Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?

_{Barry Arrington
January 11, 2018

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recent exchange in this post William J. Murray said to frequent commenter Bob O’H:

all you (and others) are doing is avoiding the point via wordplay. We all act and expect others to act as if these things are objective and universally binding, the ability to imagine alternate systems notwithstanding.

That is precisely correct, as illustrated by my exchange with goodusername in the same post. First, at comment 12 GUN professed to not even know what the word “right” means:

GUN: “What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?”

I decided to test this:

Barry @ 13:

Suppose the following exchange:

GUN: Hey, Barry is is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

Barry: Yes, GUN, it is.

Did I supply a “right” answer to a moral question?

GUN replied at 15: “Such a thing certainly shocks my sense of empathy, and so I would fight to stop such a thing, as would most others. So the answer is right in that sense.”

First GUN insisted he does not even know what “morally right” means. But when confronted with an undeniable self-evident moral truth he had to walk it back and admit he did in fact know what the right answer is. But, as WJM points out, he tried to obscure the obvious point with wordplay. So I called BS on him.

GUN’s antics are just the latest of hundreds I have seen over the years. It is amazing. They know that no sane person can live his life as if what they say were true. Yet they absolutely insist on saying it anyway. Why do they do that? Simple. Because they want to ignore the dictates of morality when it suits them. Atheist Aldous Huxley was very candid about this:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.

Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (1937), 272-73

Huxley wanted to reserve the option of sleeping with his neighbor’s wife. So, no objective morality.

Comments

OA, pardon but you make a great error.
Forgive me, I'm not trying to be difficult. But could you sum it up for me?
These two directly echo the point in the parable of Plato’s Cave. And as Sepphoris of the Dekapolis was the town where Jesus likely worked as a Carpenter, the echo is probably deliberate.
I'm stunned. You strike me as a rather religious person yourself. Jesus constantly quoted the scriptures. He was wise beyond comprehension. He said that he didn't speak his own thoughts, but those God taught him. Are you suggesting that with all of that, his wisdom and knowledge was so limited that he had to resort to plagiarizing or even alluding to Plato? Because Plato mentioned darkness and light? The corruption of Christianity, of which both Jesus and Paul warned, was well underway when men began trying to harmonize it with the teachings of Greek philosophy. Jesus planted wheat and now the field is full of weeds. We can't truly appreciate the scriptures at all if we think they need any help from Plato.OldAndrew_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

T7, regarding cultures that condone abuse of children:
That’s actually happened in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
Guess who thought it was a "wise" idea? Aristotle:
and the lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted association with the male sex.
(That's just an irrelevant side point because I searched for his name in the Wikipedia article you linked. It's just that Aristotle has come up a few times and I thought I'd point out that Thomas Aquinas was a student of and advocate for someone who thought that sex with boys was okay, even wise.)
Are you saying culture and social mores don’t matter?
They matter a whole lot. So do individual morals. That's an understatement because I don't know what matters more. But believing (or not) that the morals we follow have an objective source is not what determines whether people will act morally. If anything is self-evident, I think everyone should be able to agree on that. I'm not saying that the difference between belief or disbelief in objective morality doesn't matter either. All I'm saying is that if that belief isn't an indication of what a person would actually do, then why use it as a basis for making accusations about the character of other people?OldAndrew_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

OA, pardon but you make a great error. It is of course self-evident that error exists -- but that is yet again one of the things that some objectors have hotly contested even in the face of simple, decisive demonstration of the undeniable truth. Likewise, it is a commonplace fact that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed, so it is unsurprising that determined evildoers will do what they wish to do to gain access to victims. But that is not the reason why we have been concerned to point to truth, especially self-evident truth and particularly moral cases. The first reason is, truth says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. That is, seeking truth -- an accurate map -- is the sane response to reality. In that context, history is replete with those who have sought to gain advantage from clinging to error. And indeed, we can see that if individuals and communities can be induced to somehow make a crooked yardstick their culturally entrenched standard for what is straight, accurate and upright, what is actually such will never measure up to that standard. So, when we see the sort of reaction we have seen -- 'philosophical nonsense' -- to a classic parable illustrating the point, The Parable of the Cave, that is a big red warning flag. We also live in a day of agit-prop operators who seek to divide and rule by way of inducing key sectors of our civilisation to do just this: adopt the crooked yardstick standard. The only defence strong enough to expose and break that -- short of going over the cliff in civilisational collapse, which seems to be palpably near (and which no sane person would counsel as a corrective) -- is self evident truth, including moral SETs. For, a plumb-line is undeniably naturally straight [true is the literal word used] and plumb, which will instantly expose the crooked yardstick for what it is, twisted. A dangerous, even suicidal standard. But even in the face of such an exposure, there will be those who have been sufficiently indoctrinated that they will refuse to look or will manufacture reasons to dismiss the plumb-line. Indeed another objector tried to appeal to side forces of gravity, not realising that they will be immaterial for such a case. Indeed, that is exactly why the plumb-line has become a proverbial term. Now, we have no naive expectation that setting up a plumb-line will open the minds of those sufficiently determined to object. Indeed, here are two Dominical sayings, the first from the very Sermon that expresses the core of Christian ethics, and the second showing the exact effect of making a crooked yardstick one's standard:
Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body; so if your eye is clear [spiritually perceptive], your whole body will be full of light [benefiting from God’s precepts]. 23 But if your eye is bad [spiritually blind], your whole body will be full of darkness [devoid of God’s precepts]. So if the [very] light inside you [your inner self, your heart, your conscience] is darkness, how great and terrible is that darkness! John 5: 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me [and continue in your unbelief]. [AMP]
These two directly echo the point in the parable of Plato's Cave. And as Sepphoris of the Dekapolis was the town where Jesus likely worked as a Carpenter, the echo is probably deliberate. One can reach a point where BECAUSE one is told the truth, s/he will reject it. That is ultimate blindness and corruption of heart, conscience and mind. Such an issue underscores the importance of commitment to truth despite how some will react to it. And indeed, there is a far more direct -- and patently real-world, historical -- echo of Plato's Parable of the Cave and his Parable of the Mutinous Ship of State, in Acts 27. This is a case where the sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears, so those who dismiss, neglect or willfully reject them doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over again. Paul, on his way to Rome as an appeals prisoner (in the face of bribery and assassination plots), is aboard a ship that through contrary winds has ended up in Fair havens. At Ship's Council, he warns on the experience of three prior shipwrecks and the common prudence of experience, that an attempt to slip 40 miles down coast to a nicer port was an imprudent risk. He was obviously brushed off by the force of the ship owner and his bought and paid for sailing master; the majority went along. Doubtless the argument ran like, oh it's only mid-October, we can get where we want in an afternoon. Risk is negligible. (I instantly hear very direct echoes from 20 years ago here.) When a south wind came up, the ship sailed. About half-way, it was seized in the typhonic winds of an early winter storm and was headed for the sandbars off the Libyan and Tunisian coasts as we would now term them. They managed to drag off to starward and drifted to Malta, a name that is pregnant with meaning: haven. But once they were there, anchored off a beach at midnight with storm waves still coming, the very same technico's who had given ruinous council plotted how to abandon ship and helpless passengers while saving themselves. Paul detected the plot and the Officer in charge cut away the boat. In short, this is not at all a matter of pointless idle debate on matters that make no difference. Our civilisation is in peril, and we desperately need means of sound discernment in the crisis. That, is what is being objected to. The implications are pretty plain. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

@OldAndrew, we can establish there are objective patterns to human flourishing without any recourse to source, just as we can establish objective patterns to physical phenomena without any recourse to why the patterns exist.EricMH_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

@tribune7, whether or not someone is mistaken about whether they are flourishing is besides the point.EricMH_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

SB
You have stated many times that society determines its own morality subjectively through its own governmental processes. That is what the German society did, which means that they passed your test for morality. Why, then, do you carry on as if you think it was immoral.
Each of us has established our own assemblage of moral values. If there is enough commonality within a society, government may enact some into the legal system. But something being accepted as morally right or wrong does not mean that everyone has to agree. Myself and most of western society think that it is morally right for same sex couples to get married if they want to. KF disagrees. When I say that societies determine what values they agree to live by, I was not passing a moral judgment on it, just that this is how societies function. Some societies adopt a set of values that is consistent with mine and I would judge those societies to be, by and large, moral societies. I would include Canada, the Scandinavian countries and s few others in this group. Some countries have adopted a set of values that are not consistent with mine and I would judge them to be less moral. But even within societies that I would judge to be moral societies, they may have some policies or values that I might consider immoral.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

This would all work so much better if framed as a positive statement rather than as an attack. People isolated by time, geography, and culture often arrive at similar conclusions regarding what is right and wrong. We call them "morals." Although the details vary and people at times disregard those morals, the commonalities are striking. Morals are different from the behaviors of animals, and have no evolutionary explanation (assuming that one assumes other behaviors do have evolutionary explanations.) For the most part animals behave selfishly, which contrasts with moral behavior. Even more striking, humans evaluate decisions according to their morality. They may choose to follow it or to ignore it. Animals don't appear to choose whether to act according to their instincts. Humans exhibit this moral capacity which, unlike animal behavior relies on abstract knowledge, is not selfish, and is not followed instinctively. This is strong evidence that human moral capacity is not the result of any evolutionary process. It's not scientific evidence. Most evidence of things that matter isn't. It is a piece of circumstantial evidence that, combined with lots of other evidence, could lead a reasoning person to conclude that humans were designed apart from animals and given this ability that we mostly seem to share. Whether or not a person reaches that conclusion depends largely on what conclusion they want to reach. That includes me. So there's not much point in beating anyone up over it. If we have reached that conclusion, then we no longer have to wonder why atheists talk about what is right and what is wrong. They do so for exactly the same reason that we do. If you can make the case that morals come from somewhere, that can lead to making a case for where they come from. But when addressing atheists it makes no sense to argue the conclusion - that the source of morals is objective and eternal - when you haven't established the premise that they come from somewhere at all. This discussion goes in circles because it's an attempt to force the conclusion without establishing the premise. It's unreasonable and ultimately just antagonistic, eventually turning into an excuse for self-righteous posturing.OldAndrew_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Objective morality is the claim there are objective patterns to human flourishing and happiness. I don’t know of anyone who would deny such a common sense proposition. It's not as common sense as you think. One human might find a particular behavior makes him flourishing and happy even though it makes another abjectly miserable. A group of people might find a behavior that makes them flourish and happy while making a much larger group miserable. What is to say they are wrong? Or maybe even more to the point a group might find something that makes them flourishing and happy but makes a smaller group miserable. Who says they are wrong?tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Objective morality is the claim there are objective patterns to human flourishing and happiness. I don't know of anyone who would deny such a common sense proposition.EricMH_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

JS
And maybe if the thousands of Christians who were complicit in the holocaust had considered the possible consequences of their objective morality, the holocaust may have been prevented.
You have stated many times that society determines its own morality subjectively through its own governmental processes. That is what the German society did, which means that they passed your test for morality. Why, then, do you carry on as if you think it was immoral.StephenB_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

JS, apparently, you still do not recognise that what you have been arguing pretty directly boils down to might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'knowledge,' 'rights,' etc. In short, you are clinging to an absurdity. You also simultaneously expect us to adhere to standards that you impose by strength of your rhetoric etc. Then, you seem to continually wish to intimidate through guilt by invidious association. Not to mention, refusing to acknowledge the significance of error exists for deep moral error to exist; thus the need for correction based on self-evident truth as only a plumb-line has sufficient natural power to overcome determined commitment to using a crooked yardstick. Further, at each point where we have expressed our discomfort with the action of others, you continue to try to play the guilt by association card. Now, too, ethics is a branch of philosophy, but when we point to relevant philosophical considerations, you try to brush aside what you clearly have no cogent answer to with the rhetorical force of empty terms such as 'nonsense.' All of this and more adds up to locked in, self-reinforcing, worldview level error. We therefore now exert the right of prudent protective action. KFkairosfocus_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

VB
So what’s this “morality” that you speak of that doesn’t exist? How can something exist that doesn’t exist? I wish the subjectivists would quit hijacking the language by using a word that describes something that does not exist to them and call it what does exist ie personal preference. Can we at least be a bit honest here?
And we go full circle. The ‘subjective morals are nothing more than personal preference’ argument. We all have a sense of morality, a sense of what is right and wrong. And we all react to violations of these “values” in the same way, at a gut level. That is not being questioned. What we are talking about is where these moral values come from. Some say that God made them. They are the objective morality crown. Others say that they are derived from humans themselves through teaching, experience, reinforcement, feedback, instinct, etc. They are the subjective morality crowd. Not to be confused with moral relativists. The theists argue that without objective moral truths we would have anarchy and we would frolic with the lemmings as we go over the cliff to ruin. Their predictions of a society that only had subjectively derived moral values are always dire. Things like tyranny, wars, anarchy, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. But they never mention the fact that it could also result in a welcoming, mutually beneficial society. One that values diversity. One that values freedom. One that values the equality of women. One that accepts homosexuality as normal. The one thing that can, and does, stand in the way of these values being realized are people who blindly accept that their moral values are objectively true. If societies are based on objective moral values, we would expect to see less diversity amongst cultures than we see today, and than we have seen over time. If societies are based on subjective moral values we would expect to see a huge variety of differences; many failed experiments, many moderately successful, and some very successful.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

OA You are saying that social acceptance of subjective morality is irrelevant. Is that what you believe? People argue that the moral subjectivist (I hate even typing something so inane) would accept molesting children if taught different morals, That's actually happened in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece Are you saying culture and social mores don't matter?tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

JS All the time. And maybe if the thousands of Christians who were complicit in the holocaust had considered the possible consequences of their objective morality, the holocaust may have been prevented. Or maybe if the people who jailed homosexuals had have thought about what they were told was an objective moral truth, centuries of persecution of homosexuals might have been prevented. You say you don't believe in objective morals yet you judge others for things that you find -- at this moment -- immoral. I think your motivation is personal and emotion based. It has nothing to do with the pursuit of truth.tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Sev RE 89 “Speaking personally, because I don’t think there is any such thing. That doesn’t mean I don’t think there is any morality worth having. I do. But I think it’s something we have to work out for ourselves, something we can work out for ourselves. What do I mean by ‘objective’? I mean that which is held to exist regardless of whether it is being conceived or perceived by conscious beings such as ourselves.” So what’s this “morality” that you speak of that doesn’t exist? How can something exist that doesn’t exist? I wish the subjectivists would quit hijacking the language by using a word that describes something that does not exist to them and call it what does exist ie personal preference. Can we at least be a bit honest here? Vividvividbleau_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

This perfectly illustrates why this subject doesn't deserve the attention it's getting. Regarding child-molesting priests: JS:
But they [including the aforementioned child-molesting priests] all certainly violate the moral values that I have developed from childhood.
T7:
So with the right amount of counter development say orchestrated sitcoms, planted news stories, and appropriately processed popular music you could find yourself amenable to child rape, correct? Why not?
This demonstrates, perfectly, what no one can deny: The belief or disbelief that objective morality exists is not a factor that determines whether a person rapes children or commits other immoral acts. The absurdity of this discussion is that it elevates the basis we perceive for our morals far above what we actually do. You don't torture children and you never would, but you don't not do it for the same reason that I don't do it. People argue that the moral subjectivist (I hate even typing something so inane) would accept molesting children if taught different morals, while ignoring that some moral objectivists molest children anyway. So do some moral subjectivists. It's not about whether objectivism or subjectivism is right. It's just that knowing whether someone is an objectivist or a subjectivist is a really lousy indicator of whether they will molest children. Imagine you have some bizarre emergency and you have to entrust care of your child to a random stranger. This where the rubber hits the road. What's the first question you're going to ask? Are you a moral objectivist or subjectivist? Is that the second question you'd ask? The third? All this fuss over objective morality is just another way of saying that I don't care whether you actually act morally or not. You're not right if you don't accept my objective morality - in other words, you're not right until you share my religious beliefs. I happen to think that everyone should share my religious beliefs. I actually mean that. But comparing them to Hitler because they don't would be profoundly stupid. So would be asserting that you should accept my religion because it's a self-evident objective reality. (I guarantee you the next step after that is an argument over competing self-evident objective realities - in other words, my religion vs. yours.) Here's a more useful question to obsess over. Why do some moral objectivists and subjectivists molest children while other moral objectivists and subjectivists don't?OldAndrew_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

T7
You don’t know? You never consider the possible personal consequences of your subjective morality?
All the time. And maybe if the thousands of Christians who were complicit in the holocaust had considered the possible consequences of their objective morality, the holocaust may have been prevented. Or maybe if the people who jailed homosexuals had have thought about what they were told was an objective moral truth, centuries of persecution of homosexuals might have been prevented.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 106
Eric MH
Seems self evident that objective morality exists. If a society kills its existing children, refuses to create new children, parties away its finances, and commits suicide once said finances are gone, then it will shortly cease to exist. What is so controversial?
Objective morality is, indeed, self evident. Subjectivists do not deny it because they believe it doesn’t exist. They deny it because they don’t want it to be true.
Subjectivists do deny it because they don't believe objective morality is self-evident or that it exists outside human consciousness. Objectivists explain the denial away to themselves in that way because the alternative would undermine much of what they need to believe.Seversky_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

JS I don’t know. Ask the pedophile priests. You don't know? You never consider the possible personal consequences of your subjective morality?tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

T7
So with the right amount of counter development say orchestrated sitcoms, planted news stories, and appropriately processed popular music you could find yourself amenable to child rape, correct? Why not?
I don’t know. Ask the pedophile priests.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

JS But they all certainly violate the moral values that I have developed from childhood. So with the right amount of counter development say orchestrated sitcoms, planted news stories, and appropriately processed popular music you could find yourself amenable to child rape, correct? Why not?tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

SB
Objective morality is, indeed, self evident. Subjectivists do not deny it because they believe it doesn’t exist. They deny it because they don’t want it to be true.
I took Eric’s comment to be sarcasm. But maybe I was wrong.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

T7
So when we point out that ancient societies sacrificed children to idols and modern societies killed millions for racial aesthetics, and that these things are in violation of an eternal moral order and you say no they are not and we point out that you are saying no they are not, why do you take offense?
Since I don’t think these acts are in violation of any objective, eternal moral order, why would I take offence of anyone pointing out to me what I believe? Do you want me to say it again? Hitler did not violate any objective, eternal moral order when he killed millions. Mesoamerican societies were not violating any objective, eternal moral order when they sacrificed children. Bin Laden didn’t violate any objective, eternal moral order when he brought down the World Trade towers. Dozens of priests didn’t violate any objective, eternal moral order when they raped little boys, and church authority did not violate any objective, eternal moral order when they covered up for the priests. But they all certainly violate the moral values that I have developed from childhood.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

T7
If quoting you verbatim makes it easier to explain your position, you won’t stop me.
Please do.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Eric MH
Seems self evident that objective morality exists. If a society kills its existing children, refuses to create new children, parties away its finances, and commits suicide once said finances are gone, then it will shortly cease to exist. What is so controversial?
Objective morality is, indeed, self evident. Subjectivists do not deny it because they believe it doesn't exist. They deny it because they don't want it to be true.StephenB_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

JS You and KF and fellow travellers of your ilk see a highly variable moral system (over time and amongst current society) and attribute it to some societies acting in violation of objective and eternal moral values. Willfully ignoring the more likely explanation. That there are no objective and eternal moral values. So when we point out that ancient societies sacrificed children to idols and modern societies killed millions for racial aesthetics, and that these things are in violation of an eternal moral order and you say no they are not and we point out that you are saying no they are not, why do you take offense?tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

JS If misreprenting my comments make it easier to support your opinion, don’t let me stop you. If quoting you verbatim makes it easier to explain your position, you won't stop me.tribune7_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Seems self evident that objective morality exists. If a society kills its existing children, refuses to create new children, parties away its finances, and commits suicide once said finances are gone, then it will shortly cease to exist. What is so controversial?EricMH_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

SB
I, for one, am not a big fan of extravagant exercises in name calling.
And I have not suggested otherwise.
However, you continue to miss the irony: Your outrage obviously stems from a strong conviction that your adversaries have violated some objective standard of right and wrong. Otherwise, there would be no reason to be offended.
You mistake amusement with outrage. When people resort to attacking character rather than the substance of an argument, you know that they don’t have any evidence or rationale to argue with. Or they are just insecure little individuals who derive self worth from demeaning others.
If morality is subjective, as you claim, then your adversaries are entitled decide the morality of name calling for themselves, which means you have no reason to complain, inasmuch as they are acting on *your* principles. Don’t you get it?
Obviously, some here have already decided that name calling is morally acceptable. Even though I feel that calling people names is morally unacceptable, something drummed into me as a kid, I would never try to stop someone from doing it to me because I also believe that it says more about the name caller. And not in a favourable way. However, if I saw that name calling was affecting someone else, I would intervene. As, I assume, you would as well.JSmith_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

JS
I provided an observation that the arguments against subjective morality are largely lame philosophical arguments peppered with more than a few character attacks on those who disagree with you.…
I, for one, am not a big fan of extravagant exercises in name calling. I prefer to address bad ideas and leave the character assassination out of it. That is why I choose to refute you errors rather than to attack you personally. However, you continue to miss the irony: Your outrage obviously stems from a strong conviction that your adversaries have violated some objective standard of right and wrong. Otherwise, there would be no reason to be offended. If morality is subjective, as you claim, then your adversaries are entitled decide the morality of name calling for themselves, which means you have no reason to complain, inasmuch as they are acting on *your* principles. Don't you get it?StephenB_{January 13, 2018
January
01
Jan
13
13
2018
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply