NationStates Jolt Archive

That certainly is a pragmatic reaction on your part. As a short-term solution, I can see how it might be handy to just "put the fear of God" into some people to keep them from fucking up life for everybody else.

I'm also interested in a more long-term solution, however. WHY did those two people want to steal the freaking purse? What happened, or did not happen, to make them turn out that way? How come I have no interest in stealing that purse, but they did? And what could we do to decrease the likelihood that an infant will grow up to be a purse-stealing jerkwad?

Personally, I have not found that the "carrot-and-stick" form of religious indoctrination decreases a person's likelihood to be an asshole. Indeed, a lot of the classic "conservative" Christian belief system is founded on the idea that everybody is innately a jerk and only fear of God keeps them in line, and it seems to me that if you constantly teach somebody that they're innately a jerk then eventually they're going to live up to your expectations.

im pretty sure that its in how you are raised. if you are raised to envy other people for their possessions and to think that they got them out of some unfair advantage, then you are more likely to think that its OK to even things out by taking their stuff.

i was raised more on the "if i didnt earn it i dont want it" theory of life. what other people have makes no difference to me, all i care about is making the best life with what i can afford.

the carrot and stick theory of morality only works to the extent that the person believes that they will get punished. if the laws arent enforced or if the person convinces themselves that god either doesnt exist or is extremely forgiving, its worthless. then our only hope for them is that they think their mom will slap them into next week for transgressions.

religion CAN bring you to a better morality by emphasizing that we are all brothers. then as long as you dont steal from you family, it works out. people who steal from their family are beyond any hope.

I don't have the urge to steal shit either. I wonder... would growing up with a few simple rules rather than rules that dictate when and how you can breath make for a person better able to control themselves? I mean, freedom was never a big deal for me. I kind of always had it. People who don't do well with freedom are those brought up with strict rules or are sheltered... Just a thought.

See, I'll admit. If I see valuables or a wallet or whatever is left unattended, I do have an urge to take it. However, I don't act on it because I also think, "but it's not mine. I should leave it alone," or, if it's left in a place the owner is/will be looking for it (that is, not just sitting on the counter in their kitchen, but, say, in a parking lot or something), "I should see if there's an ID in here, or some other way I can find the owner of this so that I can return it."
I want the valuables/money, but far more than that, I want to do right to other people because I can feel empathy for them.
But I don't think there's a problem with that. I generally don't fault other people for urges or desires, but how they act on them.

I'd say it depends on what you're trying to achieve. For me, with my particular beliefs and goals, being "good" tends to be the better choice from a pragmatic standpoint. It also makes me feel happier (generally speaking), so I find that there are very few situations in which I even am interested in being "bad."

You could. I don't.

I don't know why you can't, but I know that I can't for the same reason that I can't bring myself to falsify data just to get a grant. It's not about guilt or fear of being caught, so much as it's about my ultimate goals; I want to learn about the world as it actually is, because I'm a curious monkey like that. Cheating doesn't accomplish that.

I could "cheat" my moral system, technically, by choosing to view anything as moral whenever I wanted. But that wouldn't help me achieve my goals, and it wouldn't make me happy, so why would I do it?


Then that's their standard.
Based on what you say, I, and probably most people on the planet, believe you are a moral person (more or less :)). But you are one person, and while your method of judging what is right or wrong gets good results for you*, the method does not inherently allow them. I don't think it's wrong, but I think there is something else as well.


Why? It seems like you're just saying that because you don't like the alternative.
Based on empirical evidence, every culture has at least similarities, as do people. If we were to compare your moral system with that of a Amazonian tribesman, there would be somethings the same, despite the differences between the two of you.

While looking up this topic on the Web, I came across the idea of Kant's "categorical imperative," which says, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." I am somewhat dissatisfied with this, but I do like at least the attempt to base it on reason. Three links: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative), Stanford (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/), and a critical analysis from the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03432a.htm). (Read the last paragraph if you aren't interested in the God part.)

*"Good" here defined as, "ones I agree with."

I don't know if Dixieanna has empathy or not. I do know that Dixianna personally stated that, in her opinion, empathy does not inform morality - that morality can only exist with a God who is going to smite you if you do something wrong

First off, let's clarify, Dixieanna is a guy, not a "she", and secondly, let's be accurate about what Dixieanna actually said. I never used the word "smite" and never gave any indication that any particular deity was assigned to perform such smiting, I have no clue about that. I said that "morals" as well as "responsibility" are attributes which require accountability to be valid and legitimate. It defies human nature for it to be otherwise. Whether you are accountable to the God of Abraham or the God of Nature, or even the God of Public Perception, you have some fundamental accountability to behave in a moral way, and it is based on some power greater than self. Religion simply defines this accountable entity in the form of a God, but anyone who practices morality or responsibility, is doing so under the same exact pretense. Essentially, this means, if we are moral in our behavior, we worship something greater than self.... Atheists included.

First off, let's clarify, Dixieanna is a guy, not a "she", and secondly, let's be accurate about what Dixieanna actually said. I never used the word "smite" and never gave any indication that any particular deity was assigned to perform such smiting, I have no clue about that. I said that "morals" as well as "responsibility" are attributes which require accountability to be valid and legitimate. It defies human nature for it to be otherwise. Whether you are accountable to the God of Abraham or the God of Nature, or even the God of Public Perception, you have some fundamental accountability to behave in a moral way, and it is based on some power greater than self. Religion simply defines this accountable entity in the form of a God, but anyone who practices morality or responsibility, is doing so under the same exact pretense. Essentially, this means, if we are moral in our behavior, we worship something greater than self.... Atheists included.

The only thing greater than myself that I worship is the all mighty Mary Jane.

The only thing greater than myself that I worship is the all mighty Mary Jane.

Big spiderman fan, eh?

Big spiderman fan, eh?

;) Look for the other meaning.

*snip*. I said that "morals" as well as "responsibility" are attributes which require accountability to be valid and legitimate. It defies human nature for it to be otherwise. Whether you are accountable to the God of Abraham or the God of Nature, or even the God of Public Perception, you have some fundamental accountability to behave in a moral way, and it is based on some power greater than self.

Calling every concept a God doesn't make everyone religious or even "spiritual". Suppose one were cognizant of Public Perception. That is "larger" than the self, but public perception is as flawed and capricious as any individual. So, calling it a "God" really diminishes any real understanding of the term.

But if you're now saying that your version of "higher accountability" includes acting in deference to any concept beyond the self, please understand that not all such concepts have to be religious or spiritual.


Religion simply defines this accountable entity in the form of a God, but anyone who practices morality or responsibility, is doing so under the same exact pretense.

So you see no distintinction at all between those make the accounting entity themselves and those who make it something other than human? Those are hardly "exactly the same".



Essentially, this means, if we are moral in our behavior, we worship something greater than self.... Atheists included.

You've defined "greather than self" so broadly as to have lost any real descriptive value. By your definition, "Public Perception" is a figurative "God" or "something greater than self", and that's a fairly low standard to meet.

Also, I think in this case, your use of "worship" is mischaracterizing. If I act in accordance with my awareness of other people, I'm treating them as of equal value to myself, not greater. This is hardly worship.

;) Look for the other meaning.

Apparently Mary Jane hasn't taught you the meaning of "intentionally obtuse" ;)

Apparently Mary Jane hasn't taught you the meaning of "intentionally obtuse" ;)

If I learned anything, would I keep doing it? :p

Essentially, this means, if we are moral in our behavior, we worship something greater than self.... Atheists included.

No true Scotsman strikes again. Seriously, stop making up definitions for being moral and then acting as if they're right.

I don't have the urge to steal shit either. I wonder... would growing up with a few simple rules rather than rules that dictate when and how you can breath make for a person better able to control themselves? I mean, freedom was never a big deal for me. I kind of always had it. People who don't do well with freedom are those brought up with strict rules or are sheltered... Just a thought.
In my case I'd have to agree with you. As a matter of fact, I was a model child until my parents decided (when I was 15) that I suddenly needed a curfew. I got pissed and started breaking curfew because the rule offended me. I was literally a straight-A student, never been in trouble of any kind, and I used to spend afternoons alone in a house that contained a vast liquor cabinet which I NEVER touched...yet suddenly my parents didn't trust me?!

I made a point to live up to their suddenly lowered expectations. I'm not proud of it, but I really think that imposing arbitrary rules has a very negative impact on certain personality types.

Based on what you say, I, and probably most people on the planet, believe you are a moral person (more or less :)). But you are one person, and while your method of judging what is right or wrong gets good results for you*, the method does not inherently allow them. I don't think it's wrong, but I think there is something else as well.

Well yeah, of course my "method" won't get good results all the time. My "method" is that everybody generates their own moral system based on their personal experiences, their culture and society, their context, and their own personality. That's what happens in reality, and obviously it doesn't get good results all the time.


Based on empirical evidence, every culture has at least similarities, as do people. If we were to compare your moral system with that of a Amazonian tribesman, there would be somethings the same, despite the differences between the two of you.

That doesn't suggest the need for any objective morality. Rather, it suggests that we're all human beings, and--being of the same species and all--we have some fundamental similarities. There are some drives and needs that all of us, or at least the overwhelming majority of us, will share simply by virtue of being human.

This means that it's not the moral system which is objective and absolute, but rather than we all overlap a certain amount in our pragmatic needs and wants, so our moral systems are bound to overlap as well.


While looking up this topic on the Web, I came across the idea of Kant's "categorical imperative," which says, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." I am somewhat dissatisfied with this, but I do like at least the attempt to base it on reason. Three links: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative), Stanford (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/), and a critical analysis from the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03432a.htm). (Read the last paragraph if you aren't interested in the God part.)

*"Good" here defined as, "ones I agree with."
I'll be honest with you, Kant annoys the crap out of me. I 100% agree with his agnostic conclusions (that nobody can know whether or not God/afterlife exists), but he doesn't practice what he preaches. His work constantly, though not consistently, assumes that there is some conscious driving force behind existence, even though he himself asserts that there's no way for any of us to know whether or not that's even true.

And, of course, I obviously think that he's wrong about categorical imperatives.

The thing you gotta know about Kant is that he's one of those guys who produced some fucking brilliant work...but most of it was actually about himself, rather than about his stated subject. Once you've read a biography of Kant, you start to notice that most of his philosophical writing really comes across as him trying to work through his own issues in an external way. Which is fascinating, and still brilliant, but kind of undermines most of his points about the objective nature of morality (seeing as how he's being so splendidly subjective the entire time).

Essentially, this means, if we are moral in our behavior, we worship something greater than self.... Atheists included.
Wrong.

So, now that this has been shown false, you can move on and generate a new theory, yes?

I have never seen how a religion based people being forgiven for their wrongdoing is supposed to lead to moral behaviour. I have known a number of Christians who have behaved appallingly but when caught will say that God has forgiven them - they then repeat exactly the same behaviour. Certainly hasn't produced a great deal of honesty in this person:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7118579.stm
or any of the various other preachers caught with their hand in the till or a male prostitute.

Still maybe one day someone will catch Richard Dawkins having a sneaky little prayer in a seedy church somewhere. Likely.

Essentially, this means, if we are moral in our behavior, we worship something greater than self.... Atheists included.Depends on how you define worship. By my definition of the word, I don't really worship anything, so it doesn't really apply to me.

Depends on how you define worship. By my definition of the word, I don't really worship anything, so it doesn't really apply to me.
But...Dixie stated that you do! He stated it! That's, like, the strongest possible argument for anything!

But...Dixie stated that you do! He stated it! That's, like, the strongest possible argument for anything!Who are you and what have you done with the real Bottle?!

But...Dixie stated that you do! He stated it! That's, like, the strongest possible argument for anything!

I state that Dixie is actually an evangelical/fundamentalist Christian, despite his protests.

Hey, you're right! It works.

I also state that he is wrong. :D

I state that Dixie is actually an evangelical/fundamentalist Christian, despite his protests.

Hey, you're right! It works.

I also state that he is wrong. :D

Ah unsupported assertions. The sword that cuts both ways :D

First off, let's clarify, Dixieanna is a guy, not a "she", and secondly, let's be accurate about what Dixieanna actually said. I never used the word "smite" and never gave any indication that any particular deity was assigned to perform such smiting, I have no clue about that. I said that "morals" as well as "responsibility" are attributes which require accountability to be valid and legitimate.

In other words, you need someone/something else threatening you to act morally or responsibly. Not all of us need that. The carrot/stick mentality is something some of us have grown out of. We don't need someone else offering us cookies or brandishing a stick at us to "keep us in line."

It defies human nature for it to be otherwise.

Dixieanna != human nature. It might defy your nature, but that doesn't mean you can speak for all of us.

Whether you are accountable to the God of Abraham or the God of Nature, or even the God of Public Perception, you have some fundamental accountability to behave in a moral way, and it is based on some power greater than self.

Why? Is there a reason that I can't hold myself accountable to myself?

Scratch that. I know that there isn't. Is there a reason that you can't hold yourself accountable? What are you missing that you can't do that?

I have never seen how a religion based people being forgiven for their wrongdoing is supposed to lead to moral behaviour. I have known a number of Christians who have behaved appallingly but when caught will say that God has forgiven them - they then repeat exactly the same behaviour.

Forgiveness is generally believed to require repentance. Unfortunately, even people who will tell you that sometimes leave the actual repentance out of their own actions.

I said that "morals" as well as "responsibility" are attributes which require accountability to be valid and legitimate. It defies human nature for it to be otherwise.
If being accountable to your own conscience isn't enough of a motivation for you to behave, then do you really think you should be lecturing others about morality?

I'm somebody who is capable of behaving while being accountable to only myself. If you're not, then why the hell are you trying to drag me down to your level?

That doesn't suggest the need for any objective morality. Rather, it suggests that we're all human beings, and--being of the same species and all--we have some fundamental similarities. There are some drives and needs that all of us, or at least the overwhelming majority of us, will share simply by virtue of being human.

This means that it's not the moral system which is objective and absolute, but rather than we all overlap a certain amount in our pragmatic needs and wants, so our moral systems are bound to overlap as well.
Hmm, I'd define that as "absolute." But as long as we both agree with the same basic idea, I won't quibble with definitions.


I'll be honest with you, Kant annoys the crap out of me. I 100% agree with his agnostic conclusions (that nobody can know whether or not God/afterlife exists), but he doesn't practice what he preaches. His work constantly, though not consistently, assumes that there is some conscious driving force behind existence, even though he himself asserts that there's no way for any of us to know whether or not that's even true.
That's kind of what the CE said at the end; Kant's categorical imperatives contradict plenty of other things he has said.

And, of course, I obviously think that he's wrong about categorical imperatives.
Because it treats morality as objective, or something else?


The thing you gotta know about Kant is that he's one of those guys who produced some fucking brilliant work...but most of it was actually about himself, rather than about his stated subject. Once you've read a biography of Kant, you start to notice that most of his philosophical writing really comes across as him trying to work through his own issues in an external way. Which is fascinating, and still brilliant, but kind of undermines most of his points about the objective nature of morality (seeing as how he's being so splendidly subjective the entire time).
I don't think that's exclusive to Kant, although it might be more apparent with him. (I'll admit, I know very little about the guy.) Something such as morality in general is a pretty personal subject, because it tries to explain how the thinker should live his life. I'd be surprised if someone could write about it without basing at least part of his decisions on his own life.

And now, my idea for an inspirational poster:
Don't think about what you Kant,
But what you Kan.
(The picture is of Friedrich Nietzsche, willing himself to power.)

No true Scotsman strikes again. Seriously, stop making up definitions for being moral and then acting as if they're right.

I share your frustration with Dixieanna, Ifreann.

Bear in mind, last time he insisted he wasn't using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and then later admitted he doesn't know what it is.

I think we might have to be careful with our use of language with Dixie, since so far he hasn't really been able to deal with deifnitions like "supernatural" and "worship".

He's now decided that "Public Perception" is a figurative "God" that can be worshipped, as if Public Perception, as arbitrary and myopic as it is, can truly be some "higher power". If anything bigger or broader than the self is "higher", that means one can worship "mob rule" as something "higher".

Easy to see how Dixieanna misunderstands language enough to say people can "worship atheism".

I share your frustration with Dixieanna, Ifreann.

Bear in mind, last time he insisted he wasn't using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and then later admitted he doesn't know what it is.

I think we might have to be careful with our use of language with Dixie, since so far he hasn't really been able to deal with deifnitions like "supernatural" and "worship".

He's now decided that "Public Perception" is a figurative "God" that can be worshipped, as if Public Perception, as arbitrary and myopic as it is, can truly be some "higher power". If anything bigger or broader than the self is "higher", that means one can worship "mob rule" as something "higher".

Easy to see how Dixieanna misunderstands language enough to say people can "worship atheism".

It seems that Dixie has arbitrarily decided that he is the lowest common denominator of humanity, and we are all a lot like him, whether we realise it or not.

Because it treats morality as objective, or something else?

Yep, because it states morality is objective. To me, that's like claiming that my fondness for avocado is objective. Of course it's not. Objectively real elements contribute to the sense experiences that I use to process and evaluate the world around me, but my conclusions about the world are also hugely influenced by my subjective perspective.


I don't think that's exclusive to Kant, although it might be more apparent with him. (I'll admit, I know very little about the guy.) Something such as morality in general is a pretty personal subject, because it tries to explain how the thinker should live his life. I'd be surprised if someone could write about it without basing at least part of his decisions on his own life.

Oh, absolutely. And I really don't want it to come across as me insulting Kant for this, either, it's just that it's particularly funny to read a guy harping on about objective morality when his philosophy is so conspicuously dominated by the subjective.


And now, my idea for an inspirational poster:
Don't think about what you Kant,
But what you Kan.
(The picture is of Friedrich Nietzsche, willing himself to power.)
Ouch. Oooh, that one hurts. :D

It seems that Dixie has arbitrarily decided that he is the lowest common denominator of humanity, and we are all a lot like him, whether we realise it or not.

I guess if he can just define us all as low enough, things like "Public Perception" can become "Gods" that we worship, and that would provide some kind of deformed credence to his idea that to be moral, you have to supposedly worship something "greater".

At the very least, I wish it could be evident to him that "something greater" doesn't have to be religious or spiritual, but can be as little as "that person is worth is the same as I am, so I won't hurt them".

Fortunately, not all religious people are like Dixie. I've heard a number of religious people on this board acknowledge that they know some people with a sincere and diligent secular moral system. Similarly, I have observed religious people on this board that don't claim that religion or spirituality are the only ways to morality.

Similarly, I have observed religious people on this board that don't claim that religion or spirituality are the only ways to morality.
Because some of us religious folk not only have a brain, but use it... from time to time. ;)

Because some of us religious folk not only have a brain, but use it... from time to time. ;)

:eek: You just blew my mind! Kind of like the wind on a damn nippy day and I ain't wearin' nothin' but me wee parka and nothin' more.

Yep, because it states morality is objective. To me, that's like claiming that my fondness for avocado is objective. Of course it's not.
Not to interrupt here, but I don't understand your comparison. Firstly, the fact that you are keen on avocado is objective because it is a truly subjective assertion. The fact that in my interactions with the world I perceive that the sensation of tasting avocado is pleasurable is irrefutable in consideration of any objective model of reality I might construct.

Secondly, assertions of objective morality aren't talking about something that you directly experience. Moral Systems, perhaps, are subjective in terms of how they can be posessed and conceptually altered, but actual statements of Moral Law, as in "The world works in such a way that we should do this", aren't statements of subjective preference, but rather of attempted inference on our subjective experiences. Inference, as you'll be aware in your capacity as a scientist, does not produce statements that are themselves objectively true, but it is an attempt (however hopeless) to state predictions about that which is objective. So we'll probably be wrong in any such statements, but nonetheless the statements are objective ones (albeit false).

Not to interrupt here, but I don't understand your comparison. Firstly, the fact that you are keen on avocado is objective because it is a truly subjective assertion. The fact that in my interactions with the world I perceive that the sensation of tasting avocado is pleasurable is irrefutable in consideration of any objective model of reality I might construct.

Hmm, perhaps I should clarify the terms in question.

When I talk about objectivity in this context, I'm talking about the idea that there is a reality (in this case, morality) existing wholly independent of the mind.

I don't believe that to be the case. I believe that morality exists entirely within the mind.

"Avocado tastes great" is not objectively true. It's a subjective judgment on my part. Other people can taste the exact same avocado and reach a very different conclusion, and their conclusion isn't somehow in conflict with an objective Law.


Secondly, assertions of objective morality aren't talking about something that you directly experience. Moral Systems, perhaps, are subjective in terms of how they can be posessed and conceptually altered, but actual statements of Moral Law, as in "The world works in such a way that we should do this", aren't statements of subjective preference, but rather of attempted inference on our subjective experiences.

Yes, such statements are ATTEMPTS to assert an objective moral law of some kind.

I think it's bunk. I don't believe there is any objective Moral Law of any kind. I believe morality is 100% within the mind.


Inference, as you'll be aware in your capacity as a scientist, does not produce statements that are themselves objectively true, but it is an attempt (however hopeless) to state predictions about that which is objective. So we'll probably be wrong in any such statements, but nonetheless the statements are objective ones (albeit false).
That's kind of what I've been saying.

Yes, people can make statements about objective morality. I believe those statements will be false. That's my point.

Because some of us religious folk not only have a brain, but use it... from time to time. ;)

Yes, I've noticed that about you and some others.

Like I said before, not all religious people are like Dixieanna.

Not to interrupt here, but I don't understand your comparison. Firstly, the fact that you are keen on avocado is objective because it is a truly subjective assertion. The fact that in my interactions with the world I perceive that the sensation of tasting avocado is pleasurable is irrefutable in consideration of any objective model of reality I might construct.

Is this to say that, if I have the arbitrary power to decide what I like, once I execute that power, I now factually "like" what I like, in an objective sense?
If that's the idea, I agree. If its not, I'll try to review the idea.


Secondly, assertions of objective morality aren't talking about something that you directly experience. Moral Systems, perhaps, are subjective in terms of how they can be posessed and conceptually altered, but actual statements of Moral Law, as in "The world works in such a way that we should do this", aren't statements of subjective preference, but rather of attempted inference on our subjective experiences. Inference, as you'll be aware in your capacity as a scientist, does not produce statements that are themselves objectively true, but it is an attempt (however hopeless) to state predictions about that which is objective. So we'll probably be wrong in any such statements, but nonetheless the statements are objective ones (albeit false).

While I agree that inductive inferences are really only just models, replacing a one less enduring against new observations and hopefully being replaced by one moreso, I'm worried that anything (and this is perhaps everything) that is framed, filtered, polluted, or constrained by human experience may not well survive the term "objective", although your qualifying clause "albeit false" eases my reservations.

I believe morality is 100% within the mind.


That's not "morality". You're thinking of "Megan", my ninth grade girlfriend.

Just so I'm not reading you wrong, you're not implying the kind of "within the mind" in a marginalizing sense, like a psychosomatic physical response, but rather "within the mind" in the same way that many meaningful concepts are essentially synthetic?

I'm sorry if I'm misreading you.

That's not "morality". You're thinking of "Megan", my ninth grade girlfriend.

*rimshot*


Just so I'm not reading you wrong, you're not implying the kind of "within the mind" in a marginalizing sense, like a psychosomatic physical response, but rather "within the mind" in the same way that many meaningful concepts are essentially synthetic?

I'm sorry if I'm misreading you.
I certainly don't think it marginalizes morality to say that it's within the mind. All my perceptions and judgments are within my mind, as are those of every other living human, and I'd say that our perceptions and judgments are pretty damn significant because they tend to guide our behavior and our interactions with the world.

Morality is an evaluation. It is an evaluation of information that has come in from the outside world ("objective" reality), but it's not made in a vacuum. The information may be objective, but the machinery that processes it is unique in each individual.

*rimshot*


I certainly don't think it marginalizes morality to say that it's within the mind. All my perceptions and judgments are within my mind, as are those of every other living human, and I'd say that our perceptions and judgments are pretty damn significant because they tend to guide our behavior and our interactions with the world.

Morality is an evaluation. It is an evaluation of information that has come in from the outside world ("objective" reality), but it's not made in a vacuum. The information may be objective, but the machinery that processes it is unique in each individual.

Cool, I'm on board, then.

I guess if he can just define us all as low enough, things like "Public Perception" can become "Gods" that we worship, and that would provide some kind of deformed credence to his idea that to be moral, you have to supposedly worship something "greater".

At the very least, I wish it could be evident to him that "something greater" doesn't have to be religious or spiritual, but can be as little as "that person is worth is the same as I am, so I won't hurt them".
As I'm sure I've put forward in this thread already, I think it'd be easier to convince yourself that God wouldn't mind, or maybe even wants you to do X than it would be to convince yourself that it's ok to do X because Y(the persons or people affected) are subhuman. There are a lot of people in both camps, but I just the the former would be easier to pull off.
:eek: You just blew my mind! Kind of like the wind on a damn nippy day and I ain't wearin' nothin' but me wee parka and nothin' more.

Sexy.......pixplzkthnxbai

Because some of us religious folk not only have a brain, but use it... from time to time. ;)

Not to mention that my husband might be a little upset if I claimed that he couldn't possibly be a moral person.

Not to mention that my husband might be a little upset if I claimed that he couldn't possibly be a moral person.

That depends, it could be some kind of fancy way of saying "You're a dirty boy, aren't you?" ;)

Hmm, perhaps I should clarify the terms in question.

When I talk about objectivity in this context, I'm talking about the idea that there is a reality (in this case, morality) existing wholly independent of the mind.

I don't believe that to be the case. I believe that morality exists entirely within the mind.

"Avocado tastes great" is not objectively true. It's a subjective judgment on my part. Other people can taste the exact same avocado and reach a very different conclusion, and their conclusion isn't somehow in conflict with an objective Law.

though there may be something more to be said about things like "this book looks red" or "motor oil tastes bad", which appear to both be operating as subjective judgments, and yet are in some sense objectively true.

That depends, it could be some kind of fancy way of saying "You're a dirty boy, aren't you?" ;)

LOL. Well, that's a different story....