The depravity of man

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The fact that you are still denying is that there is no universally 'correct' answer to any moral question if morality is subjective. It's all a matter of opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Those opinions that go against the consensus require justification however. For instance, the charges of theft against the poverty-stricken parent are obviously not morally justified. You, alas, would lack the freedom to agree with that position, right?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
Subjective opinions which are discussed, considered and weighed, and ultimately enshrined in law. Where is the reference for your god-given morality?

But if there is no universally 'correct' answer to a moral question you would simply have the majority enforcing their moral opinions upon a minority.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]The morality of any given thought, word or deed is subject to examination and argument.

If you have no objective standard for right and wrong then it means the 'examination and arguments' would simply be based upon subjective opinions and not facts.

Proverbs 6:30

Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry...[/b]

Oh ok, so provided I am hungry I can steal whatever I fancy from the supermarket then?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
But if there is no universally 'correct' answer to a moral question you would simply have the majority enforcing their moral opinions upon a minority.

Yes, that is what human society is all about, at least in theory and excepting the plutocrats.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Those opinions that go against the consensus require justification however. For instance, the charges of theft against the poverty-stricken parent are obviously not morally justified. You, alas, would lack the freedom to agree with that position, right?

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Exactly. Hitler and the Nazis are entitled to their opinion, as is the fellow that takes pleasure in torturing babies. This is the dilemma when morality is purely subjective.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Exactly. Hitler and the Nazis are entitled to their opinion, as is the fellow that takes pleasure in torturing babies. This is the dilemma when morality is purely subjective.[/b]

This is not a dilemma at all. I refer you to my previous comprehensive refutation of these two points in this very thread. Hitler and whichever nazis he could sway with his evil plans could not justify their actions in argument with the rest of the nazi party, let alone the rest of the world. The silly example of the sadistic torturer of babies is beneath consideration. The act of 'torture' is already accepted as being morally wrong by a massive consensus. One person may of course disagree with this consensus. He would clearly be insane, as torture, by it's very definition, is inarguably morally wrong when motivated only by the pleasure of the torturer.

Edit: A more interesting example is torture in the interest of exposing and preventing greater moral crimes, such as terrorist atrocities. Where does your scripture stand on this issue?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
This is not a dilemma at all. I refer you to my previous comprehensive refutation of these two points in this very thread. Hitler and whichever nazis he could sway with his evil plans could not justify their actions in argument with the rest of the nazi party, let alone the rest of the world. The silly example of the sadistic torturer of babies is b ...[text shortened]... r moral crimes, such as terrorist atrocities. Where does the your scripture stand on this issue?

If there is no universally 'correct' answer to a moral question there is no justification required for any action because everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If there is no universally 'correct' answer to a moral question there is no justification required for any action because everyone is entitled to their opinion.

If a billion people agree that an action is wrong, and one thinks it is right, the opinion of that one person can be safely dismissed, although his reasoning should be considered first. If half a billion hold one opinion and half a billion hold a contrary opinion, then you have a difficult issue to resolve. These issues abound in human society, as you may have noticed.

Repeatedly asserting that any opinion regardless of justification is equally valid does not make this position any stronger.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
If a billion people agree that an action is wrong, and one thinks it is right, the opinion of that one person can be safely dismissed, although his reasoning should be considered first. If half a billion hold one opinion and half a billion hold a contrary opinion, then you have a difficult issue to resolve. These issues abound in human society, as y ...[text shortened]... y opinion regardless of justification is equally valid does not make this position any stronger.

Argumentum ad populum. Why would reasoning have to be considered if there is no universally 'correct' answer to a moral question?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Argumentum ad populum. Why would reasoning have to be considered if there is no universally 'correct' answer to a moral question?

It is not an argument, is the careful weighing of the consequences of an act. Reasoning is required to justify a position which is contrary to consensus. Slavery used to be considered morally acceptable. It used to be considered morally acceptable that women were not permitted a vote in the democratic process. It used to be considered morally acceptable that homosexuality should be proscribed in law. In time, argument and reasoned justification has revealed that all these positions are actually morally wrong.

Edit: If an objective morality existed, how could these positions have been overturned within a population?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
It is not an argument, is the careful weighing of the consequences of an act. Reasoning is required to justify a position which is contrary to consensus. Slavery used to be considered morally acceptable. It used to be considered morally acceptable that women were not permitted a vote in the democratic process. It used to be considered morally accept ...[text shortened]... objective morality existed, how could these positions have been overturned within a population?

If reasoning is required to justify an act it means there has to be a correct answer or an objective standard by which to judge whether the reasoning is sound. If there is no objective standard you cannot tell whose reasoning is correct and whose isn't.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If reasoning is required to justify an act it means there has to be a correct answer or an objective standard by which to judge whether the reasoning is sound. If there is no objective standard you cannot tell whose reasoning is correct and whose isn't.

If reasoning is required to justify an act it means there has to be a correct answer...
Not so. Reasoning is required to weigh differing opinions against each other and choose which is better, usually but probably not invariably being that which leads to a more positive outcome for more people.

If you wish to continue this discussion further, please consider and respond to the questions I posed previously regarding torture and the change of accepted morals regarding slavery, votes for women and homosexuality.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
...Exactly. Hitler and the Nazis are entitled to their opinion, as is the fellow that takes pleasure in torturing babies. This is the dilemma when morality is purely subjective.

Your god says babies are guilty. It advocates slavery, genocide and misogeny. For starts! You've decided (subjectively!) to support that view. There is a fatal disconnect in your understanding.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If reasoning is required to justify an act it means there has to be a correct answer or an objective standard by which to judge whether the reasoning is sound. If there is no objective standard you cannot tell whose reasoning is correct and whose isn't.

It isn't that simple. What is the correct standard to use when we judge when a lion kills a deer? Is the act an objectively good thing or an objectively bad thing?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
[b]If reasoning is required to justify an act it means there has to be a correct answer...
Not so. Reasoning is required to weigh differing opinions against each other and choose which is better, usually but probably not invariably being that which leads to a more positive outcome for more people.

If you wish to continue this discussion fur ...[text shortened]... torture and the change of accepted morals regarding slavery, votes for women and homosexuality.[/b]

If the best moral system is that which brings the greatest happiness, the least amount of suffering, and the greatest freedom for as many people as possible what about slavery? The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that a minority of people should suffer in bondage. This way, the greatest amount of freedom for the majority is ensured. But if you say that it is wrong to enslave a minority to benefit the majority, then why is it wrong? Because you say so? If it’s wrong because the minority is suffering, so what? Why is suffering wrong? It may be unpleasant. It may not be nice. But, from an atheistic worldview, why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the majority?