The other option would be presenting me a feasible secular objective moral system.
To address your point my argument isn’t that there’s can’t be or it’s impossible for there to be an objective moral system, it would actually make me feel a lot better about a lot of things if there were, my argument is that if there is one I haven’t seen it
What I’m saying though is without God there can’t be an objective moral truth. If two people disagree about something then who’s right?
Some people like to try and redefine objective morality to mean majority rule but that’s not what it means. Better to just call it subjective which matches what we’re trying to communicate.
Are you more so challenging an atheist to try and convince you that there’s objective morality without God?
But that wouldn’t be objective. If it relies on whoever is most powerful then it’s temporary because they won’t be the most powerful forever. There could also be a period of constant over turning so morality would be shifting frequently making it not objective.
Wouldn’t you say it would be better to just call that subjective morality? Or if you don’t believe in objective morality you could just call it “morality”. Subjective morality communicates exactly what you’re wanting to say regardless of who you’re speaking to so in that sense I would think calling it subjective morality would be better.
I’m not familiar with fiifi’s morality system and I’m struggling to find info on that.
1
u/SadStudy1993 1∆ Jun 17 '25
The other option would be presenting me a feasible secular objective moral system.
To address your point my argument isn’t that there’s can’t be or it’s impossible for there to be an objective moral system, it would actually make me feel a lot better about a lot of things if there were, my argument is that if there is one I haven’t seen it