Huh?Kenny wrote:Here is my position. If morality is objective, it is objective regardless of whether I believe or want it to be subjective, or not.RickD wrote:I'm not sure which "position" you are referring to.Kenny wrote:And this is a position that PaulS holds, but you do not; is that correct?RickD wrote:No Kenny. PaulS was saying that belief in subjective morality lead to those atrocities. That's not the same as saying that belief in subjective morality will necessarily lead to those kinds of atrocities. But given human nature, it's a good likelihood that it could happen.Kenny wrote:
On 11/18/17 at 6:19am RickD said:
“Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.”
This tells me he finds the claim; that the belief in subjective morality will lead to atrocities, as an illogical claim
I believe that when taking a belief in subjective morality to its logical conclusion, atrocities like those referred to, not only fit the subjective morality worldview, they are also justified by the subjective morality worldview.
If morality is Subjective, it is subjective regardless of whether you and others believe or want it to be objective or not.
If only subjective morality leads to the listed atrocities, and those atrocities exist, that would indicate morality is subjective, because if it were objective, said atrocities would not have taken place. Do you agree?
Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion?
You continue to make the same mistake.
What I'm saying is:
1) morality is objective
2) some believe morality is subjective
3) some who believe morality is subjective, have committed atrocities which are consistent with a subjective morality worldview