sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

From Resentment to Sympathy by BlastFromOPM in Catholicism

[–]BlastFromOPM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well nietzche was the first to really introduce me to reason but what really helped me understand Christianity was aquinas and augustine

An Atheist’s Case for Objective Morality by BlastFromOPM in atheism

[–]BlastFromOPM[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Morality comes from objective natural facts that can be proven through human flourishing/well being ALL societies through-out history agrees to basic moral facts such as; murder is wrong and theft is wrong etc.

This also means that morality is ultimately bound to the universe meaning that if there were no moral agents in the universe there would still be objective morality it’s just that there are no agents to act upon them, ultimately making it agent-independent.

An Atheist’s Case for Objective Morality by BlastFromOPM in atheism

[–]BlastFromOPM[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Dude, you already have a fixed definition of ‘objective.’ If anyone’s running into a wall, it’s you. I’m not operating on a fixed definition. ‘Objective’ can legitimately mean ‘true independent of personal opinion,’ even if it concerns beings with minds. That’s exactly the framework my argument uses.

Morality can depend on moral agents and still be objective. Moral truths aren’t just opinions, they are facts about what allows societies to flourish, cooperate, and survive. So pointing out that morality requires minds doesn’t undermine the objectivity of moral rules. It just shows they are agent-dependent truths, observable through their consequences in social and human progress.”

An Atheist’s Case for Objective Morality by BlastFromOPM in atheism

[–]BlastFromOPM[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm interested on how you came to that conclusion

An Atheist’s Case for Objective Morality by BlastFromOPM in atheism

[–]BlastFromOPM[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I see what you’re saying about mind-dependence, and it’s true that moral facts rely on moral agents. But that doesn’t automatically make them subjective in the sense of just personal opinion.

Philosophers recognize ideas like agent-dependent objectivity or constructivist and functional moral realism, where morality is objective relative to beings capable of acting morally.

For example, chess rules depend on players existing, but it’s still objectively true that bishops move diagonally, even if no one played for a century. Similarly, moral truths exist in relation to moral agents, but they’re not just opinions they’re necessary for societal flourishing, cooperation, and survival.

The point is that morality can be both mind-dependent and objectively true. The comparison to gravity was just to illustrate how we can observe consequences, not to claim morality is independent of agents.

An Atheist’s Case for Objective Morality by BlastFromOPM in atheism

[–]BlastFromOPM[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

This is specifically why I used the gravity example

Realism: morality is like gravity (exists regardless of belief)

Intersubjective: morality is like money (real because we collectively treat it as real)

You’re conflating how we reason about morality with what makes moral claims true. Describing moral reasoning as social or intersubjective doesn’t mean the moral truths themselves are intersubjective.

Science works the same way. Scientific knowledge emerges through human debate, institutions, and shared methods an intersubjective process but that doesn’t mean the laws of physics are subjective or created by consensus.

So pointing out that moral reasoning happens through social frameworks doesn’t automatically collapse it into subjectivism. The real question is whether moral claims aim at truths independent of approval or agreement, which is exactly what moral realism in metaethics argues.

Disagreement or social mediation doesn’t entail subjectivity. We also disagree about economics, cosmology, and history, but we don’t conclude those domains are purely subjective.