Who said we can’t discern objective morality? That is presumptuous. That people cannot agree on every rule (or if even describing morality as a list rules is even the best way), does not mean there is no way to discern what is moral. In fact, I’d say that such a view is entirely inconsistent with Orthodox Christianity. While I think God is a most excellent judge and will judge people fairly in light of their backgrounds, upbringing and what they knew and so on, I think most of us believe God’s law is written on our hearts, that God holds us accountable for sin and expects us to do what is right. If we can’t possibly know what is right then I am not sure how God could ever expect us to behave in such a fashion and hold us accountable for not guessing correctly what is right and wrong. I am not sure how Christianity can be true and morality viewed as just a subjective guessing game. Does God only punish people if they do things they thought were wrong? That runs into counterexamples galore that are troubling such as genocide the Holocaust, abortion, etc. And if objective morality does not exist at all, this problem becomes a lot worse.
I also disagree that “good science doesn’t exist in a world in which the most esteemed scientists disagree about the most basic facts.” First off, morality wise, there are many universally agreed upon or very common things such as the golden rule and reciprocal altruism. Most people have empathy and are willing to help others. So your analogy is poor in that the “most basic facts” are generally agreed upon in the moral world. So I think my analogy still stands.
But even despite that, your argument would still not follow in my mind. Good science can exist even if most scientists disagreed with its conclusion. It may be the case that only a small percentage of them do science well and that may not include the esteemed ones. Imagine if YECs took over America and in 50 years only a small handful of non-seminary schools existed. Much of what passed for science would be “bad science” according to us and the few schools left would be doing “good science.” In fact, if the majority of the population were YECS, they would be the “esteemed ones”. I reject the notion that scientific truth or good science is a popularity contest. Outside of some universal themes, I’d say, neither is morality to be honest, as countless examples show. Consensus is a good place to start but it’s not synonymous with truth. I realize many people on this forum love appealing to consensus (how convenient it always happens to always be in regards to the stuff they agree with) and we all utilize experts and consensus testimony, but good science doesn’t need to be a consensus position. But it’s more than that. When experts disagree, the necessarily correct conclusion is 100% not: " none of them are right" or “there is no way for anyone to know.” That absolutely does not follow. What you can say is not that good science doesn’t exist, but that it is difficult for impartial observers who are not trained experts to know what good science is or who is doing it correctly when experts disagree. It just does not follow that because experts disagree, even significantly, there is no such thing as good research or science.
But being moral generally does not require a doctorate so the objection fails here as well. Science and morality are vastly different. Spiritual forces, fleshly desires and sin might easily prevent one from possessing an objective moral sense of the world on some issue. Doing objective science seems much more neutral and, on the face of it to me, less susceptible in its practical operation to sin and earthly desires getting in the way of it. In other words, objectivity is easier.
Not to mention, and maybe some here would be happy by this, but it seems to me you could also turn these types of arguments against Christian faith. Well, so many people believe in different religions, there couldn’t possibly be one that is objectively true and there is no way to know. That does not follow to me. Maybe you espouse a blind, subjective faith or maybe you do not. I do not. For me, neither my religions beliefs nor my moral views can be adequately described as subjective guessing games. I actually think my views are correct. I wouldn’t hold them otherwise. Diversity of belief does not mean there is isn’t an objective truth. It just means people disagree on what it is and even if you happen to be in possession of it, convincing others of it will be difficult. Denying the existence of objective morality just means there are no moral truths or oughts that anyone is obligated to follow because doing so is simply the right thing to do. It’s all just opinion. Oddly enough, many here think inserting God into gaps is quitting or giving up. What on earth is denying objective morality because some disagree with one another?
I’ve always believed, whether homosexuality is right or wrong, God is more concerned with how two individuals treat one another in a relationship than on what the genders of the two individuals happen to be. But that opinion is about as relevant to this discussion as the one you just articulated. And that is to say, not very much. I actually agree with you 100%. I think we can cite James on “true religion”, Jesus talking about the little ones, Him on his brothers and sister doing his will, Him never knowing people who prophecies in His name and got facts correct, CS Lewis on people making use of different upbringings and so on and on. But that is not the issue being discussed here. I am only arguing that modern day materialism is not consistent, as a worldview and philosophy on life, with objective moral values. Whether or not we could even exhaustively know what is objectively true or not doesn’t even matter to this point. I would simply say, there is no point in looking for something that doesn’t exist. But if something does, you can look for it even if you are certain you might never find it. I never said atheists do not behave morally, that they do not have God’s laws on their heart or that a correct worldview is more important than doing good deeds. Only that if objective morality does not exist, there are no real oughts and it is all just opinion and if we cannot objectively distinguish between feeding orphans or raping them, something is wrong with our worldview.
I read this post as you believing hurting children is objectively wrong. You may disagree but that is what is looks like to me. You also refer to grossly immoral positions, which, in my mind, assumes an objective standard of morality. If there is no such thing as “truth” something couldn’t be true or false. If there is no moral truth, I am not sure how something could truly be right or wrong. As C.S. Lewis opined: “The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said ‘New York’ each means merely ‘The town I am imagining in my own head,’ how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all.” It’s the same with morality for me. As far as I a concerned, whether or not we agree on all issues, the fundamental distinction between “right” and “wrong” is an integral and undeniable part of life. The goal is trying to figure out what is right and do it. Denying that is detaching oneself from reality. Materialism does that in my mind even if materialists do not.
Who here said subjective assertions of personal preferences and feelings are arguments for knowable, independent, objective standards? I think you are misunderstanding.
If objective morality does not exist, there are no morally obligatory laws, there is no actual right or wrong. Imagined rules of something that doesn’t exist are not right or wrong because they do not correspond to reality i morality is subjective (see the CS Lewis quote above about New York). I don’t need to have a correct list of moral rules or behaviors to know that. If we believe in right and wrong, then objective morality exists. If we don’t believe in objective morality then right and wrong do not actually exist. Functional based ethics can support the individual, the slave, the slave owner, the Nazi, the Jew, society as a whole, just your skin color, just your ethnicity or everyone including pets. There is still no way to tell Hitler he was actually wrong. I assume most people really believe he was wrong. Let me make it simple. If you don’t really believe that, then that is your business. That is the argument. You can just deny objective morality as @T_aquaticus does. The argument is over. The discussion is really about the consequences of that or whether people actually live their lives consistently with such an outlook.
Vinnie