Mike, demonstrate to me, objectively, that "objective morality" exists. You think I'm wrong. Show me why you think you're right.

I "get it", Jack. But your position is self refuting...if there is no objective morality then you have no basis to say that those who accept it are wrong; after all, all you admit into your system is subjectivity.

Moreover, since your position does not allow you to even say that the Holocaust was Objectively Wrong...I don't see that you have anything meaningful to say about morality.

And, while we're at it, that is a striking argument against atheism.

And while you may say I'm wrong, you have no basis whatsover for criticizing me.

Mike, demonstrate to me, objectively, that "objective morality" exists. You think I'm wrong. Show me why you think you're right.

See my answer in the previous post. Your position is self refuting.

And do you have a better position? It seems to me that having a subjective opinion that objective morality exists is pretty "self-refuting."

How do you know that "objective morality" exists? And how is your position anything other than a subjective opinion?

Yes. And it has been demonstrated in this thread; my position allows me to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong.

Yours does not, and that kind of thinking led to those kind of problems in the first place.

How do I know? I know from a study of history...the subjective position allows you to exuse anything.

I am quite serious when I say that someone who can not even argue that the Holocaust was objectively wrong has nothing meaningful to say about morality. In fact, I am quite suprised that you so readily gave in on an issue like the Holocaust being "subjectively wrong". As I said, that is a striking argument against atheism.

I take it you are not able to answer my questions. I'll let it go at that.

I did answer your questions.

You just don't like the answers.

To repeat, again, your position is self refuting. To expand on that, if all morality is subjective, it leads to contradictory postions.

A moral relativist might hold, for example, that violence is good for society, it makes it strong; or they might hold that it is bad for society, that it causes breakdown; or they might hold that it makes no difference for society...and yet, for the same society these can not all be right, and yet the moral relativist will say that none of them are wrong. Ergo, the positions are mutually contradictory.

Or perhaps an advocate of the positon of Moral Subjectivity might keep bringing up examples of poisoning people, as Dagny did without complaint, and ask under what circumstance this might be moral. The answer to the subjectivist is, or course, whenever people decide it is.

Or a moral relativist might claim that our morality comes from a consensus, as you do, and face a situation where everyone decides that Objective Morality exists...leading again to a self refuted Moral Subjectivity.

It also is interesting that the Atheist Moral Subjectivist frequently passes moral judgments on believers, as Dagny does, while at the same time ignoring that...according to their own premises...they have no basis for doing so.

But what the heck, Jack, you can't even argue that the Holocaust is Objectively Wrong...so maybe you should let it go at that.

Thinking that my position is wrong does not prove that your position is right. I'm asking for a positive argument from you that you can objectively show that "objective morality" exists.

If "objective morality" doesn't exist, then all your arguments about what's wrong with what you take to be my position are irrelevant.

My claim is that your belief in "objective morailty" is merely a subjective opinion.

So instead of telling me why you think that what you think I believe is false, tell me why you think what you believe is true.

And merely arguing, as you seem to be doing, that your belief leads to conclusions you like, and my belief leads to conclusions you don't, is an argument: it isn't. Without referring to what's wrong with my belief, what are your arguments for the proposition that "objective morality" exists.

That's the question you clearly haven't addressed.

On the contrary, Jack, you are in no postion to even criticize my claim that Objective Morality exists. Since you claim that all morality is subjective your claims themselves are subjective, which puts you in no position to refute anyone's moral claims.

(However, here are two positive arguments for you, which you simply skipped...you claim that Morality is determined by consensus; then by your own premise if the consensus is that Objective Morality exists, it exists.
Further, Objective Morality provides for consistency and reliance on logic...if three people who believe Objective Morality exists, but nevertheless have a disagreement, at least they can agree that at least one of them is wrong, which preserves logic. If three people who believe Subjective Morality is the rule, then if three of them disagree they still are bound by the irrational conclusion that none of them are wrong.)

But I want to be clear on your position...are you really saying that there are no Objectively Wrong moral positions?

Perhaps the Holocaust is too removed to discuss in practical terms...

How about:

Racism?
Sexism?
Rape?
Child Abuse?
Lying by politicians?
Teaching Creationism?

Is there ANYTHING you think is Objectively Wrong?

Reality is not determined by consensus. Morality may be. If someone believes that morality is determined by consensus it does not follow that thy accept a consensus of objective morality's existence.


The conclusion that none of them are objectively wrong is not irrational. Plus, reality is not required to be logical, although it mostly is.

"Reality is not required to be logical."

In your logical opinion?

But since you are here, do you believe that there is ANTHING in the list I gave in that post, which you left out, that is Objectively Wrong?

I'm not taking a position in this thread, just pointing out the errors in you "logic".

I see Mike is still on his flawed 'atheism is not inconsistent with anything' kick.


I'm not Jack, but I'll answer. Not in the sense of the word "Objectively" that you would mean: as being somehow immoral in reference to some standards that exist independently from human beings.


I recommend this video series on morality:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ&src_vid=sN-yLH4bXAI&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_870754
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_125060&src_vid=T7xt5LtgsxQ&feature=iv&v=hSS-88ShJfo
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_136893&src_vid=hSS-88ShJfo&v=sN-yLH4bXAI

You pointed out no errors, you simply restated my conclusion inaccurately.

But if realitity is not required to be logical, is logic a subjective system?