Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality

[PaulConventionWV]

The repeated references to the Middle Ages in this thread aren't meant as an "Ah HA! Morality doesn't come from religion!" but rather, to show that maybe human understandings of morality have evolved over the past half millennium. That it was acceptable to use devices of torture liberally to induce confessions, or to treat women as de facto property in the context of marriage, suggests that if there is an "Absolute Objective Morality", then people from one generation or another were just missing it wholesale. Meaning, you're not likely to meet a lot of your ancestors at the big pearly gates.

Well, now you're getting into how the Bible says God punishes people who are wrong and that is a completely different theological subject. I've never claimed that human understanding of objective morality has been consistent, but how consistent does it have to be? Again, that's a completely different topic. The philosophical discussion about the existence of objective morality is completely independent of all of that and, naturally, the ones who deny objective morality are the ones who constantly bring it up as if it were relevant to the actual existence of objective morality.

This is why I refer to morality in anthropological terms - moral codes have varied drastically across societies and across times. The thought of an "Absolute Objective Morality" is much easier to think about today, when information has proliferated from all corners of the earth onto your computer screen. You can understand different cultures, examine their decisions, and come to the conclusion that they are acting in the interest of, and out of deference to, the same principles. But 1000 years ago, if a tribe came across a foreign tribe on land near your village and they didn't speak the language, one of them was going to be eliminated through a massacre to protect the others' interests - and neither of them had any moral qualms with it, for that was life. The point being, human understanding is the basis of morality in the modern age. We have not turned ever closer to an "Absolute Objective Morality" because we've come closer to a higher power. In fact I frequently hear from the same religious channels that we have turned away from God now more than ever.

I'm not denying this, but I am skeptical of your claim of how societies acted "1000 years ago". Are you referring to something specific that is in the historical records, or are you relying on your understanding of what the past was like?

[PaulConventionWV]

Absurd, is it? Maybe you read that a little too quickly?

Let's try this again. Radio is a means of communication. It always was. Even in the case of a harmless toy radio-controlled scale model of a nice old Fokker, radio is a means of communication--you communicate to the control transmitter what you want the ailerons and the rudder and elevators to do, and the little servos inside the model move them accordingly. But that means the radio is not only a means of communication, but a means of control. They found a new use for the communicative powers of radio that allows something to be controlled by adding servos connected to the receiver.

Organized religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and then it was used that way anyway.

I'm asking you how you came to the conclusion that religion is anything like the process you just described.

Is it still an absurd analogy now that you've slowed down from ninety to nothing and actually read it, instead of skimming every third word? Because I'd hate to be unjustly absurd. That would just leave me feeling insulted all over.

I love how you assume I'm skimming. I don't get the analogy because I don't know how you took that entire mechanism and applied it to something completely different. It's apples to oranges. You're comparing a mechanical, automated process to something that is neither mechanical nor automated.

Ae you sure you're not asking him if he's Roman Catholic...?

Forgive me my ignorance of the history of the Catholic church.

[malkusm]

Well, now you're getting into how the Bible says God punishes people who are wrong and that is a completely different theological subject. I've never claimed that human understanding of objective morality has been consistent, but how consistent does it have to be? Again, that's a completely different topic. The philosophical discussion about the existence of objective morality is completely independent of all of that and, naturally, the ones who deny objective morality are the ones who constantly bring it up as if it were relevant to the actual existence of objective morality.

I think it's fair to distinguish between understanding of morality and the morality itself. The last sentence wasn't necessary but I'll forgive it.

What is the purpose of establishing that "objective morality" exists, then? If it is not to extoll the virtues of religion, nor to warn against the evils of atheism, nor to establish a basis for judgment in the eyes of God.... then, what is the purpose of convincing others that "objective morality" exists? The tone in this thread (and actually in the very thread title) suggests that if we turn away from God that we can't live according to true moral principles. But since people have lived under God and not understood the true moral principles, that doesn't seem very relevant.

I'm not denying this, but I am skeptical of your claim of how societies acted in the past. Is this something you have historical records for, or are you referring to the unknown "caveman" era and assuming that's how they did it (because that's how a creature closer to an animal than a human would do it)?

Look at how spirituality developed in the far east, or how attitudes around money developed in the Middle East, or how familial structures developed in Africa, and compare them to what your western worldview is. It seems pretty self-explanatory that societies have formed completely different viewpoints on right/wrong over time and place. The purpose of this point was to suggest that morality is not necessarily a priori. But, I am willing to punt on that point, ceding that there can exist something objective which does not necessarily guide human action and is understood by all of these societies to varying degrees.

[erowe1]

What is the purpose of establishing that "objective morality" exists, then?

One reason is as an argument that God exists. Everyone innately knows that objective morality exists. This is a theistic belief. They may not acknowledge that they know it, or that it does entail theism. But it's just a matter of getting them to realize that they do and that it does.

Also, acknowledging that objective morality exists is a prerequisite to studying it with the goal of better understanding what it really is so that we can act accordingly.

[acptulsa]

I'm asking you how you came to the conclusion that religion is anything like the process you just described.

What part of, 'Organized religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and then it was used that way anyway,' do you not understand?

I love how you assume I'm skimming. I don't get the analogy because I don't know how you took that entire mechanism and applied it to something completely different. It's apples to oranges. You're comparing a mechanical, automated process to something that is neither mechanical nor automated.

You really called me absurd simply because you, unlike 95-98% of the human population, can't handle non-organic analogies applied to organic situations? And yet, you compare my non-organic analogy to apples and oranges, which are organic? Now I'm the one who is confused.

Forgive me my ignorance of the history of the Catholic church.

Not my place. I'm not a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church who doesn't take particularly kindly to being called a Roman Catholic.

[erowe1]

It seems pretty self-explanatory that societies have formed completely different viewpoints on right/wrong over time and place.

I don't see that, unless you focus on the differences rather than the similarities.

But also, where these differences exist, some of these viewpoints are relatively better or worse than others. In order to be able to say that one society's morality is in this or that respect superior to another's, and to be able to work to improve those that are inferior, you first have to recognize that there exists an objective standard out there against which they each can be measured.

[malkusm]

I don't see that, unless you focus on the differences rather than the similarities.

But also, where these differences exist, some of these viewpoints are relatively better or worse than others. In order to be able to say that one society's morality is in this or that respect superior to another's, and to be able to work to improve those that are inferior, you first have to recognize that there exists an objective standard out there against which they each can be measured.

Not really, that's what an opinion is. I can state, for example, that Willie Mays was a better baseball player than Ken Griffey, Jr. There is no objective standard for what makes a baseball player good, nor is there a theoretical "best" baseball player. Yet, opinion on this comparison is nearly universal, and there are thousands of baseball players who, right now, are working to improve themselves because they view themselves as inferior.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think it's fair to distinguish between understanding of morality and the morality itself. The last sentence wasn't necessary but I'll forgive it.

The distinction is fair, but it's not really relevant.

What is the purpose of establishing that "objective morality" exists, then? If it is not to extoll the virtues of religion, nor to warn against the evils of atheism, nor to establish a basis for judgment in the eyes of God.... then, what is the purpose of convincing others that "objective morality" exists? The tone in this thread (and actually in the very thread title) suggests that if we turn away from God that we can't live according to true moral principles. But since people have lived under God and not understood the true moral principles, that doesn't seem very relevant.

The purpose of establishing that objective morality exists is to get people to think about why they view things as right or wrong and where those mores come from. There are many people out there who claim there is no objective morality and in the same breath criticize Christianity for its immorality. The point is that it's contradictory to claim that no objective morality exists and then claim that what the God of the Bible does is immoral as if they had any basis for criticizing something other than their own subjective views. They could say they believed it was right or wrong, but they would have no basis for that belief, either if they truly denied the existence of absolute morality.

Inevitably, many atheists will revert back to the tautology that they CAN exercise moral discrimination and simultaneously use that as a REASON for exercising moral discrimination, but they never really seem to question where this morality comes from. They take it for granted and use it as if it was absolute, but they also deny that it can be absolute, so why criticize anything?

Look at how spirituality developed in the far east, or how attitudes around money developed in the Middle East, or how familial structures developed in Africa, and compare them to what your western worldview is. It seems pretty self-explanatory that societies have formed completely different viewpoints on right/wrong over time and place. The purpose of this point was to suggest that morality is not necessarily a priori. But, I am willing to punt on that point, ceding that there can exist something objective which does not necessarily guide human action and is understood by all of these societies to varying degrees.

That's my point. The only reason I called your assertion into question is because you seem to be suggesting a high degree of variance and I was wondering what you were basing that claim on. The difference, however, may not seem so stark when you actually see it from the proper perspective. Knowing that eskimos sometimes killed their young might lead you to believe they were savages until you considered the climate and environment they had to deal with. They could only handle one or two kids and it would be viewed as a mercy killing to get rid of the ones that could not survive. In that light, we might see ourselves doing something similar, so it's questionable how much we actually vary on our ideas of morality, and yet there is undeniably some variance that should make us question why any morality is right or wrong instead of just popular or unpopular.

[malkusm]

Both of you have made a similar claim, which is that "objective morality" must exist in order for any opinion on morality to be valid.

Is there then an "objective form of government?"
Is there then an "objective diet?"
Is there then an "objective (insert any other term in place of morality)"?

Should I just stop having opinions on things because I can't justify them through the knowledge of the existence of a true objective standard?

[PaulConventionWV]

What part of, 'Organized religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and then it was used that way anyway,' do you not understand?

I understand it perfectly, despite your condescension. What I am questioning is your second statement, that controlling religion was "discovered to be possible" by which I assume you mean "discovered to be practical" since anything is possible, but I doubt the elite would have any interest in doing it since it is probably not practical.

You really called me absurd simply because you, unlike 95-98% of the human population, can't handle non-organic analogies applied to organic situations? And yet, you compare my non-organic analogy to apples and oranges, which are organic? Now I'm the one who is confused.

I never called you absurd. I called your analogy absurd. You seem to be intentionally confusing yourself since what I am saying seems to be quite clear to me. You're making an analogy to justify similarity between two things that have very little similarity in actuality. I'm asking what basis you have for making the assertion that "Religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and used that way anyway." What basis do you have for saying it was used that way?

[PaulConventionWV]

Not really, that's what an opinion is. I can state, for example, that Willie Mays was a better baseball player than Ken Griffey, Jr. There is no objective standard for what makes a baseball player good, nor is there a theoretical "best" baseball player. Yet, opinion on this comparison is nearly universal, and there are thousands of baseball players who, right now, are working to improve themselves because they view themselves as inferior.

So you're saying slavery was actually right at the time that they did it because it's really just a matter of opinion? After all, it was pretty universal in the southern US at the time, so that makes it okay, right?

[PaulConventionWV]

Both of you have made a similar claim, which is that "objective morality" must exist in order for any opinion on morality to be valid.

Is there then an "objective form of government?"
Is there then an "objective diet?"
Is there then an "objective (insert any other term in place of morality)"?

Should I just stop having opinions on things because I can't justify them through the knowledge of the existence of a true objective standard?

There is a worse, better, and best diet; there is a worse, better, and best form of government. This implies that there IS an objective best for every one of those things. We may not know exactly what it is, but that doesn't mean it does not exist.

We can justify our beliefs based on what we know about better/worse, unless we are claiming that there is no objective "best", which would imply that a diet of Twinkies is just as good as a well-balanced diet. You're not making the claim that there's no objective best diet, are you?

[malkusm]

So you're saying slavery was actually right at the time that they did it because it's really just a matter of opinion? After all, it was pretty universal in the southern US at the time, so that makes it okay, right?

I'm saying that it's perfectly valid for me, as a human being, to form the view that slavery is immoral. It is perfectly valid for me to explain my reasons for this viewpoint. I don't need to believe that there is one true standard morality, in much the same way that I don't need to believe that there is one true standard for anything else I argue.

What you're really arguing, when it boils down to it, is that your viewpoint of morality is correct because it's based on an objective standard, whereas my viewpoint is incorrect because it's not. Except that your belief in an objective standard is.... a subjective belief.

[acptulsa]

I understand it perfectly, despite your condescension. What I am questioning is your second statement, that controlling religion was "discovered to be possible" by which I assume you mean "discovered to be practical" since anything is possible, but I doubt the elite would have any interest in doing it since it is probably not practical.



I never called you absurd. I called your analogy absurd. You seem to be intentionally confusing yourself since what I am saying seems to be quite clear to me. You're making an analogy to justify similarity between two things that have very little similarity in actuality. I'm asking what basis you have for making the assertion that "Religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and used that way anyway." What basis do you have for saying it was used that way?

Seriously? You need proof of that?

Wow.

And yet, you said this...

Exactly. Religion is not a control mechanism. The tyrants promote atheism because God gets in their way. The Catholic church was rather clever in this regard by making themselves the authority and thereby setting themselves up as the ones to be worshiped instead of God. It's all about who the authority is. You cannot have God as an ultimate authority and expect to control anyone unless you pretend that you can speak for God and set yourself up as the only available authority. There is a big difference between the church and the religion. One is based around the following and worshiping of God, the other is based around the following and worshiping of fallible men.

And no, I haven't been on this forum for a while, but I am aware of the concepts you are relating. I just think it's important to make the distinction between men who make themselves the authority by referencing God and those who tell people that they can directly communicate with God. Religion itself, however, is not a control mechanism.

Having trouble making up your mind?

[malkusm]

There is a worse, better, and best diet; there is a worse, better, and best form of government. This implies that there IS an objective best for every one of those things. We may not know exactly what it is, but that doesn't mean it does not exist.

What? OK, that's totally not what I expected you to say in response to this. There is a "best diet"? Maybe there is a "best diet" for you personally. Maybe I'm allergic to half the stuff that's in your personal "best diet". Does that mean it's objectively, universally, the best diet? Is the standard based on nutritional value? Taste? Quality of ingredients? A ratio of all these things? What higher power determined the ratio between these things when setting the standard?

[acptulsa]

What? OK, that's totally not what I expected you to say in response to this. There is a "best diet"? Maybe there is a "best diet" for you personally. Maybe I'm allergic to half the stuff that's in your personal "best diet". Does that mean it's objectively, universally, the best diet? Is the standard based on nutritional value? Taste? Quality of ingredients? A ratio of all these things? What higher power determined the ratio between these things when setting the standard?

And what if my physiology is completely different? What if I need more protein, or less? What if I weigh twice as much, and therefore burn twice as many calories climbing the same ladder? Are we Michelle Obama now, and able to decree that I can get along on exactly the same number of calories and the same amount of protein that you can?

And don't start calling the analogy absurd. For one thing, we can differ just as widely in our spiritual needs. For another, this time you'd be insulting your own analogy, not mine.

[malkusm]

In full disclosure, and in an effort to make clear that I'm not mocking or bashing religion, I believe there's probably a higher power / plane of existence governing things. I just don't think there's an objective standard against which morality, or anything else, is measured. I believe we have the capacity to reason in order to account for context and adapt to the relevant variables in all decisions we make and opinions we form. I also believe that, as a reflection of God ("made in His image"), probably God is taking context into account as well when evaluating our morality.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm saying that it's perfectly valid for me, as a human being, to form the view that slavery is immoral. It is perfectly valid for me to explain my reasons for this viewpoint. I don't need to believe that there is one true standard morality, in much the same way that I don't need to believe that there is one true standard for anything else I argue.

But you're also saying it's perfectly valid for someone else to form a completely different view. Without an objective standard for morality, there is no way to reason your way to the correct answer, so using reason doesn't justify why you should punish others for misbehaving according to your beliefs since you don't actually believe there is one correct answer.

What you're really arguing, when it boils down to it, is that your viewpoint of morality is correct because it's based on an objective standard, whereas my viewpoint is incorrect because it's not. Except that your belief in an objective standard is.... a subjective belief.

I never said your view was incorrect. I'm simply saying that, if that's what you believe, then you have no basis for saying what is correct or incorrect moral behavior and you have no way of judging whether anyone else's actions are moral or immoral.

[PaulConventionWV]

Seriously? You need proof of that?

Wow.

And yet, you said this...



Having trouble making up your mind?

Would you care to elaborate on this supposed contradiction instead of just re-posting my own words, which, naturally, make perfect sense to me?

And why are you acting surprised that I need proof of something? You're not being reasonable when you just make statements of shock as if what I said was somehow unreasonable.

[acptulsa]

But you're also saying it's perfectly valid for someone else to form a completely different view. Without an objective standard for morality, there is no way to reason your way to the correct answer, so using reason doesn't justify why you should punish others for misbehaving according to your beliefs since you don't actually believe there is one correct answer.

And there is with an 'objective' standard? The Bible sets its standard with a string of parables for a reason. Each moral situation is different, and loaded with variables too numerous to count which must be weighed before a moral decision can be reached.

I never said your view was incorrect. I'm simply saying that, if that's what you believe, then you have no basis for saying what is correct or incorrect moral behavior and you have no way of judging whether anyone else's actions are moral or immoral.

There are ways, but there's no way to make it easy--and if you can't find out about all the variables that the person you're trying to judge knows about, you can't objectively and accurately judge that person. Which is why part of Christianity's objective standard of morality is a restriction on judging people.

Would you care to elaborate on this supposed contradiction instead of just re-posting my own words, which, naturally, make perfect sense to me?

And why are you acting surprised that I need proof of something? You're not being reasonable when you just make statements of shock as if what I said was somehow unreasonable.

I see. But you still haven't rectified this...

The Catholic church was rather clever in this regard by making themselves the authority and thereby setting themselves up as the ones to be worshiped instead of God. It's all about who the authority is. You cannot have God as an ultimate authority and expect to control anyone unless you pretend that you can speak for God and set yourself up as the only available authority. There is a big difference between the church and the religion. One is based around the following and worshiping of God, the other is based around the following and worshiping of fallible men.

And no, I haven't been on this forum for a while, but I am aware of the concepts you are relating. I just think it's important to make the distinction between men who make themselves the authority by referencing God and those who tell people that they can directly communicate with God.

...with this.

I never called you absurd. I called your analogy absurd. You seem to be intentionally confusing yourself since what I am saying seems to be quite clear to me. You're making an analogy to justify similarity between two things that have very little similarity in actuality. I'm asking what basis you have for making the assertion that "Religion, too, was not conceived as a method of control, but it was discovered to be possible and used that way anyway." What basis do you have for saying it was used that way?

[PaulConventionWV]

What? OK, that's totally not what I expected you to say in response to this. There is a "best diet"? Maybe there is a "best diet" for you personally. Maybe I'm allergic to half the stuff that's in your personal "best diet". Does that mean it's objectively, universally, the best diet? Is the standard based on nutritional value? Taste? Quality of ingredients? A ratio of all these things? What higher power determined the ratio between these things when setting the standard?

You're acting like I'm trying to claim there is a morally best diet, when that's not what I'm doing at all. I'm saying there is an objectively best diet for optimal human health, which is the purpose for any diet.

All of your musings about food allergies aside, what I'm saying is this: If there is no best, then there is no better or worse, and yet we all know that a balanced diet with fruit and vegetables is better than a diet of Twinkies. How do we know that if there is no best? Because in order to know if something is "better", we must be able to tell whether it is getting closer to the best or farther away. If there is no best, then you can't judge anything as being closer to or farther away from the best.

We may not know exactly what the best diet is (some people certainly think they do), but we all know in our hearts that the answer is out there.

[PaulConventionWV]

And there is with an 'objective' standard? The Bible sets its standard with a string of parables for a reason. Each moral situation is different, and loaded with variables too numerous to count which must be weighed before a moral decision can be reached.

Yes, that is the definition of objectivity. There has to be one correct answer. Of course they vary from situation to situation, but that does not mean there is no objective best or correct course of action for any particular situation you might find yourself in.

There are ways, but there's no way to make it easy--and if you can't find out about all the variables that the person you're trying to judge knows about, you can't objectively and accurately judge that person. Which is why part of Christianity's objective standard of morality is a restriction on judging people.

What are these ways? If you deny that there is a best morality, then how can you judge whether something is better or worse? See what you're really doing is acknowledging that absolute morality does exist and you just think it just can't be discovered. My point is that the only way there can be an objective best morality for any situation, is if something greater than, independent of, and outside of the natural universe pre-ordained these bests. If we claim that there is no objective best, then we are really denying what we know to be true, which is that there is an absolute standard outside of the universe and that we can choose to acknowledge it or not, but we cannot make it any less real with our beliefs.

[PaulConventionWV]

And what if my physiology is completely different? What if I need more protein, or less? What if I weigh twice as much, and therefore burn twice as many calories climbing the same ladder? Are we Michelle Obama now, and able to decree that I can get along on exactly the same number of calories and the same amount of protein that you can?

The fact that there are varying situations does not mean there is no objective best for every particular situation. We all know that vegetables are objectively better than Twinkies. We may not always know exactly what the best is, but we do know it exists out there no matter what situation you might find yourself in. If we need more protein, then we know it's objectively better to have more protein than less. We would have no basis for this belief if there truly was no best because, if there is no best, then it is impossible to say whether something is really closer to or farther away from it.

And don't start calling the analogy absurd. For one thing, we can differ just as widely in our spiritual needs. For another, this time you'd be insulting your own analogy, not mine.

I fully understand and acknowledge the validity of your analogy, but your interpretation of it is wrong. You are using it to say that there is no objective best when what you're really doing is proving that there IS an objective best by saying that people NEED certain things because they are BETTER than other things.

[PaulConventionWV]

In full disclosure, and in an effort to make clear that I'm not mocking or bashing religion, I believe there's probably a higher power / plane of existence governing things. I just don't think there's an objective standard against which morality, or anything else, is measured. I believe we have the capacity to reason in order to account for context and adapt to the relevant variables in all decisions we make and opinions we form. I also believe that, as a reflection of God ("made in His image"), probably God is taking context into account as well when evaluating our morality.

Exactly. Context does not preclude the existence of absolute morality. There can be an absolute best morality for every context, no matter how many there may be. We don't have to know what it is in order to acknowledge that it exists.

[acptulsa]

See what you're really doing is acknowledging that absolute morality does exist and you just think it just can't be discovered.

Not exactly. It can't be discovered by people who only skim statements before jumping to a conclusion about them, and who put words in people's mouths without necessarily knowing that this is really what was said and intended, and just generally pass judgement hastily. There can be an objective moral standardized best course of action for every situation, but this does not mean the person being judged can have access to all of that information in time before the decision must be made. I'm not saying these things can never be discovered, just that they can't always be discovered, and fairly often can't be discovered in a sufficiently timely manner. What kind of objective judgment is possible then?

The fact that there are varying situations does not mean there is no objective best for every particular situation. We all know that vegetables are objectively better than Twinkies. We may not always know exactly what the best is, but we do know it exists out there no matter what situation you might find yourself in. If we need more protein, then we know it's objectively better to have more protein than less. We would have no basis for this belief if there truly was no best because, if there is no best, then it is impossible to say whether something is really closer to or farther away from it.



I fully understand and acknowledge the validity of your analogy, but your interpretation of it is wrong. You are using it to say that there is no objective best when what you're really doing is proving that there IS an objective best by saying that people NEED certain things because they are BETTER than other things.

My analogies are absurd because it couldn't possibly be that you don't quite understand them, but when your analogies fail it's because I don't understand them.

When a diabetic's blood sugar crashes and they are seconds from dying of it, are vegetables better than a Twinkie? Maybe vegetables are better than a Twinkie 99 44/100% of the time. But when a person is so semi-conscious that they can't chew because their blood sugar is zero, is raw broccoli better than a Twinkie? If Michelle Obama rushes in while someone is stuffing a Twinkie into the mouth of some Type One diabetic who is seconds away from dying and screams, you can find something more healthy to feed that person! do you physically restrain Michelle Obama and tell her to shut up even though she's objectively correct? Or do you agree with her and help her interfere with the lifesaving Twinkie feed that's underway?

Exactly. Context does not preclude the existence of absolute morality. There can be an absolute best morality for every context, no matter how many there may be. We don't have to know what it is in order to acknowledge that it exists.

And the difference between a libertarian and a liberal is that the liberal assumes there is an absolute best for every context, or at least that said liberal is arrogant enough to believe they can always know what the best is for every situation.

[Crashland]

It's not a tautology. In order to have objectivity, we must have an objective source for that objectivity. Just because I'm using the same word twice, that doesn't mean it's tautology. It's a logical truth. Without an absolute source for objective standards, there is nothing truly objective to measure our actions against to see if they are right or wrong. If you say something is subjectively right or wrong, as you're claiming, then do you really know if it's actually right or wrong?

The question doesn't make sense. When you ask "How do you know if it's actually wrong?", you are already assuming objective right and wrong in the question, which I do not claim. I do not claim that there even is an "actually wrong" in the same sense that you are meaning it. There is only that which is wrong as determined by your own view, and that which is wrong as determined by other people's views, all of which are subjective.

[erowe1]

Not really, that's what an opinion is.

But in order for it to be more than just a matter of opinion, which we all know morality is, we have to acknowledge that there exists objective morality.

Is there no standard out there to appeal to as a basis for showing that cultures that don't practice human sacrifice, or foot binding, or female circumcision, or militarily policing the world, are better in that respect than those that do? Of course there is.

[erowe1]

I do not claim that there even is an "actually wrong" in the same sense that you are meaning it.

You don't admit it. But you know that deep down you believe it. And there are countless ways that you show you do all the time.

What stands between you and claiming it isn't somebody persuading you of it, but you recognizing and admitting what's already in your heart.

[orenbus]

Morality is subjective. The End.

[PaulConventionWV]

Not exactly. It can't be discovered by people who only skim statements before jumping to a conclusion about them, and who put words in people's mouths without necessarily knowing that this is really what was said and intended, and just generally pass judgement hastily. There can be an objective moral standardized best course of action for every situation, but this does not mean the person being judged can have access to all of that information in time before the decision must be made. I'm not saying these things can never be discovered, just that they can't always be discovered, and fairly often can't be discovered in a sufficiently timely manner. What kind of objective judgment is possible then?

First of all, you're making a lot of unjustified assumptions about my reading comprehension. Secondly, I'm not arguing that knowledge of the standards are always available. I'm saying that they exist and that we all know it, so if we claim that there is no objective standard, then we are contradicting ourselves when we claim that some thing is moral or immoral. People do this all the time. They will deny the existence of absolute moral standards and then they will try to judge the God of the Bible according to their notions of the best morality.

My analogies are absurd because it couldn't possibly be that you don't quite understand them, but when your analogies fail it's because I don't understand them.

I understand them. You're just not being clear as to why they apply to this situation. When you say religion is used in ways it wasn't first intended, you are making an unjustified assumption, which is that it is used in that way. It may seem obvious to you, but you should be able to explain your premises for making the analogy. Otherwise, I'm going to question its validity. I'm willing to be corrected, but I didn't question the validity of the second analogy because I acknowledge that your reasoning is correct without asking you to justify it, but I still think your interpretation of it is wrong.

When a diabetic's blood sugar crashes and they are seconds from dying of it, are vegetables better than a Twinkie? Maybe vegetables are better than a Twinkie 99 44/100% of the time. But when a person is so semi-conscious that they can't chew because their blood sugar is zero, is raw broccoli better than a Twinkie? If Michelle Obama rushes in while someone is stuffing a Twinkie into the mouth of some Type One diabetic who is seconds away from dying and screams, you can find something more healthy to feed that person! do you physically restrain Michelle Obama and tell her to shut up even though she's objectively correct? Or do you agree with her and help her interfere with the lifesaving Twinkie feed that's underway?

There may be some situations in which a Twinkie is better than vegetables, but it is probably not the BEST. See what you're actually doing is proving that there is a best in each of these situations and yet you're trying to make it sound absurd even though it makes perfect sense. It would also be a lot better if the person had not allowed themselves to get to the point of being nearly passed out on the floor.

worse < better</= best

If you deny the existence of a best morality, then you have no reason for saying anything is better or worse.