape is also objective.

First, this assumes there is a net-unhappiness. Can you prove there is?

• It seems to me obvious.
  
  I stipulate that rape has a strong tendency to reduce happiness.
  
  I take judicial notice.
  
  I quote you saying, "the person who thinks rape leads to more happiness ... is wrong."

I don't think this is a serious issue.

You seem to measure it in terms of overall utils rather than number of people on each side. How can we judge this?

Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes we can never know. Sometimes the question of whether something results in a net increase or decrease of happiness will require thoughtful research.

In the case of rape, it is obvious. That's why we're talking about rape rather than, say, lawyers or soda pop.

Second, let's assume there is a net-unhappiness. We still must ask the question of why someone ought to care about the net-happiness of everyone.

On the one hand, I think that's obvious. On the other hand, I can't give you an explanation--which is admittedly frustrating. I can say that we are talking about morality, and morality is about increasing happiness. I don't know of anything else it could be about.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that this is a matter of aesthetics. Which is more aesthetically appealing, making people happy, or taking orders from an invisible eccentric? I notice that, at least at times, you come down on my side: You say, "We should care because god's commands lead to true happiness and fulfillment, because god created us that way." [emphasis added]

Spoken like a true utilitarian.

It's an objective fact that doctors need medical training. Okay, but that doesn't obligate the stay at home mother to go through that same medical training.

If you want to be a doctor, you need to get the training. If you want to make people happy, you need to be moral.

Whereupon you can be expected to ask, "But what if you don't want to make people happy?" And I can be expected to respond, "But what if you don't want to follow the orders of an invisible eccentric?"

Which we could be tempted to call a standoff, except for the fact that making people happy seems right. It seems like a good thing to do. If you want to make following the orders of a god appealing, you'll probably have to claim that we should do that because ... it will make people happy. Here you are again: "We should care because god's commands lead to true happiness and fulfillment..." [emphasis added]

Every decent person will agree that more happiness is better. I don't know why anybody would agree that following unearthly orders is good. I don't see any appeal in that at all.