My initial response to the assertion that "objective" morality cannot be derived from any worldview is, how do you know that for certain? Have you looked everywhere? How can a finite human being possibly have enough knowledge to assert with any certainty a universal negative? How many times did you have to put your hand on a hot stove before you inferred that it was never going to be a pleasant experience? Do you still light it up and mash down firmly from time to time, on the theory that you, as a finite human being, cannot possibly have enough knowledge to assert with any certainty the universal negative proposition that it will never be a pleasurable sensation for you?
Tell you what - if you have a candidate for an objectively "correct" or "true" moral system, bring it forth. I'll fire up the stove, and we'll see if this time it'll finally be fun for you.
Responsibility denotes some sort of moral obligation or incumbency...
Not at all. "Anything goes" is a moral system of sorts, and it requires nothing of us at all, except that we do as we please anyway. You will have a moral/ethical system in place, no matter what you do or don't do - there's no obligation upon you to do anything.
...this is what I mean when I say that atheism cannot give a coherent account of morality
Allow me to reiterate, in that case - "because someone else said so" does not strike me as an especially "coherent" basis for an "objective" moral system.
r9etb is also correct to point out that if you deny the existence of objective morality then then you have no legitimate complaints about anything at all...
Absurd. The rules of baseball are entirely human constructs - we invented them, and we can change them any time we see fit. Does that mean that the players "have no legitimate complaints" when someone violates the rules as they're currently understood? Are their complaints only "legitimate" if Abner Doubleday was, in fact, God?
Whenever there is an objection to something, there is an assumption of some standard that the thing violates. So when some non-Christian like Dawkins objects to the Christian faith he assumes some standard that Christianity violates. In order to do so, though, since he cannot justify the standard from an atheistic worldview...
Of course he can. Just like the centerfielder doesn't have to invoke God to point out that the second baseman is taking steroids.
...I think the fact that this unacknowledged presupposition has been pervasive throughout this discussion is the evidence, or the proof, if you will, that is already evident to you.
You mistake your own limitations for universal limitations upon everyone.
Cheers!
The rules of baseball are an odd choice of metaphor to support moral subjectivism. While they are a human construct, and arbitrary, they are not subjective. Though the interpretation may be subjective, the rules themselves are completely objective. Atheism as a foundation of morality makes about as much sense as trying to play a game where there are no real rules or objective so everyone just makes up their own, and then calling it baseball.
..."because someone else said so" does not strike me as an especially "coherent" basis for an "objective" moral system
That "Someone said so" is the only basis for morality. Morality, like the rules of baseball, requires an authoritative voice because moral rules come in the form of personal, propositional commands from an authoritative source. I could put on a home plate umpire uniform like Leslie Nielsen in The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad", start calling balls and strikes, and though I would be a personal voice, I would not be an authoritative source because I'm not a real umpire, and the players would not be obligated to obey my commands
The reason that the center fielder has a legitimate complaint that the second baseman (presumably the opposing one) is taking steroids is because the second baseman is violating the objective rules of MLB. If everyone makes up their own rules which are all equally legitimate the center fielder has no grounds for complaint, which precisely illustrates my point that if you make a moral objection to something you are assuming some moral standard which the thing violates, and you are assuming that there is moral incumbency. If morality is subjective, there are no legitimate ethical objections to anything and no moral incumbency because morality would be as subjective as 5 billion brain states at any given time.
Cordially,
