Why must I justify the fact that I won't kill some random stranger? Do you believe I should do that? Do you think I must have some reason not to kill some random stranger to refrain from doing so? If so, explain why. If not, don't ask me for a justification. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't know. Like I said, I can't imagine what that is like, to live in a world where one isn't demanded to justify one's moral principles to others. I simply haven't lived in such a world. I suppose it's a nice world to live in.

,,,out of love of God — baker

This does not remove the basic problem: what to do next. Ought one to love god? Saying "yes - because god says so" is quite circular.

I don't know. Like I said, I can't imagine what that is like, to live in a world where one isn't demanded to justify one's moral principles to others. I simply haven't lived in such a world. I suppose it's a nice world to live in. — baker

You don't know whether I should kill some random stranger? Or you don't know whether I must have a reason not to kill some random stranger to refrain from doing so?

I don't know. Like I said, I can't imagine what that is like, to live in a world where one isn't demanded to justify one's moral principles to others. I simply haven't lived in such a world. I suppose it's a nice world to live in. — baker

Many religious share your experience. I am not sure I understand where you believe you morality comes from.

This does not remove the basic problem: what to do next. Ought one to love god? Saying "yes - because god says so" is quite circular. — Banno

Well, religious people generally don't seem to have any problems with circularity. So this one is on us, the outsiders.

You don't know whether I should kill some random stranger? Or you don't know whether I must have a reason not to kill some random stranger to refrain from doing so? — Ciceronianus the White

I don't know whether you need to give a justification or not.
I don't know whether there is someone to whom you need to justify your moral principles, or whether there is no such person.

religious people generally don't seem to have any problems with circularity. — baker

So much the worse for them. You describe a power imbalance in which you are the one asked to make the justification. Flip that around; seek a justification from those who demand you justify yourself. Learn to use Socratic method.

In that case, I'd say you don't know of a reason why I should have to justify my moral principles to others. Welcome, then, to the world in which at least the two of us don't think it's necessary to do so.

So much the worse for them. — Banno

Why? It's not like they feel troubled by those circularities.

You describe a power imbalance in which you are the one asked to make the justification. Flip that around; seek a justification from those who demand you justify yourself. Learn to use Socratic method.

And invite their wrath?! Justify them beating me up (metaphorically or literally)?!

As I said, you describe a power imbalance. You might do well to change that.

t's not like they feel troubled by those circularities. — baker

So what? Wrong is wrong, even if people think it is right. Racists are untroubled by their beliefs too. Does this mean we follow their lead?

As I said, you describe a power imbalance. You might do well to change that. — Banno

What do you mean? IRL, power imbalances are the norm in most interactions. One cannot simply pretend they don't exist.

t's not like they feel troubled by those circularities.
— baker

So what? Wrong is wrong, even if people think it is right. — Tom Storm

My point is that the theists themselves are not troubled by their circular thinking. They can go about their days just fine, and they pretty much rule the world, to boot -- and their circular thinking about God doesn't get in the way of their successful functioning.

Racists are untroubled by their beliefs too. Does this mean we follow their lead?

What if circular thinking isn't as bad as philosophers make it out to be?
Clearly, it's bad for philosophical purposes, but it doesn't seem half as bad for everyday purposes. It would be imprudent to dismiss this.

What do you mean? — baker

I mean, learn to stand up for yourself.

My point is that the theists themselves are not troubled by their circular thinking. — baker

Circular reasoning is a problem in a range of areas and not just confined to theists. You keep coming back to whether people are troubled or not by their logical fallacies. Sorry, but I can't quite work out the relevance. Most people with circular thinking are not troubled by it. Most people are not troubled by their lack of critical thinking in general.

Yes you can

Further, other people may be intolerant of one and demand that one justifies one's morality to them. Such as when Christians demand that non-Christians justify themselves to them. — baker

I've very well aware of Christianity's totalitarian terrorism against those who disagree with them.

I mean, learn to stand up for yourself. — Banno

Stand up for yourself -- and get hit on the head, with nobody to blame but yourself.

Circular reasoning is a problem in a range of areas and not just confined to theists. You keep coming back to whether people are troubled or not by their logical fallacies. Sorry, but I can't quite work out the relevance. — Tom Storm

The relevance is that they don't lose sleep over such things, while philosophers do. Now, who's better off?

Most people with circular thinking are not troubled by it. Most people are not troubled by their lack of critical thinking in general.

Then how is lack of critical thinking a problem?

Stand up for yourself -- and get hit on the head, with nobody to blame but yourself. — baker

...then stand somewhere else.

The relevance is that they don't lose sleep over such things, while philosophers do. Now, who's better off? — baker

It's obvious that if you are unaware of a problem it is unlikely to worry you. If not being worried is your preference then obviously the ignorant are better off. People make that crack all time, inside and outside of philosophy. It doesn't really get us anywhere other than stating the obvious.

It seems to me very flawed to ignore the big discussion of right and wrong, the legal one.
During these 2000 years, there's been a steady development legally resulting in Human Rights (UDHR) as well as already entailed within given national laws here and there.
To say that this is purely subjective says that some people are far out, they don't relate to people in pain and in trouble. (f)MRI can indeed determine pains in people and perception of unwanted circumstances.
Yet those who enjoy hurt in themselves must be mentally disadvantaged to be in this state, again indicated objectively by the many instruments psychiatry has nowadays.
So when we get there, with the objective ethics, also relating to the children, Humanists appear more theoretical as a group than religious people who rejoice in doing good as God has instructed them. Humanists display weaknesses here because the World throw so many challenges at them. Even religious people struggle to keep faith so why would Humanists do better?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism.

Humanists display weaknesses here because the World throw so many challenges at them. Even religious people struggle to keep faith so why would Humanists do better? — DrOlsnesLea

Religious morality is subjective so there isn't really a difference in terms of foundational strength. Just see how differently people even within one religion, say Christianity, see issues like gay marriage, the role of women in church and society, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion. They are all over the place on these issues, change with time and base their moral position on their subjective interpretations of what they think God wants.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way, right?

↪TheMadMan Good point. If morality is subjective, why should you not call me ugly? I don’t know what country you live in, but I can safely assume that it’s not against the law. Why not call me ugly? — Franz Liszt

People don't call each other ugly not due to some moral consideration, but because of the possible and likely repercussions. People don't make enemies for fun. To make people hate you is an evolutionary disadvantage, not a negative moral principle.

@Franz Liszt, you should ask instead, "Is it moral to declare and to pretend I am an atheist, but when I am accused of being a theist, I deny it at first, and then continue on with opinions and outright devotion to a deity in my ensuing posts?"

My question is if anyone can explain why they would believe this, and how it’s okay for morality to be subjective. — Franz Liszt

Morality is subjective because we are social animals and live in groups. All social animals must comply with the group's culture or be expelled from the group. Or at least pushed to the outer circle where one is more apt to be eaten by predators.

A moral is a matter of cause and effect and Cicero said we are compelled to do the right thing when we know what it is. We feel uneasy when we do what we believe is wrong. We might comfort ourselves by rationalizing why it is okay to do something we know is wrong but that does not change the fact that we do feel uncomfortable doing what we believe is wrong.

"Can you justify morality without religion?"

I wrote something and then realized that the word "religion" has to be defined further. Many ancient and modern animistic cultures that had no highly organized and human centric "religion" yet, still had natural links to spirituality and some hierarchies within these as a shaman might be. They clearly held objectively good moral values as they have been observed to have in modern tribal culture... certainly no less objectively ethical than modern judeo-christian cultures.

IMO and something I've held for a long time, is that modern religion is flawed by it's human centric message and more importantly, the division of all things from God, as opposed to the view that God is truly omnipotent and omnipresent in every single thing, animate and inanimate. It is arguable, that modern religions have been the cause for much of modern man's suffering, all in the name of "religion."

I'm new here and this is my first post. Thanks for having me! regards, mike

Religious morality is subjective so there isn't really a difference in terms of foundational strength. Just see how differently people even within one religion, say Christianity, see issues like gay marriage, the role of women in church and society, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion. They are all over the place on these issues, change with time and base their moral position on their subjective interpretations of what they think God wants. — Tom Storm

There is fair disagreement on capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion among all sorts of people. So what about access to C-pills while we issue the question of abortion?
Though there is also a contradictory relationship between doing evil (re Satanists/others) and being religious. No person can honestly say that doing evil and being religious is compatible. While it's also true that Satanists can very well be Atheists (as opposed to Humanists). Secular Humanism is theoretical, does not truly exist?
Modern, religious people in "western" societies have usually no problem with gay marriage, the role of women in church and society.
Besides, what God wants is defined by The 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule and the prayer at start of The New Testament (come thy will on Earth as in Heaven).

Modern, religious people in "western" societies have usually no problem with gay marriage, the role of women in church and society. — DrOlsnesLea

You say "modern" & "western" - modern Western secular humanism has brought many people of faith into the present time and changed the religious views of some. However, I suggest many Western Christians are far from in agreement with your views. Women priests, anyone?

Besides, what God wants is defined by The 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule and the prayer at start of The New Testament (come thy will on Earth as in Heaven). — DrOlsnesLea

Commandments are subject to interpretation, the intentions are often far from clear. The first 5 commandments of the famous 10 actually have nothing to do with morality.

But let's just take - Thou shalt not kill. The interpretations just of this commandment are endless. In what circumstances shalt thou not kill? Can I serve in the military and go to war? Some Christians say no. Can I kill a burglar who breaks into my home? Some say yes, some say no. Is capital punishment justified? Christians are divided on this issue. And on it goes.

And you say there is the matter of 'what God wants?' How do you know what God wants? You can't get to this without subjective preferences.