Ronald A. Lindsay is not known for his airtight rational arguments and his piece on objective morality is true to form.
Morality is relative, not objective. We don’t need objective morality. Morality is a personal sensibility, an emotion, a feeling of what one ought to do or a sense of what one should do.
Human beings function socially absent objective morality. Why do so many atheists persist in arguing fallaciously for something that does not exist and we do not need?
For objective morality to be the case we would need a source for objective truth outside of ourselves, such as a god or some method of obtaining knowledge that is known to be objectively true. Human beings have access to no such thing so why persist in making patently erroneous arguments for something that simply cannot be rationally argued for?
Ronald A. Lindsay is not known for his airtight rational arguments and his piece on objective morality is true to form.
https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/5640
Morality is relative, not objective. We don't need objective morality. Morality is a personal sensibility, an emotion, a feeling of what one ought to do or a sense of what one should do.
Human beings function socially absent objective morality. Why do so many atheists persist in arguing fallaciously for something that does not exist and we do not need?
For objective morality to be the case we would need a source for objective truth outside of ourselves, such as a god or some method of obtaining knowledge that is known to be objectively true. Human beings have access to no such thing so why persist in making patently erroneous arguments for something that simply cannot be rationally argued for?
Gee what a great response to the article you've come up with: Article is A, and you say not A. Real nice reasoning there. Your silliness aside, the article's a good attempt to take the wind out of religionist's sails by giving sense to the notion that morality is objective in some way.
the article’s a good attempt to take the wind out of religionist’s sails by giving sense to the notion that morality is objective in some way
Actually, it is an embarrassing attempt to do the impossible, get from atheistic naturalism to objective morality. It just makes atheists look stupid.
A much better approach would be to say we don't need what we don't now have and have never had, an objective morality. Society has never functioned with an objective morality so why argue for one at all?
By arguing that a non-existent thing can be derived on naturalism Lindsay just makes himself, and by implication other atheists, look foolish.
For objective morality to be the case we would need a source for objective truth outside of ourselves, such as a god or some method of obtaining knowledge that is known to be objectively true.
It seems you have not read the article. Lindsay clearly argues that this is not the case, but that this does not make morality relative. He states also quite clearly that 'objective' in moral norms does not mean exactly the same as in facts. One can be subjective about facts (stating as true what you like to be true without proper investigation), and one can just as well be subjective about norms (just doing what you like without encompassing the interests and suffering of others): but one can do better, being
rational about morality. If norms can stand rational scrutiny, they can be called objective.
I would suggest you look at the arguments Lindsay gives (and do not forget his discussion of counter arguments!), cite the essential passages here, and show us why these arguments are not valid.
It looks like you paid more attention to the comments than to the article itself. You seem to believe that objective means “dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings”. In that sense you might be correct, because morality is an abstract concept that only exists in the mind. But objective also means “not showing favoritism or prejudice; unbiased”. Morality certainly can be follow a prescribed code which is unbiased.