Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Mind you sonhouse, "objective" standards are non-existent. "Objectivity" is grounded strictly on our consensus regarding our collective subjectivity alone. There is no other objectivity than this.
Our so called "objective standards" are not "objective" because they envelop a specific essence or substance of "objectivity" that exists on its own being i ...[text shortened]... n of moral success theory for which the moral facts depend in no way on OUR mental activity?
😵

What about objective truth? Does it exist?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
That implies that right and wrong could change with changing laws. If it was no longer against the law to torture babies would that suddenly make it right? Would you do it if it wasn't against the law?

“Right” and “Wrong” are defined solely by us. In the past, slavery was quite normal. This is not the case today. Our evaluation regarding slavery shifted from “Right” to “Wrong”.

If it was no longer against the law to torture babies, it would mean simply that the specific action would not be considered a crime.
I would not torture babies under any circumstances. This is strictly my personal evaluation of the mind; I don’t need any other instrument, a lawgiver, G-d or any so called “Holy Book” when it boils down to the way I perceive morality. If I were forced by law to torture babies, I would refuse and I would be a criminal😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
“Right” and “Wrong” are defined solely by us. In the past, slavery was quite normal. This is not the case today. Our evaluation regarding slavery shifted from “Right” to “Wrong”.

If it was no longer against the law to torture babies, it would mean simply that the specific action would not be considered a crime.
I would not torture babies under an ...[text shortened]... morality. If I were forced by law to torture babies, I would refuse and I would be a criminal😵

So you agree that torturing babies is always wrong regardless of personal feelings, tastes, or opinions?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]There is no other objectivity than this.

Obviously not if God doesn't exist. What if He does exist?[/b]

Nobody knows if G-d exists or not. Till we get to know, I will stay with my own evaluation of the mind as regards morality😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What about objective truth? Does it exist?

"Objective truth" in separation from our strictly grounded on our (proved in practice as true) collective subjectivity as regards "truth", does not exist😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you agree that torturing babies is always wrong regardless of personal feelings, tastes, or opinions?

Yes😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If it wasn't a crime you would be ok with it?

No😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you agree that torturing babies is always wrong regardless of personal feelings, tastes, or opinions?

Yes! (Do you really expect anyone to say no to such a sick question? )

But here's the rub, I can say 'yes' completely void of any belief in a moral law giver. (For reasons given to you at least 20 times).

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You obviously don't know what the Bible says about the issue, or you are simply ignoring it.

What I am putting to you is based squarely on what you have claimed about your supposedly "objective" moral standards.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Nobody knows if G-d exists or not.

This is not true.

The truth is written on our hearts in the blood of the Most High. Surely we know.

The rub is what we do about it.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Nobody knows if G-d exists or not. Till we get to know, I will stay with my own evaluation of the mind as regards morality😵

You don't know that abiogenesis occurred without an intelligent agent being involved yet you are happy to assume it did. Hypocrisy much?

Originally posted by @fmf
What I am putting to you is based squarely on what you have claimed about your supposedly "objective" moral standards.

What you are putting to me lacks a total understanding of the Christian faith, which is strange for someone who claims to have been one for decades.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What you are putting to me lacks a total understanding of the Christian faith, which is strange for someone who claims to have been one for decades.

No, it is based on your "rationale" for your supposedly "objective" morality.

Originally posted by @fmf
No, it is based on your "rationale" for your supposedly "objective" morality.

My 'rationale' for objective morality is based upon the Bible. The Bible says we cannot add or remove from it, so no it is not.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
My 'rationale' for objective morality is based upon the Bible. The Bible says we cannot add or remove from it, so no it is not.

If you read what I am putting to you, it is underpinned by the sorts of things you have said. You should be able to recognize them. Read them again. I am not going to retype anything.