Is There an Objective Moral Law?

Is There an Objective Moral Law? Objective vs Relative Morality. Frank Turek explores the truth underlying objective moral law based on our reactions, rather than actions.
Please visit www.CrossExamined.org for more on Morality and the concept of Objective Moral Law.
Also, go to www.ImpactApologetics.com for more resources on Christian Apologetics and Christian Worldview, including the entire DVD of this teaching series.

[@gregallen5378]

To claim that objective morality exists on an atheistic view is to claim that there are rules for a game that has no goal.

[@Rayvvvone]

To claim that objective morality exists on an theistic view is to claim that there are rules for a game that doesn't even exist. You want to play a fantasy game, try XBox. .As to secular morality, learn something about it. You don't seem to have a clue. In your rush to be pithy, you deny reality. It would be nice if you would get real. You only have one life. XBox is fun, but the games are not real.

[@gregallen5378]

Rayvvvone Things that are true on the Christian worldview: -Human beings all have equal value as being special creations made in God's image -Life would not be accidental, but rather intentional, and we would have true meaning and purpose -There would be a moral law from a moral law-giver that would bind us all, and we would be obligated to abide by it None of these would be true on a secular worldview. Think about the implications of a no God scenario. We would just be random and pointless creatures that exist solely by accident. Just freaks of nature. For a creature that has no reason to exist, there would be no objective meaning or goal in life. From this starting point, I don't see how any and every person can't just interpret and define what life's subjective meaning is in each of their own lives. It would be a complete matter of taste and perspective as to how to live. Some people might find that megalomania is the best way to live, some might seek out hedonistic pleasures as a best way to live, and some might find that co-existence, even at the sacrifice of personal interest, would be the best way to live. This is what I mean by a game with no goal. Who gets to decide? You? What if someone or some culture disagrees with you? Are they "wrong"? If so, then how? By what standard would you condemn Hitler and the Nazis when they decided to make the world a better place by eradicating what they perceived to be the weak, and the burdening people of society? Seems like they were just following the Darwinistic implications out to a logical conclusion where the strong survive. Problem with the atheist is he can't make criticisms beyond mere opinion, which has no bearings on others. Even David Silverman in a debate with Turek admitted so. Nihilism is the logical conclusion to atheism, and morality would be fabrications...just illusions. You can only build some semblance of "objective" morality around a consensus in views that a society upholds. But the consensus of these views are susceptible to changing over different times and places. Only with an unchanging standard can we uphold a certain moral law as being truly objective. This is what the Christian theistic worldview provides that the atheistic one simply cannot.

[@gregallen5378]

***** But we have seen many creatures in the wild that act violently based on how they have evolved. Are you saying that it is "wrong" when a lion kills a zebra or when a cat tortures a mouse? How can you even answer the question in a meaningful way? Whatever happens in nature just is. There is no such thing as right or wrong beyond your own subjective preferences. You see, you can make all the emotional arguments you want, but there is a BIG difference between saying "I don't like that" and "that is wrong". Unless there is a standard independent of human opinion then we are all left to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, based on our own outlook on what we believe is the purpose of life. For Hitler the purpose of life was to carry out the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest and make a stronger race. He used whatever means necessary to reach this beneficial end. Under this worldview, what he and his regime did was actually good. If you want to suggest that peaceful cohabitation based in empathy is the goal for life then you need to justify that beyond mere preference. This is about objective morality, and I see the atheist's attempt at defending this position straw-grasping that will never lead to any satisfying conclusion. As to the question why are we here on the Christian doctrinal view : it is to know and join in God in fellowship and to find eternal salvation, and to live a Godly life that pleases Him.

[@gregallen5378]

***** What an excellent display of misrepresentation sir. But let's grant that this is all true for the sake of argument : why and how do you condemn such actions? Maybe all of these things were carried out as a means to a greater good. Who are you to judge?

[@allilliendahl6687]

Are you saying that society determines moral right and wrong?

[@skippervt24]

"If there is no God, then anything is permissable"---Fyodor Dostoevsky. If there is no God, then the only standard of right and wrong is man. If man is the measure of right and wrong, then what is the solution when one man thinks murder is okay (see Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ted Bundy, etc.) and another man says that it is wrong? The only solution is power. Who is more powerful? You quickly get to might makes right which puts you right back to a society ruled by tyrants.

[@tylerornelas9223]

Everything is permissible even if there is a God, but not everything is beneficial. 1 Corinthians 10:23

[@skippervt24]

Not everything is permissible if there is a God. There are things that violate his moral law. Sure, he will not violate your free will, but He doesn't say that it is okay to do something that violates the moral law. In 1 Cor. 10:23, Paul is not talking about immoral things, but things that are not necessarily forbidden by God's moral law.

[@tylerornelas9223]

Even if it violates his moral law, it's still permissible. Permissible meaning he allows it to happen. Verse 6 talks about craving evil things (moral decisions), verse 13 talks about temptation. He's telling us of all the things that Israel as a people were doing in the verses before. Three different wills we see in scripture; decretive, prescriptive and permissive. God SAYS to not do things, yet allows us to do it anyway, it's still under his will.

[@tylerornelas9223]

What does "God is not going to baby you around?", mean? Is that even biblical? I don't think LIFE teaches anything about salvation other than that we need a savior. God is not inactive in this world, but alive and well!

[@tylerornelas9223]

Oh no, I know those verses very well. And actually agree with you 100%. Hebrews 8: 10 says God has written the law in their minds and their hearts. I think your missing the point here. I commented in reply to "Not everything is permissible if there is a God". Because even if we know what we should do and don't do it, God allows that.

[@mikeduffy9655]

I am so glad Frank Turek puts his stuff on line like this. I never grow tired of listening to him.

[@smokymole2487]

God planted the knowledge of good and bad in our consciences. For instance, when we're subjected to a polygraph test and lie our consciences will always disagree and that's what the test reveals or picks up. That's why I believe even for those who have never heard the gospel they knew right and wrong through their consciences that God planted in them.

[@SongWhisperer]

God may have created our consciousness, but he didn't plant the knowledge of good and evil that's contained within our conscious minds now, Satan did that, not God. God created the tree of knowledge but told man to never eat from it, so technically man took the knowledge of good and evil without Gods permission, that was the first sin committed by man and the second sin committed on earth, with Satan committing the very first sin on earth by also disobeying God. Whatever our consciousness was in the very beginning, it's not the same now, eating from the tree of knowledge changed humanity forever. Although God is all knowing, his plan for man in the beginning was clearly changed by an outside source, that outside source being Satan of course. I do agree with your lie detector comparison, if good and evil was not instilled in our very being and consciousness (the guilty feeling), than a man made machine could not detect it. So our creation is still credited to God, while everything that is wrong with humanity now is credited to Satan. Would you agree with that?

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

If morals are absolute, answer me this question: Is communion, the taking and eating of another human's actual flesh and drink their blood, a moral act. If you say yes, it is a moral and right act, you are a relativist, and do not even realize it.

[@theovanrossum8652]

You actually believe in polygraphs?

[@theovanrossum8652]

@@SongWhisperer I know that in Genesis God didn't want humans to have knowledge of good and evil but in Exodus he suddenly carved the Ten Commandment in stone. Are you now claiming that "Satan" did that?

[@SongWhisperer]

@@theovanrossum8652 No.

[@AndrewJBushard]

Profound! The whole reactions thing as a way to morality is something I never heard before!

[@goranmilic442]

Is God good? How can we prove that God is good? If objective morality (being good) means act accordingly to God's commands, than we are good if we're sticking to God's wishes. God is all-good because he's being God. But in order to say God is good, there must be an objective morality standard outside of God which we can use to judge God and say he is good. Which proves that God is not a source of objective morality.

[@gregariousguru]

@@goranmilic442 the old infinite regress of the "just cause" is as juvenile as the argument, "well who created God." You're grasping at straws.

[@goranmilic442]

@@gregariousguru Prove that God is good.

[@adamsanchez222]

@@goranmilic442 Hey Goran, great question (is God good?). He would not be God if He was not good. Let me know if you have any other questions. Take care

[@goranmilic442]

@@adamsanchez222 What does word "good" mean? Whe we say "God is good", what does that mean?

[@Danielcrygo]

Glory to God I was opening KZbin to search up morality and this was the first one on my recommended so I didn’t have to search it😆

[@Ganeki-san]

Morals are not subjective.

[@goranmilic442]

Objective morality exists without God, otherwise people would not be able to know what holy book is true. If you have a man that has never read any holy book and you give him couple and he reads Qur'an first, can that man say Qur'an is immoral? If he says that, what is he basing that on? There is no way to tell which holy book, if any, is moral, if objective morality doesn't exists. But if objective morality depends on God, then it's also impossible to tell which holy book is moral, because you need to know what God declared moral before you read what God declared as moral. Therefore, objective morality exists, but it doesn't depend on God.

[@gregariousguru]

@@goranmilic442 that argument might hold some weight if someone actually declared that the Bible or the Koran is the reason we have morals. The moral argument is not about whether which holy book is right or wrong. The objective standard has nothing to do with either book.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

Our language system is base upon relative terms. Explain how you get to a sound objective footing while using purely subjective terms and viewpoints of all things. As an example, two people are having sex. During this event, one decides they want it to stop and says so. The other attempts to get up and away but in doing so slips and head butts the first partner in the face/head and knocks them out. When the unconscious partner wakes they have been, rightly, thinking they attempted to end a sexual experience only to be assaulted and raped. The second knows that he or she attempted to listen to them and in doing so accidentally hurt them. In each mind, they are correct, despite holding opposite views of the incident, and because we (due to having a narration of both minds) would say "it was an accident." In the real world, intentions matter and are the foundation of any good moral system, and all intentions (whether intending good or evil from the start) are totally subjective. Only a Deity could know a person's true intentions. So, any morals are actually subjective from any angle you wish to attempt to make them objective. From the point of a relative language system upon which they exist and are formed to begin with, to the horror causing fact that no human has ever known intent clearly in any event, even those they were involved in. We can only assume intent, and this includes our own...we may not have originated that intent from within, it could be an instinctual, genetic, or learned intention...and that further removes objectivism, making the entire system relative and subjective.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

@Leeor Rose @Leeor Rose you don't even realize that you are using relative ideas and subjective viewpoints of an act to draw up your subjective view of that act. You do not ever have a murder, you have a killing. A death. Whether it was murder (predefined with evil intentions) becomes entirely subjective, and deals in human intent, which is purely subjective. You are saying, a moral absolute is that murder is wrong...that isn't an absolute, because in application, you have no idea whether a killing is or is not a murder except through subjective means. Truth is also no absolute in nature. Never was not will be. A truth for one person is a lie for another. One person will view an assault and see one thing, another will be an entirely different thing. You could say from a narrative viewpoint of an event having all known (or knowable variables) gives a person a type of absolute viewpoint of an event to make absolute truth claims, you would still be wrong. Because you are forgetting the minds involved, and attempting to outline exactly the intentions behind them is a purely subjective thing. There also bears to realize that even from a narration point of view of a given event that the narrator is also biased, and thus, all his truths are subjective and relative. Your ideas about gravity also are wrong. Gravity doesn't even exist as a force but is the advent of geometric spacetime. It may subjectively seem to operate the same from culture to culture (objects tend to fall down towards the Earth) but our understanding of it is purely subjective in nature...the way we label it, speak of it, even theories about what it is...all are subjective in nature. Then you might say, we can absolutely measure it, and I say, your instruments are all setup with arbitrary measurement system...and are subject to fault...and time, and location. There is nothing to say that gravity is the same everywhere, and is an absolute...the only thing we can currently say is from our present understanding of this phenomena it seems to act this way everywhere we can test both directly and indirectly. This is not an absolute, this is relative to our existence limitations, location, and measurement systems, and any supposed absolute conclusions are at best a form of egotism, in thinking the human experience is the absolute experience of reality. Gravity doesn't have to even exist mind you. This could all be a projection from within the event horizon of a collapsed higher dimensional star that is expressed as our spacetime. We don't even know we actually exist. Therefore our experience, based upon human language systems and our relative universe, limit us to making very limited contingent and subjective conclusions about every single thing. Murdering someone is jumping to a subjective conclusion at the start. You have not told a truth, you have expressed a subjective bias that relates to an event in which you believe on a subjective non-absolute level that a killing had been done with evil mind or intent. This is not absolutes, this is pure relativism.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

@Leeor Rose you quoted me as saying "language is relative...that further removes objectivism" You then attempted the age old ignorance of trying to say that relative truth equates to no real truth. This is ignorance. These are relative statements of relative truth about a human system within a relative universe. They are not perhaps universally true, but are as true as the human condition allows us to know or be known, as is any an all truth which is also relative. A relative reality can still have truths, but they would all be relative to that specific reality, condition, mind, and viewpoint. Humanity would not even be able to grasp what an absolute universe would look like being trapped with a relative universe.

[@ncloudn9ne]

Hey Doc! I love watching your videos. Im working on watching ALL of em as a matter n fact. You REALLY REALLY have helped me tremendously in my walk. Youve helped me understand each question I ever had about Christianity, God, and Jesus in his human form.. Youve brought so many things into clear perspective for me. I just wanted to thank you from the bottom of heart!!

[@greenblood5640]

Hi Dustin I fully agree. Dr Frank is really well spoken and articulate on a level that anybody can understand. You don't have to be qualified in Christian apologetics to grasp his reasoning

[@IsraelCountryCube]

​@@greenblood5640 oh but It would be awesome if all Christians became theologians.

[@zeddicuszorrander3599]

Right from the start Turek defeats himself. Subjective morality is morality derived from personal feelings or emotions. Turek tries to argue objective morality exists because we have FEELING of right and wrong. This is by definition subjective morality, the opposite of objective morality which he wants to prove exists.

[@jesussavestrinahaifa5884]

Oh my goodness I have never seen this video clip before. Look at that beautiful adorable face of Dr. Turek with those amazing expressive eyes with no glasses on. 😊 He is such a beautiful person inside and out!!

[@roelsvideosandstuffs1513]

The last part of the video is the most important thing everyone should know

[@Rayvvvone]

Actually, I was prepared to rip this stuff apart from the get go.. But I was surprised. I LIKE what he says about how to judge right from wrong. We know what's right or wrong by our reactions and not our actions. Interesting.... lets see how Frank twists this but so far... I don't disagree with that statement.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

Sure whatever you lose big bam boom

[@ASealUponThineHeart]

Good presentation.

[@dex1141]

Part 4>>So, the next time that someone throws around terms around like “moral law” as a supposed defense as to why they decided not to observe some of God’s commandments, perhaps it should be asked, “Why is there a need to invent non-biblical terms to support their theology?"

[@APaleDot]

Finding a standard that everyone agrees to can only be done via the golden rule, 'Do onto others as you would have them do onto you', since no one will agree to your own personal preferences. But if you can make them see that there is a maxim to act by which, if everyone followed it, it would be fair to everyone, you're well on your way to establishing morality.

[@Paulthored]

👍 Makes sense to me.

[@baslielalene4702]

Thank you.

[@lawless7859]

In Frank's opening, when he says that we know absolutes exist and we know it by our reactions. That's an emotional appeal. Even within our own opinions thats not absolute...

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

Morality is an emotional appeal. Without emotion there is no such thing as right or wrong. Things just are or aren’t.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

Yeah but it isn't wrong. We have emotional reactions to a child being raped correct?

[@lawless7859]

@@IsraelCountryCube oh 100%, but it just means you could have guessed correctly. Or you feel it's wrong because you have based what is right or wrong based on an objective thing like suffering. Still this doesn't mean it's objective. In franks world, if god told him it would be moral to rape a child, it would be. This is the problem I am getting at with this clown. His morals are not objective, they are like everyone elses.. based on a subjection. His is just worse, as his is morals are told to him by a god that has a mind that changes on a whim.

[@vaszx]

Damn his first argument for "objective morality" is to point out to subjective reactions. How bad can his sophisms get, huh?

[@wiwaxiasilver827]

We can use a logical and emotionally appealing consensus to serve as some common basis of morality to minimize suffering for humanity. The tendency to care for our young and the weak can be explained by biological need, since our babies have to be born less mature than others to have the mother and child survive childbirth, and families that had the affinity to care for their still weak children would have left more descendants compared to ones that neglected them to die more easily. Caring for the weak also increases the chance of gaining an ally against a common enemy. In fact, empathy, social tendencies and even intelligence likely evolved through directional selection from the biological need to survive and cooperate during harsher times in the ice ages when individuals were powerless against the forces of nature unless they happened to be exceptionally resourceful, cunning or strong, which still holds today. People with exceptional abilities tend to win more favors from society and have less of a need to conform to social standards. To me it’s all plain power dynamics, except quite a few higher ups realized fairly recently that just enforcing stuff can’t work for the masses anymore and figured out ways of persuasion and other ways instead of just relying on brute force and other such abilities that easily grow weak. They learned winning the heart is a more effective way and a win-win as well, so they are evolving from warlords to modern politicians. However, just like in evolution, in some niches brute force still reigns, so in those places guns still dictate morality. You’re right. I can’t call anything “wrong”, because anything can be justified on closer inspection. All we can do is work with what we have and just craft something to make a functional society. How much kindness or profit counting, etc you want to put into the mix would be off to you. However, by logic we can know that actions can leave precedents. If you kill a baby, unless you have some persuasive justification there is no reason for someone else not to do the same to yours. Ultimately through logic, the most energy-conserving action in the end is not harming someone if I can or if I don’t have good reason, because otherwise I have to keep defending myself, and I’ll be against everyone around me. Unless I have some mental justification or some desperate need that overrides all it would be safest to follow the social contract designed to maintain our fragile peace. And fragile it is too. Why do you think constitutions need amendments? They need to adapt with time as values change. Morality before and after antibiotics or iPSCs can’t be the same. Thus I hold that morality is subjective, but we can still try to construct our own moral compasses with logic and emotions, even if they are subject to change over time, which is in fact a good thing.

[@milito537]

I feel bad for you, bro.😂😂😂😂

[@wiwaxiasilver827]

@MILITO SIMON - How come? Thanks, but I’m okay with sympathy. Life is chill right now. Also I’m guessing you may have a bit of a pseudobulbar affect, since the facial emojis don’t really match your words. I’m fine with that, but someone else you may be trying to comfort may get the wrong idea.

[@milito537]

@@wiwaxiasilver827 I made a mistake. I shouldn't laugh at someone who's fate is Hell without repentance. Severely sorry, dude.

[@wiwaxiasilver827]

@MILITO SIMON - Ah, the typical hell drivel. I was hoping for a logical discussion, but with you I’ll just have to throw that out the window. Even if all your religious views are true, at least I have enough integrity to stand up for myself and answer for my “sins”, not ask for special plea just because I’m afraid. Can you say the same for yourself when you subscribe to a cop out through your belief? Go on then, I wish you a swift departure to heaven, preferably abrupt and painless, taking all your family instantly with you in case you have one so that you don’t have to miss each other, as according to your belief. Also, you should not mourn at all for your loved ones who pass away and hold a party for their departure to heaven. Instead, mourn that you couldn’t join them. Meanwhile I’ll go value my life and those of others.

[@TravisBreheny]

Great video

[@green15838]

Bravo!!!!

[@MsAnna4040]

Excellent!

[@JOSEDIAZ-te5sn]

Excelente muchas gracias

[@bobb3718]

Turek always uses circular arguments. 1. How do you know there is an objective morality? 2. Through what mechanism do you acquire objective morality? 3. Through what mechanism do you assess the reliability of the mechanism through which you acquire objective morality?

[@lizzard13666]

"Through which mechanism do you acquire objective morality". This question shows you are making the classic mistake of confusing the epistemology of morality with ontology of morality. Nobody "acquires" morality, things either are or are not moral, based on an objective moral standard.

[@11kravitzn]

Turek sure knows how to fill a room. Arguing from reaction is like saying "we all feel revulsion when we see our parents having sex" or "we all feel outraged when our favorite team loses" means that these things are objectively wrong. So we have to know the right answer to reject a wrong answer? what's the real solution to x^5+12*x^3+4*x^2+2x+19=0? Someone says x=7: do you need to know the answer to reject that? Even if we don't know the best morality, we know it involves people being happy.

[@dex1141]

Part3>>>So, now we have men deciding for us which commandments of God are moral and which ones are not. This may seem like a strange question, but isn’t it God that is to define what is moral for us and what is not? Isn’t everything God commanded what is defined as moral, and everything breaking God’s commandments considered immoral? Who are we, as beings created by God, to decide what is moral or immoral? Who gave us the right to invent such terms outside of the Bible, and why would we be comfortable with that? Who gave us the right to take on God’s job in defining morality?

[@dex1141]

Part 0>>>By inventing this term, now every pro-law verse in the New Testament is supposedly referring to what is now defined as the moral law, simply because they believe that there are verses that teach against some of the commandments of God. Thus, pro law verses to into the “moral law” box, and verses in which Paul seems to be teaching against the law, must be put in the “Moses” box. To them, problem solved.

[@megag52]

not many people rocked up by the look at it

[@zacsimillion]

That's the point. That can only happen through design, not evolution.

[@dex1141]

Part2>>There is even more to consider on this matter. If there is no definition in the Bible defining what consists of the moral law, then whose definition are we forced to use? We are then forced to use men’s definition. This produces a rather disturbing result.

[@TheTruthgeneral]

In light of that moral subjectivism is not moral relativism denying the smooth applicability of moral values to all situations is not the same as saying moral values are not objectively existent in the first place.

[@vdizhoor]

I am not trying to debate or to trap you, only to understand your perspective - hence the questions and dialogue. Are you saying that all morality is objective, or that while some of it may be subjective, it is the objective aspect that is from a divine source? Like some things are moral today, may not have always been so, but rape was always wrong, and hence its prohibition is of divine origin? Like, was that your point?

[@mowman7777]

I think those who are pointing to immorality among believers are doing so to point out hypocrisy. If God is the standard of morality and we believe then why do we as believers do immoral things.

[@zacsimillion]

That is how it is wrong, not why wrong exists.

[@vdizhoor]

Why? I can see how that can be "expressed" through some sort of deity, but it has nothing to do with explanation - in fact that approach creates problems (as old as possibly Euthyphro and Epicurus). Are you perhaps conflating expression with explanation? If by design, then it varies by social speicies - for people, ants and dolphins, for cariboo and for wolves that hunt them. - and for time and geography, to which at least Human history of atests. A dynamically changing design IS Evolution.

[@zacsimillion]

Doesn't matter. If one thing is objectively wrong then there is objective morality.

[@Trollkvinnan]

Ignoring 2500 years of secular ethics and the the euthyphron dilemma.

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

What 2500 years of secular ethics are being ignored? Also the euthyphron dilemma is a false dichotomy. There’s no reason why The answer can’t be both or neither. In this case “is it moral because God wills it, or does God will it because it’s moral?” The answer is simply “yes”. That which is moral is of God, and God wills that which is moral. To try and separate the two is a fool’s errand. It would be like asking “is it a home because we live in it, or do we live in it because it’s a home?” This is one of those idiotic pseudo-intellectual questions that pretends to say a lot while really saying nothing at all.

[@The13point1]

6:28 must be some delicious fingernails. Dudeman is really chowing down

[@ifunanya24]

🤣

[@vdizhoor]

Murder is wrong not in principle, but by definition, because murder is simply killing that is against the law. Rephrase: is killing wrong? That is less clear, because it is too general. There are things like self-defence, course of battle in time of war, accidents, moments of insanity. In some cultures, even revenge/honor and family feuds context (eye for an eye). I am curious, what about regularly appearing topless for a woman in public? Is that immoral?

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

Grades setup to denote correctness are not examples of morality but systems of gradation. That a professor gives an F for a blue folder would be relative to that system of grading and whether such arbitrary methodology was allowed, and whether the grade would stand would be based entirely not upon morality but upon the system of grading. The student can only claim unfairness based upon the structure of the grading system he is under, if the professor has broad subjective power, it stands.

[@dex1141]

Part1>>>This is very creative theology. How creative is it? Search the whole Bible for the term “moral law,” and you will find exactly how creative it actually is. It simply doesn’t exist. It is only existing out of theological need, not because the Bible teaches it. It was birthed out of either laziness in reconciling Paul or placing too much faith in seminary theological tradition. It was simply invented by men in the purpose to teach doctrines of men.

[@MrBenMcLean]

I understand what you're saying and because of this, I understand two things: 1. You're lying, because what you're really in fact doing is treating all moral claims as false, not as neither true nor false, but just as false. 2. You're lying, because your clam is that honesty itself has no objective meaning and therefore, everything you say cannot be honest.

[@1n354a]

Why would we think they are wrong? Because we have realized that such behavior (targeting certain peoples and killing them without reason) is destructive and dangerous. As we have moved away from the more violent past that we enjoyed, we have realized that ensuring certain rights for people creates a world in which we have a better chance of surviving and thriving. There is no god needed for such a position to be reached or understood. The basis of morality is us stopping and thinking about...

[@TheTruthgeneral]

Here is how the issue is to be properly defined in relation to morality.Are moral values absolute or relative ? Not if there are moral values ? Or if there is an objective moral" law" or if it is absolutely wrong to rape or somn like that

[@zacsimillion]

Why is it wrong? How do people know what is right and what is wrong? Why is there such thing as good and evil?

[@vdizhoor]

So are you saying that slavery is not objectively wrong? What about killing another person - as in "thou shalt not kill"? Is that morally wrong?

[@afatdutch]

I am not saying that as an atheist. I was looking through videos at peoples opinion on objective morality. this guy starts out by saying we already know what is right and wrong, and he can prove it by kicking someone in the shins and asking them if it was right or wrong to do so. they obviously think it is wrong because it causes them physical harm, but it cant be that wrong because you still did it, they will recover, and in your eyes you taught them a lesson. subjectivity at its best.

[@haorla]

How does this teacher justify the Pagan Christmas tree in the back ground and celebration of its holiday, just wondering?

[@haorla]

@buymebluepills that is not a good answer try again cross examined has not responded to this question

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

What is just and injust is completely relative to social, religious, economic, and other variables. There is no action that is an absolute wrong within mankind, even cannibalism was accepted by some societies. We do not allow for it now due to having easy access to food and knowing of the passing of germs from under cooked human flesh. It would be very easy to return to cannibalism. Some do it in church in fact: communion.

[@simclimie6045]

Loved that.....thanks Frank

[@APaleDot]

No, it is a description of reality. Would the statement 'all moral standards are objective' be a moral position? It doesn't prescribe any action whatsoever, it's still up to you whether or not you want to obey the objective standard. Similarly, saying that "moral standards are subjective', doesn't mean we must establish our own moral standard, we could easily accept anything and everything that someone else tells us to do, and it would still be subjective. This is divine command theory after all

[@shgysk8zer0]

If anything, reactions prove our instinct for self-preservation and well-being. Those same reactions may be to do greater harm to those who have wronged us, so I think this proves nothing of objective morality. It's fair to say that there is not in-justice without justice, but it is equally true to say that there is no justice without in-justice. "How do they know what immorality is unless there is a standard of morality beyond them?" You mean like laws, the way our parents raised us, common decency, etc? If that's not good enough, why do we need a such a standard beyond ourselves? "How do they know what warmth is unless there is a standard of temperature beyond them?" (There is an external standard, but I do not need to know the Fahrenheit or Celsius to know whether or not something is hot). "Atheists can't justify morality"... How do you justify morality? I would justify it by saying that it is in both my own best interests and the best interests of humanity as a whole. Am I understanding correctly that an appeal to authority is a superior reason to logic and empathy? "Atheism provides no objective standard that establishes why murder is wrong." Um, Atheism is not really concerned with morality anyways. We have philosophy for that. And, again, you continue accusing Atheism of this while providing no objective standard that Theists have. Even if some deity exists and gave laws, those would *not* be objective. Christianity offers no logical reason to follow its teachings. "God says so" and "because I don't want to go to Hell" are lazy and inadequate reasons. I could just as easily say "Mommy says so" and "I don't want a timeout." This is also an extremely backwards line of thinking. The reason *why* something is wrong is exclusively in the domain of secular morality. Christians are *told* what is right or wrong and never have to consider the reasons. Darwinism is concerned with the transformation of life, not the origin. So, you're right about that... But it's like saying that a wrench cannot remove a screw. That doesn't mean it has failed in any way. "Morality is not material." Objective: Of or having to do with a material object. One of a few definitions, but they are all concerned with logic, evidence, reality, and material things. Quit ranting about the absence of morality in Darwinism. Do you hear me complaining that the Bible doesn't tell me how to bake an apple pie? Do you hear me complaining that chemistry does not teach me the history of China? That's not what it is for! "Religion does not poison everything, everything poisons religion." I'm willing to grant you that Christianity is almost nothing like what the Bible teaches... In both good and bad ways. You lost me at "there would be no poison in the moral sense unless God existed". That's called circular reasoning. Your argument is based on your conclusion. Agreed. The existence of evil proves nothing. "There's only one place you can ground objective morality and that's in an immaterial being because it's an immaterial thing." Do you even know what "objective" means? If you were using objective correctly, you would have just proven that objective morality and religion are incompatible. Besides that, numbers are immaterial things, but they're "grounded" on material things (usually fingers)

[@souzajustin19d]

Wow, that's whole lot of claims with no evidence.

[@zacsimillion]

It's that everything is not completely black and white, some people can disagree on whether "kill 1 to save 1000" is right or wrong but they can always agree that murder in principle is always wrong.

[@APaleDot]

@BrianTubbs Of course the statement "all moral standards are subjective" isn't a moral position! It doesn't prescribe anything! or say anything at all about how we should act! He probably didn't respond because you revealed that you are not worthy of debate even by uttering such a question.

[@drumrnva]

@JJtheJester There's a third possibility: It's not worth the time/effort to reply.

[@jusappia1580]

👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾😄👍🏾

[@Pngiaca]

Ok then, do you have any other reasoning to back up that statement? Or are you just going to make a simple, unsubstantiated claim?

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

Strawman to start out: relative morality is not "no morality." Relative morality can say that stealing is wrong from a point of view. Realizing that you do not like something does not make it moral or immoral, it means it is unpleasant. A colonoscopy is unpleasant but you will probably want one some day. Reaction is also relative and leads to relative morality. Beating a woman to death who did not wear a burka is a reaction and I relatively do not see that as moral while another does.

[@johnelliott5859]

An evolutionary argument for morality makes more sense. Especially since we can see society's morals change during our lifetime. The reaction argument still holds. It makes more sense that morals develop so that society's functions, and different societies have had different morals. Some have polygamy or polyandry. Some have no marriage. Different societies end up with different morals to accomplish a functioning society. An objective morality based on the christian god has some great difficulties since that god condones slavery, commands genocide and promotes misogyny. Things that virtually all societies would find immoral.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

Morality can be a reasoned ethical situational approach to a given delima. It need not be metaphysical in nature. Basic empathy, reason, duty, law, among other relative variables come into play. To claim there is some over-arching moral law for every given example is fallacious; denies the nature of relative reality. Some choices are not good or bad, merely different levels along a continuum. It also denies the gray areas of life. Read up more about relative morality and stop strawman-ing it.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

Poison, as used by Hitchens, refers to the loss of the relative freedom of thought, inquiry, and evidence driven methodology to conclusions based on repeatable evidence. That religion has suppressed freedom of speech, thought, press, and generated such loss of life can be relatively seen as a negative. You need not have an absolute morality to claim this you merely need to look from a perspective that cherishes freedom of tyranny and evidence over faith.

[@moestietabarnak]

we can balanced the happiness of the tyrant against the happiness of the thousand/millions of subject. and if we think that all human are equal, 1 tyrant < 2 victims.

[@MrBenMcLean]

One cannot assume good faith (required for enlightened discourse) without assuming some commonly held concept of the good. If honesty has no moral value then there is no value in your own honesty for me to trust that you mean what you say when you attempt to define honesty. Without this mutual assumption of good faith, discourse breaks down and the only way to settle issues is violence.

[@zacsimillion]

>arguing from morality

[@vdizhoor]

what about slavery? what about freedom to marry for love? what about women having a voice in the course of government?

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

Right or wrong, up or down...relative terms. Relative morality does not claim that nothing is wrong, it merely states that something can be wrong or right depending on the viewpoint from which it is viewed. It speaks to the inherent nature of an action as being subjective and arbitrarily labeled by human bias. It does not rule out that an action is immoral it merely calls for the point of view to be delineated that led to that claim of moral or immoral.

[@jignaio5762]

When moral truths depend on the viewpoint you use, they don't really exist. What does it mean to be real or true when you're either just for some people?

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

@@jignaio5762 they exist in context of the viewpoint. To say they do not exist is to attempt to throw out all of human subjective experience because you do not like the type of existence we share. Anything defined as real or truth is relative, even existence itself could be a lie that we accept as truth, there is nothing saying we are not all algorithms running on an advanced computer system...that we desire the absolute while only have the ability of relative thought is an incredible human experience.

[@jignaio5762]

@@McGyver777ATGMAIL if truth (and therefore morality) is relative to one's viewpoint, then it exists only inside of your head. But if that's the case, then the whole idea of relativism is true only for you, even though you're claiming it's true for everybody.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

@@jignaio5762 relativism exists as our universe. This universe is relative by nature. There might exist another universe (or even another part within our own universe) that operates upon absolutes, but it would be nonsensical to relative-trapped human minds. All viewpoints are subjective by nature, and to claim otherwise is to have an irrational viewpoint of our shared reality. Which one holds power comes down to either majority rule or the powerful within a given time or location. An insane king could force mankind to accept it (absolute thought) as absolute,, even though he is thinking in human subjective relative terms, despite the universe being relative, his power of force would over rule our shared relative reality. There was a great argument between Protagoras and Socrates I believe that Socrates is thought of as winning. He only won the argument because Protagoras didn't want to embarrass the man and chose to not respond. Because it exists only within a human mind does not mean it doesn't exist from multiple human minds (many human minds would agree with any given viewpoint, and some may disagree). What it does do, this relative understanding, is remove from man the ignorance of thinking they know the mind of a god.

[@goranmilic442]

If people cannot know what is good and bad without God, then it's impossible to know which religion is true. If Bible says one thing and Qur'an another and people cannot know what is good without God, then people are unable to tell which of those two books are moral. But if a Christian says Qur'an is immoral, that means people are able to know right and wrong without God.

[@YouTw1tFace]

The objective morals argument isn’t proving which religion is true, it’s just proving that there is a higher power.

[@goranmilic442]

@@YouTw1tFace Prove that objective morality exists.

[@YouTw1tFace]

@@goranmilic442 rape is never ok.

[@Njerve1]

The atheist explain morality as a result of evolution and social constructs. This explanation for our moral codes is not immaterial, yet perfectly explains why we have "right and wrong" feelings, even reactive ones. I dont see why Turuk thinks there must be something immaterial, for morals to be a thing. Anyone care to explain?

[@vdizhoor]

no, it is still wrong. But by law, by definition, not by principle. Premeditated killing is wrong in our culture, but it is not always wrong in others (like honor killings) that existed in the past, and still exist in some corners of the world. It is also not generally considered to be immoral when done on the battlefield in the course of war.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

Even the golden rule is relative. I do not want people to cut me, but if I needed surgery, I'd want a trained doctor to cut me to fix me. That same doctor would most surely NOT want me cutting him/her. The golden rule is fallacious as any other standard we attempt to claim is non-relative. Look up platinum rule for more info.

[@1n354a]

We know it by our reaction. I think you are assuming that everybody has the same reaction to every event? Hmm odd...that's not consistent with reality. How do we know what immorality is? Well we can determine that without the need of going into some celestial realm of moral edicts. We can look at our socially acceptable behaviors as established by our culture/country/group and compare. No gods necessary.

[@samirpernell2136]

But what if another group thinks differently than your group? Without god you cannot justify why the other communities morals are wrong from yours if there is no god.

[@thenathanmcleod]

Oh... Excuse me, I must be mistaken. Absolutes are undeniable huh? I get it now! So your trying to say that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTES!... Oh wait, I think you need to look up the word "contradiction".

[@vdizhoor]

This is a lot loike asking "why is Angelina Jolie sexy?". How do you know someone is attractive? Why is there such thing as pretty and ugly? Moral actions aren't based on reason, though reason and cultural sentiment shapes them in part. They are rooted in emotions - they are innate. We are SOCIAL individuals, so emotions will guide our individual and social behavior. Not for all perhaps, but for majority, for enough of us to keep the eternal cycle of generations turning.

[@seblahideh]

It’s telling that someone as brilliant as CS Lewis’ best justification for the existence of god ends in a question mark.

[@sovereigngrace9723]

Mhm. A question you likely can’t answer without God, a pretty good stance if you ask me

[@lizzard13666]

Yes, he was ahead of his time! Modern research shows that one of the BEST teaching methods is effective questioning!

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

In a relative universe (what human constructs and language are built upon) absolute ideals do not exist. This does not rule them out absolutely, it merely means that for relatively based humans, absolute ideals are not understandable or meaningful. They are lost to us because they are non-relative in nature. Your premise is a very easily defeated argument that has been shot down over and over again. This universe is relative, another might be absolute, this one is not. This one is all we know.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

There need be no morality beyond a personal point of view to make a claim. Metaphysical morality outside the mind of a given viewpoint is meaningless. To define a moral or immoral act you need a directed viewpoint, a relative stance, and it is through evidence driven rational dialogue that you can understand a point of view. But even in understanding that point of view does not make it correct or absolute.

[@bball98038]

Those who are still too ignorant to accept that there is indeed objective morality obviously didn't pay attention to this video at all because they are too afraid to accept what makes sense. Here's the bottom line. When a person claims there is no objective morality, that person is OBJECTING to the idea that there is objective morality. So I mean, come on! By saying there is no objective morality sparks a contradiction right then and there! Also, if the idea of no objective morality was even remotely true (which is can never be), then people who believe that have no right to object to someone else's ideas and/or opinions that there is objective morality because that is just their own morality that they go by, which proves that the idea of no objective morality is impossible.

[@noahlent1977]

Alex it is your subjective point of view that morality is objective

[@neilxt]

Several people did pay attention to the video because they were able to dissect it's flaws in considerable detail.

[@MrBenMcLean]

The objective meaning of honesty is undermined because your saying that honesty has no moral value creates an infinite regress problem for the credibility of your statements. Enlightened philosophical discourse is based on certain ethical assumptions, that intellectual dishonesty is wrong and that people ought to accurately/honestly represent things. The denial of the validity of this imperative removes any and all basis for trusting anything you say on any subject.

[@Alberturkey54]

No! don't do unto others as you would have others do unto you (get it right by the way) because they might not like it!

[@TS-oj7cj]

Granted, Frank is talking to people that already drank his Kool-Aide, but he is jumping a couple of steps with his argument. He first needs to prove a god exists, then he needs to prove this god cares about morality, then prove this god has laid out this morality so we can objectively know it, then prove that he knows the correct god's morality, and finally that his interpretation of this morality is the correct one. In a funny twist, Frank couldn't do this without using the same process atheists use to determine morality in the first place. So what is the need for a god to tell us? Mr. Turek, just skip these steps and join the rational side of this debate.

[@GSpotter63]

Objective and Subjective moral standards Let me propose another definition of Objective and Subjective moral standards. Something is Objective if its existence is independent of consciousness. Something is Subjective in so far as its existence is dependent on consciousness. Something is Objective only in so far as it could continue even if all consciousness in the universe were eliminated. AKA 1 plus 1 would still equal two regardless if there is anybody around to know it. Now if we think of God as consciousness, as most definitions of God do. Then the morality that comes from that consciousness, according to the definition that I have just set out, would also be just as Subjective as any morality that any man could construct. If this is correct........The question we must now ask is. Dose God not have the right to impose his moral standards on his own creation? And if so, does that not make those standards Objective rather than Subjective in that creation? If those Subjective morals are built into this creation, then would not that in itself, make those Subjective morals Objective in and to all living in this universe? To explain farther, let’s use a video game as a parallel. A programmer can build into his game world any morality he chooses. Those that play the game as well as the NPCs (non player character) are locked into its built-in moral system as well as the consequences for breaking that system. Because the player’s avatar is part of the game universe itself it is also subject to the rules of that universe including any morals built into it. Do you not have the right to make the rules (morals) for your own game? Are you then not allowed to impose your rules (morals) on others entering your game? If they refuse to accept and live by your rules while in your game do you not have the right and responsibility then to force them to do so or remove them from your game? The fact that this is God's universe (game), one that he made and owns justifies his absolute, universal morality here........ It must be pointed out that we are his creation... We live in and are part of his universe (game), therefore we are then subject to his rules (morals) while in his universe (game).....If one dose not like God’s rules (morals) and refuse to live by them, they should not be surprised by their difficulties when they find themselves bumping into those built in morals and realities that they refuse to accept. That said....... God did give us free will to do as we please while in his universe. Sure God gave us instruction on how this universe works best. What set of rules (morals) to follow that would reduce pain and suffering to a minimum. But one can chose to ignore those instructions and do things his/her own way if that is what one insist. And we all get to suffer the consequences of each other's chosen actions wile in this universe. This, of course all rests on whether or not God exists. But that is a question for another time. P.S. Some try to postulate that because the morals of God are subjective rather than objective that he then does not exist. Or that because mankind can make a set of his own Subjective morals that God and his morals then do not exist..... These arguments of course would both be a very big and obvious non sequitur... Having the ability to construct your own morals simply has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.

[@goranmilic442]

If God you described exists, with his own non-perfect subjective morality, that would still mean Christianity is wrong, because they claim God is the source of objective morality.

[@daltonhaverland1155]

@@goranmilic442 Just because God's morality might be subjective, doesn't mean Christianity is wrong in saying God is the standard for morality. First, if God wasn't influenced by sin, his morality would be sided towards good and not evil every time. I don't think OP ever stated that his subjective morality would be non-perfect, is that an assumption on your part? Second if God provided objective moral standards, it would be in discerning the moral value of a lie not being the truth(lies). Property not yours to take(theft). A wife not yours to take(adultery). A life not yours to take(murder). Etc.. Discern that it is of moral value, that it is subjective to morality influenced by sin, and the circumstances are irrelevant. Just my two cents

[@goranmilic442]

@@daltonhaverland1155 I was commenting the post above. Guy said God created us, so he has every right to do what he want with us. But the question is not his right, but his morality. If God would abuse his right, he would not be moral, so in that case Christianity would be wrong, since it describes God as all-good/omnibenevolent. If you claim I'm wrong and Christianity is not claiming God is omnibenevolent, I would appreciate some quote.

[@daltonhaverland1155]

@@goranmilic442 Proof of omnibenevolence would lie in context of God of the Bible being subjectively good in terms of morality. Atheists always say that God condones or even wills atrocities, but the scripture points to that God is good in terms of morality. Good meaning morally excellent, not an abuse to be seen, maybe why Jesus' robes dawned 'perfect'. #1 rule of sound biblical doctrine is context, context, context So yeah, I'd say God is omnibenevolent. An interesting video would be on YTchannel Cross Examined 'A response to the angry, immoral God objection'., or maybe the same channel 'Is it wrong for God to kill people?'

[@goranmilic442]

@@daltonhaverland1155 I saw those videos. It gave good reasons why God killed adult Canaanites, it said nothing about why God ordered killing innocent Canaanite children.

[@Pngiaca]

That because murder is wrong by definition. Killing is what is objective, and it is not always wrong.

[@teamatfort444]

i know this is a 7 year old comment but THANK U FOR SAYING THAT I WAS SHOUTING THAT THE WHOLE TIME

[@nooberrific]

How can there be objective morality when it changes with the time

[@steelframer]

not all morals are objective but their are some and just because people decide not to follow them doesn't make them subjective it just shows they have a free will

[@Spencerwalker21]

+steel framer 16th century objective moralites would differ from today

[@siyamanci2596]

Thstv is why we need God's law which shall not change.

[@steelframer]

Spencerwalker21 nope things like murder and rape were still wrong and just because a society decides to do them doesn't show that they are not objective but that the society is immoral and they have a free will

[@nooberrific]

+Manci Ackles Siya hope your a troll

[@mickqQ]

Objective according to who ?

[@quantumplaterjohn3169]

Objective refers to the fact that the standard of right and wrong exists beyond us. The standard must come from a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial source because morality has these characteristics. This argument is used against atheism, so any religion that has a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial god can agree that objective morality exists. To determine which religion is true, you must resort to other evidence and lines of reasoning.

[@mickqQ]

@QuantumPlater John 3:16 How do you judge wether or not this standard that comes from beyond you is moral ? To describe something as Spaceless, timeless and immaterial... it sound like your describing non-existence

[@quantumplaterjohn3169]

@@mickqQ There wouldn’t be morality if that standard didn’t exist. In other words, we would have no way of “judging” anything as moral or immoral unless we already knew morality. The laws of morality, logic, and mathematics can be described as spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. The cause of the universe must also be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial otherwise space, time, and matter wouldn’t exist.

[@mickqQ]

@QuantumPlater John 3:16 Morality must already exist for you to be able to judge that standard . Logic mathematics etc are conceptual Are you suggesting g god is conceptual

[@quantumplaterjohn3169]

@@mickqQ The standard is ultimate. I am saying that God is the moral standard and we could not make any moral judgements without this moral standard. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." No, I am not suggesting that God is conceptual. You stated that something that is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial sounds like non-existence. I provided some examples to show that we already know of such things that exist.

[@stephencastro4723]

Pointing God as evil by the atheists without an objective standard is as absurd as saying an artwork is inaccurate without a reference. Or saying a building is wrongly built without a blue print. Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are good in this crap.

[@GSpotter63]

"Is there an objective moral law?" If there isn't then you can't objectively object to me saying that there is...

[@MaMastoast]

How did I know that this guy was a religious dude within the first few seconds of hearing the way he speaks.... His entire argument is that just because I have morals, must mean they are objective. No all morals are subjective, just because you claim whatever you moral values you hold to be objective changes nothing, they are subjective. Who are YOU, as a christian to claim your morals are objective? you can't justify it. All morals are subjective, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[@The-Dividing-Line]

Great to see truth being spoken from this pulpit.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

Claiming that because we are bio-chemical organisms alone causes a lack of morality is at best misdirection. It denies thought, consciousness, and the knowledge that thought brings. Perhaps the silliest argument you made yet. It is the same as saying that because Santa Clause doesn't exist we can not have Christmas music. They are independent of each other, neither causal to the other. With or without a deity, moral systems will work because of human relative relational system.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

@@milito537 hello pot, have you met the kettle?

[@FiverBeyond]

Mr. Turek bounces all over all kinds of ideas here, but really doesn't support his case. Morality is objective because everyone has gut reactions to being hurt by pain? No, this doesn't follow at all. In addition, many people have 'gut reactions' that are contradictory: for example, many people have a natural gut reaction that it's wrong to outlaw gay marriage, or otherwise denigrate homosexual relations. Going by Mr. Turek's bizarre standard of 'objective', this would mean that there is an undeniable objective moral value that gay marriage should be permitted (a stance he obviously can't endorse).

[@persegona77]

I think the reaction comment is useful in the sense that it shows everyone acts as though there is objective reality, even if they claim to deny it. Take for example the average atheist whom claims there is no objective standard for good vs evil, yet they get all indignant when they perceive someone as having transgressed against them. Well, how is their reaction acceptable, since, after all, that's merely their subjective opinion (remember no right or wrong only opinion) and why should their subjective opinion be elevated above that opinion/actions of the person who "transgressed" against them? This exactly the seed from where "might (force/power) makes right" comes from.

[@FiverBeyond]

alex persegona "I think the reaction comment is useful in the sense that it shows everyone acts as though there is objective reality, even if they claim to deny it." How do 'gut reactions' show that everyone acts as though there is an objective moral reality? Having an immediate, powerful, emotional reaction doesn't imply that something is objective. "Well, how is their reaction acceptable, since, after all, that's merely their subjective opinion" Just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's an opinion: there are alot of subjective things that aren't simply opinion. Even if it were simply opinion, it would still make sense for someone to object to you violating morality (because morality is important, whether or not it's subjective).

[@persegona77]

Hey WittyNotes, I'll try to explain my comment line by line below... How do 'gut reactions' show that everyone acts as though there is an objective moral reality? Response: A persons who reacts as though they have been wronged betray their stated world view. That begs the question, how can they be wronged since, according to their world view, there is no such thing as right and wrong only preference. My point was, that their actions reveal that they live like there is such a thing as right and wrong even though the profess otherwise. At best that's being inconsistent. Having an immediate, powerful, emotional reaction doesn't imply that something is objective. Response: True, I never said that it did. Just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's an opinion: Response: What's the "it's" you are talking about here? there are alot of subjective things that aren't simply opinion. Response: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying opinions can be objective? If yes, then I agree. I never said opinions are automatically not objective. It is possible that an opinion is objective, so long as it conforms to reality/truth/fact, but there needs to be a standard to compare that opinion to in order to make that determination. At the point an opinion conforms to reality/fact then it moves from being a subjective opinion to an objective one, even if the the opinion was formulated subjectively (eg. you can guess about something and be factually correct in your guess). Even if it were simply opinion, it would still make sense for someone to object to you violating morality (because morality is important, whether or not it's subjective). Response: How does it make sense? Just because that's what people do? No, it doesn't make sense logically or rationally when people who claim there is no right or wrong to get upset when they are "wronged." What I hear you saying is that feelings are morality, and that feelings are important. I disagree, feelings and morality are separate things. Feelings don't trump reality and feelings are not morality. Feeling are important, but they do not determine truth.

[@neilxt]

WittyNotes no 2 people can agree on what it is, therefore it does not exist.

[@barryjones9362]

If it were true that any action of man is objectively immoral, then the objectivity of it would mean Christian apologists could prove its immorality without appeal to what any other human being thinks or feels about the act, for what other humans have to say constitutes a "subjective" and hence NON-objective reason. Let's take the one example they use most often, "Don't torture babies to death solely for entertainment" (Yes, I disagree with fellow atheists who think this act is objectively immoral, Turek is correct, if there is no god, there is no such thing as objective morals). If such child abuse is "objectively" immoral, then its immorality does not arise from what any other human being has to say about it, since "objectively true" means "true for reasons independent of human opinion". Hence, Turek would be able to show that such act is immoral without referring to what anybody else has to say about it, just like he could demonstrate that New York City's existence is objectively true without needing to appeal to what any human being has to say about it. So let's have it, Turek: Since a human's act cannot be objectively immoral because of what somebody else has to say about it, then demonstrate that torturing babies to death solely for entertainment is objectively immoral, and do so without asking for any input from any other human being. Do not ask whether your audience thinks it immoral, and do not ask the atheist whether they think any exceptions could apply in which such child abuse might be "good". Show the objectivity of the immorality without depending on what any human being thinks or believes about the matter. turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/11/my-challenge-to-matthew-flannagan.html And Turek, stop saying that beating children to death is objectively immoral because God claims to cause other people to commit this act, Isaiah 13:13-18, Hosea 13:15-16. The reason you don't talk as plainly as the OT authors about how close God is to evil, is because you actually disagree with them, even if you deny that to be the case. And stop saying rape is objectively immoral, because God claims to cause other people to commit rape, Deuteronomy 28:15, 30, 63, Isaiah 13:16, see context too. And stop saying sin is objectively immoral, because that would mean you are claiming it is objectively immoral for God to put hooks in a person's jaws and force them to commit sin, see God using "hook in your jaws" to demonstrate his forcing people to sin, in Ezekiel 38:4 -Ezekiel 39:6. yes, the hooks are metaphor, but that hardly helps you; YOU certainly never use that metaphor to explain your belief about how God is sovereign over man's alleged freewill, so we can be pretty sure that the reason you never NEVER talk so freely as OT authors do about God forcing people to sin, is because you disagree with those OT authors, despite your other belief that the entire bible is "inerrant". Nobody said Christians are always consistent in their beliefs.

[@StephensCrazyHour]

You bring up an interesting point about the term "objective". From a scientific point of view, "objective" means that a conclusion was reached without the application of the researcher's bias. It means that under the same conditions, the experiment should yield similar results. Without going into a detailed discussion on the is-ought problem, I do believe that many things could be said to be objectively moral because asking the question "is X a behaviour which we should encourage in others" would yield vast agreement or disagreement cross culturally and even across time. Sure, there would be some questions which yielded a variety of responses and it's interesting to discuss those issues too. I suspect that those issues are often the result of the prioritisation of one higher form of morality over another. So I do believe that it's possible that morality can be objectively observed even when it's not a tangible thing and it's not always practiced. In fact the idea of morality is that it is something that ought to occur, not something that necessarily does occur.

[@barryjones9362]

@@StephensCrazyHour Morality is objectively observed, because all evidence concerning what a person "should" do always comes to the brain through one or more of the 5 physical senses. What a person "should" do boils down to somebody else's opinion, which is a thought, and thoughts are physical.

[@StephensCrazyHour]

@@barryjones9362 which is like saying that computer data is electrical. It's technically true but the greater truth of it lies at a level far above the level of electrical signals. Its meaning is at a higher level of abstraction. Similarly, the meaning of morality is at a higher level of abstraction than the mere sensory experience. It's a fundamental part of our humanity, and it's observable at that level of abstraction. And it definitely does have meaning. People have fought wars over morality (for example WWII) and that means it's real and has meaning - at least at the human level. Note that this in and of itself does not prove anything other than the fact that humans are wired for morality and that there are strong similarities between moralities across culture. Whether you want to draw the conclusion that CS Lewis does or keep it purely as a product of evolution, morality as an objective construct is rock solid. It exists and it's highly important.

[@barryjones9362]

@@StephensCrazyHour I' m not seeing your point, you are just giving a long-winded argument that morality is real. I never denied this. What I deny is that morality has any ties to anything transcending the human. If you wish to rebut me, then you need to rebut the theory that says morality is 100% naturalistic.

[@StephensCrazyHour]

@@barryjones9362 that was not your argument. Your argument was that "objectively real" meant "independent of the emotions of humans". My argument is that "objectively real", from a scientific perspective, simply means that an experiment is repeatable within a margin of error. In that sense, there is such a thing as objectively real morality because we have seen laws like "do not murder" arise across cultures and time. There might exist historical or current cultures that do permit murder, but they would be an outlier. So it is objectively true that morality exists because all morality is is the belief that some rules of human interaction are the proper way to interact. The existence of morality is in that sense objectively true. Now it could be argued that the source of that is entirely natural in origin and the scientific approach has to take this stance because by its very nature science only "believes" in natural origins of things. Scientifically, even religion and religious phenomena must be approached from a naturalist perspective.

[@Pngiaca]

When you classify something as rape, you are classifying it as wrong to begin with. That is a nonsensical statement, actually. That's like saying, "Killing someone wrongfully is wrong." Well, no duh. The point is however, that the act itself is not objectively wrong. There are some people who might disagree with you, and you have no way of saying that you are right and they are wrong. Just because you think so, doesn't make it objective.

[@majav15mg]

Objective principles do not require any sort of standard or authoritative figure. If they do, then they truly are the opposite of objective. I'm an atheist and I do think that morality is objective. But it's also circumstantial. Ask yourselves this... if god does indeed exist, can he just change the value of PI or the value of 2+2 just for his pleasure? Did he need to create these in the first place? If you understand what objectivity is, then the answer to these should be a big no.

[@alanhalsey3973]

If we can only look to a culture, country or social group, then why would we think Nazi Germany was wrong? How could one social group compare behaviors of another? With no god, there is no difference between Hitler and Ghandi. Is the only reason the acts of Nazis are considered crimes against humanity because they lost the war? No. Even if no one agreed, murder is wrong. Morality is discovered, not simply agreed upon. The basis of morality is outside of our temporal being. God is necessary.

[@thedood73]

we know things are right or wrong without having to believe in God and fearing his judgement, by caring about others not just ourselves.the thesis is baseless.I could equally say that God-believers have no sense of right and wrong cause they have to be given a set of rules to adhere to or face punishment,and obey through fear not morality.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

Hitchen never claimed (at least I never heard him claim) that it was Christians that were the problem. His main focus was that Christianity's theology and the abhorrent ideas and beliefs it teaches are the problem: thought crime, vicarious redemption, original sin (holding a man responsible for another's actions), blood redemption, claiming only they are saved. Hitchens did not claim the Christian was the problem, it is their barbaric faith he detested: you once again Strawman him.

[@killer4hire]

There are no objective morals does not equal there are no morals. If you think something is unjust you can do so without thinking it is objectively unjust. the argument for a moral law fails as it uses personal emotions to establish there is an objective law. that is self refuting as personal emotions are subjective by definition. To establish if a specific moral is objective only reason and not emotion can be used. Turok does not do this.

[@APaleDot]

Also, we should note that nothing ever has been 'objectively superior' to anything else in the history of ever, ever. This is because calling something 'superior' is an evaluation. I might say my car is objectively superior to yours because it is faster and has more horsepower, but then you reply that yours is objectively superior because it is more fuel efficient. While the facts are objective, the standards are not. The trick to morality is finding a standard that humans as a whole agree to.

[@peaches3835]

is there were no objective moral law, that does not mean there is no morals.

[@tofunwatoyinbo]

yeah pretty much

[@johndeeble4095]

If God told people not to climb telephone poles people would be climbing telephone poles all over town just to thumb their nose at God