After reading your quotes I don't think your really understand were I'm coming from. I not arguing for a Divine Command and I don't advocate moral realism over anti-realism. I'm arguing a "this is how it is" POV with regrades to metaphysical and metethical consequences. In Defense of Moral Subjectivism: An Argument for the Subjectivity of Moral Values
Originally Posted by UTfootball747
"In the Summer 1997 issue of Free Inquiry (Vol. 17, No. 3), Theodore Schick, Jr. wrote Morality Requires God... or Does It?, which was an excellent and valid critique of the divine command theory of ethics. The premise of Schick's original article, in a nutshell, is that even if we assume God exists (for the sake of argument), God's commandment that some action is moral doesn't make that action moral, since God could command that any action is right or wrong indiscriminately--i.e., if God's commandments were the basis of morality, then what makes an action "moral" would be determined arbitrarily. If God said genocide was moral, that would make genocide moral; if God said it was immoral, genocide would be immoral. Thus, there must be some objective moral standard God must refer to that exists independently of God's commandment for moral values to be determined non-arbitrarily. This standard would exist independently of God, and thus the existence of morality would not depend upon the existence of God."
"n Defense of Moral Subjectivism: An Argument for the Subjectivity of Moral Values
"In his reply to my letter to the editor, Theodore Schick accused me of arguing "that morality must must be subjective on the grounds that [I] cannot see how it could be objective." But this is not what I argued at all. I said that I thought that the idea that "there can be no objective moral laws" was plausible to atheists. I think it is perfectly possible that objective moral laws exist in some Platonic realm of ideas, but I think it is implausible that such is the case. Since moral laws refer to the actions of sentient beings, it is difficult to conceive how they could originate by unconscious natural mechanisms. "
"We do not accuse a lion of immorality for tearing a giraffe to shreds. Animals are not 'subject' to moral laws because they don't make moral decisions. Yet, if we all accept a purely naturalistic evolutionary account of the origin of Homo sapiens, it follows that human beings are merely another species of animal, and consequently we are not subject to moral laws." There can be no moral facts...so saying "Atheists are more moral then theists because...." means what when all moral laws are arbitrary. There could be no inherent rights. Serbian genocide was ethical relative to Serbian moral subjectivism. Countries that intervened were imposing their moral standards onto the Serbs. Competing memes. Which actions/behaviors (the Crusades) humans deem right and wrong, good and evil, are arbitrary.
Last edited by Scott F; 04-04-2013 at 12:00 PM.
Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?