Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The problem is if your moral standard is evolving and can contradict itself, can that system of moral determination be true since it can produce self-contradiction?

Changing one’s mind might produce statements that on the surface are contradictory moral judgements, but that situation is readily distinguished from a case of logical contradiction, by examining the circumstances of the change.

If you honestly say you have never changed your mind on a moral judgement you have made, I would doubt the extent to which you have experience with life.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
You may as well ask where cornflakes came from if there is no god.

We know where cornflakes came from, do you know where logic came from? What reason do you have to trust your own logic?

Originally posted by @js357
Changing one’s mind might produce statements that on the surface are contradictory moral judgements, but that situation is readily distinguished from a case of logical contradiction, by examining the circumstances of the change.

If you honestly say you have never changed your mind on a moral judgement you have made, I would doubt the extent to which you have experience with life.

Give me an example that you have changed your mind on.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Give me an example that you have changed your mind on.

When very young I was taught that lying was always morally wrong and I believed it. Now I believe that lying is sometimes morally justified, even obligatory, when it will prevent a greater evil.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
We know where cornflakes came from, do you know where logic came from? What reason do you have to trust your own logic?

I'm sure Logic and cornflakes are both Man's invention/discovery.

As for trusting my own logic.
1. It is not my logic, I do not own it.
2. Logic is the discipline of reasoned thinking. Surely by definition it can be trusted???

Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe know where cornflakes came from, do you know where logic came from? What reason do you have to trust your own logic?

...he said, all logically.

Originally posted by @js357
When very young I was taught that lying was always morally wrong and I believed it. Now I believe that lying is sometimes morally justified, even obligatory, when it will prevent a greater evil.

When you say 'greater evil' you mean something that is subjectively 'greater evil' or something that is objectively 'greater evil'?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
I'm sure Logic and cornflakes are both Man's invention/discovery.

As for trusting my own logic.
1. It is not my logic, I do not own it.
2. Logic is the discipline of reasoned thinking. Surely by definition it can be trusted???

Do you believe there such things as logical absolutes? For example . . . A cannot be both A and not A at the same time?

If so, in an atheistic presuppositional worldview, how do you account for the existence of logical absolutes?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
When you say 'greater evil' you mean something that is subjectively 'greater evil' or something that is objectively 'greater evil'?

I mean something I believe is a greater evil. That has to be a good enough reason.

Originally posted by @js357
I mean something I believe is a greater evil. That has to be a good enough reason.

I would agree if evil and ‘greater evil’ can be objectively defined and is real and not just a construct of the human mind. If it is simply a construct of the human mind, why would it even matter if people defined evil differently?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would agree if evil and ‘greater evil’ can be objectively defined and is real and not just a construct of the human mind. If it is simply a construct of the human mind, why would it even matter if people defined evil differently?

Try and use your imagination.
What would the world look like if people defined evil differently?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Try and use your imagination.
What would the world look like if people defined evil differently?

If evil is subjective and not objective we could all define it differently. Ponder upon that for a bit.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would agree if evil and ‘greater evil’ can be objectively defined and is real and not just a construct of the human mind. If it is simply a construct of the human mind, why would it even matter if people defined evil differently?

It matters because humans are also able to “construct” consequences for evil-doers. Morality is one system societies use to place limits on behavior; the judicial system is another. Of course so is the Bible as a sort of amalgam of the two.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If evil is subjective and not objective we could all define it differently. Ponder upon that for a bit.

Pondering that, I conclude it is exactly what’s going on.

Originally posted by @js357
Pondering that, I conclude it is exactly what’s going on.

If we all defined it differently we wouldn’t agree on anything yet we do. Most of the time.