Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

But if the data does not show a difference between those who believe in objective morality, and those who don't, how does any of this support your argument?

Because my argument is simply that conscience changes.

Is such an argument necessary? I don't think that anyone would deny that it can change, although that does not necessarily mean that it does.

But you would need a sense of morality to see it, not intelligence, therefore you must assume that I have such a sense.

It would take both. But since conscience is fragile and variable, you'd need more than mere conscience. You'd need intelligence. And you're smart enough to see the problem: subjective morality (or "conscience," if you prefer) is useless to tell us anything UNLESS it also refers to an objective reality that our intelligence can inform us about. Because only our intelligence can tell us whether or not what our consciences are telling us is true.

"Objective morality" is an oxymoron to my understanding, because morality is the sense of right and wrong. There is my morality, your morality, and God's morality -if you must. None is objective, because each is subject to its source.

Why don't we put aside the terms "objective" and "subjective" for a moment?

We cannot. They're the subject of the OP.

The fact that the thread title asks whether morality is objective or subjective does not stop those terms from being more of a hindrance than a help.

In order to make a moral judgement, you have a reference, and so do I, it is just that your reference is external, and mine is internal.

That doesn't say anything. It only says you have a feeling. And a feeling can be right, or a feeling can be wrong, or foolish, or unanchored to any objective facts at all, or even contrary to truth.

Only reference to an objective standard can tell you whether your conscience is in good order or merely deceiving you.

But you, also, could be wrong about the legitimacy of your "objective" source. That is even more dangerous, because, unlike me, you are unable to re-evaluate you moral stance.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm agnostic, however, I don't believe if I hit someone on the nose that they just think they are being wronged. I think I wronged them. Am I incorrect?

Well, if you're a subjectivist, that's the only way you can see it. You have to assume that all moral values are subjective. Therefore, if you don't think you wronged them, you didn't. Whatever you did to them was just fine. If they thought you wronged them, they're just expressing a subjective feeling about that, not an objective fact. There's no actual, real, universal answer to whether or not you did. And there's no objective thing as "wrong" anyway.

[Gary Childress]

I'm agnostic, however, I don't believe if I hit someone on the nose that they just think they are being wronged. I think I wronged them. Am I incorrect?

Well, if you're a subjectivist, that's the only way you can see it. You have to assume that all moral values are subjective. Therefore, if you don't think you wronged them, you didn't. Whatever you did to them was just fine. If they thought you wronged them, they're just expressing a subjective feeling about that, not an objective fact. There's no actual, real, universal answer to whether or not you did. And there's no objective thing as "wrong" anyway.

I guess I must be a moral "objectivist" then, if that's the case. I'm still agnostic, though.

[Immanuel Can]

But if the data does not show a difference between those who believe in objective morality, and those who don't, how does any of this support your argument?

Because my argument is simply that conscience changes.

Is such an argument necessary? I don't think that anyone would deny that it can change, although that does not necessarily mean that it does.

What it means, though, is that the answer "I have a conscience that tells me about right and wrong" is a non-answer to anything. Of course everybody has feelings. What we don't know for sure is which feelings are justified or true. Conscience, if I believe Atheism, would be a mere quirk of the way the universe accidentally produced us. It's deliverances would mean nothing. We'd have no reason to think we have to follow them, as opposed to "being man enough" to ignore them, just as Nietzsche said.

But you would need a sense of morality to see it, not intelligence, therefore you must assume that I have such a sense.

It would take both. But since conscience is fragile and variable, you'd need more than mere conscience. You'd need intelligence. And you're smart enough to see the problem: subjective morality (or "conscience," if you prefer) is useless to tell us anything UNLESS it also refers to an objective reality that our intelligence can inform us about. Because only our intelligence can tell us whether or not what our consciences are telling us is true.

"Objective morality" is an oxymoron to my understanding,...

The real oxymoron is "subjective morality." Because if it's subjective, you don't have to pay attention to it at all. It's not "moral" or obligatory or serious in any way. Maybe you want to follow it. But maybe you should just get over it. How would you know which you should do?

In order to make a moral judgement, you have a reference, and so do I, it is just that your reference is external, and mine is internal.

That doesn't say anything. It only says you have a feeling. And a feeling can be right, or a feeling can be wrong, or foolish, or unanchored to any objective facts at all, or even contrary to truth.

Only reference to an objective standard can tell you whether your conscience is in good order or merely deceiving you.

But you, also, could be wrong about the legitimacy of your "objective" source.

Well, in theory, I could. So could anybody. Human beings can make mistakes: which makes it all the more important for us to be careful about which objective view of morality we take. Fair enough.

But let us go further. Let us guess that they're ALL wrong. In that case, morality still isn't "subjective": rather, it's nothing at all. All we can say is "Harbal has a peculiar twinge (of conscience) in the presence of certain actions." But that doesn't give us reason to say the twinge is anything serious, and far less that Harbal has a duty to act on the basis of his twinge. All that tells us is that Harbal has twinges. But "moral" isn't even involved in mere twinges.

That is even more dangerous, because, unlike me, you are unable to to re-evaluate you moral stance.

Except that re-evaluating is exactly why I became a Christian. So it seems I can do it.

What got me started was this very issue: the absolute bankruptcy of secular thinking when it came to morality. Like you, I intuitively knew that human beings have a problem, something deeply wrong with them and with the order of the world. It's not that there weren't good things too, but that there were enough bad things that they needed an explanation. And re-evaluating the answers the secularists were trying to give to why the world is flawed, or unhealthy, or somehow twisted in some ways -- call it "the problem of evil," if you will, made me contemptuous of the Atheists. That's when I got interested in alternatives. And one of them turned out to be a much better alternative.

[Gary Childress]

That is even more dangerous, because, unlike me, you are unable to to re-evaluate you moral stance.

Except that re-evaluating is exactly why I became a Christian. So it seems I can do it.

What got me started was this very issue: the absolute bankruptcy of secular thinking when it came to morality. Like you, I intuitively knew that human beings have a problem, something deeply wrong with them and with the order of the world. It's not that there weren't good things too, but that there were enough bad things that they needed an explanation. And re-evaluating the answers the secularists were trying to give to why the world is flawed, or unhealthy, or somehow twisted in some ways -- call it "the problem of evil," if you will, made me contemptuous of the Atheists. That's when I got interested in alternatives. And one of them turned out to be a much better alternative.

The problem of evil made you "contemptuous" of Atheists? Why would you be "contemptuous" of someone for pointing out the undeniably obvious? Bad things happen to people that are neither the fault of other humans nor the fault of the victims. I mean, natural disasters generally aren't caused by human beings, unless you believe that victims of natural disasters all happen to be evil and did something to anger God and therefore deserved it, otherwise we seem to have a God who created natural disasters that can strike almost anyone and cause enormous suffering. Or are natural disasters "good" events?

[Gary Childress]

Because my argument is simply that conscience changes.

Is such an argument necessary? I don't think that anyone would deny that it can change, although that does not necessarily mean that it does.

What it means, though, is that the answer "I have a conscience that tells me about right and wrong" is a non-answer to anything.

It's right or wrong because God says so, doesn't seem much better of an answer. It doesn't say anything about why something is right or wrong, other than that it's whatever God happens to think is right or wrong. And if we look at the Bible, then God's idea of right and wrong seem awfully "human-all-to-human". I mean, drowning people in anger, telling people to kill women and children, telling a father to sacrifice his son. Do those things not seem wrong to you? Or are they right because God (allegedly) did them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Is such an argument necessary? I don't think that anyone would deny that it can change, although that does not necessarily mean that it does.

What it means, though, is that the answer "I have a conscience that tells me about right and wrong" is a non-answer to anything.

It's right or wrong because God says so, doesn't seem much better of an answer. It doesn't say anything about why something is right or wrong, other than that it's whatever God happens to think is right or wrong. And if we look at the Bible, then God's idea of right and wrong seem awfully "human-all-to-human". I mean, drowning people in anger, telling people to kill women and children, telling a father to sacrifice his son. Do those things not seem wrong to you? Or are they right because God (allegedly) did them?

You got it wrong.
The above God of the OT is not the Christian God per se.

To be a Christian, a believer must sign a "contract" with Jesus-God by accepting the offer in John 3:16.
The terms of the "contract" are only confined within the Gospels [not OT, Acts nor Epistles which are merely appendixes.
The overall contractual terms of the Gospels are overridingly pacifist, i.e. love all, even enemies.

If one has to believe in a God as the optimal within existing psychological states at present [not necessary future - next 75, 100, 200 years] to fulfil inherent soteriological needs, Christianity and the Christian God is an effective optimal choice in contrast especially the Islamic God.

[Gary Childress]

What it means, though, is that the answer "I have a conscience that tells me about right and wrong" is a non-answer to anything.

It's right or wrong because God says so, doesn't seem much better of an answer. It doesn't say anything about why something is right or wrong, other than that it's whatever God happens to think is right or wrong. And if we look at the Bible, then God's idea of right and wrong seem awfully "human-all-to-human". I mean, drowning people in anger, telling people to kill women and children, telling a father to sacrifice his son. Do those things not seem wrong to you? Or are they right because God (allegedly) did them?

You got it wrong.
The above God of the OT is not the Christian God per se.

So Yahweh and Jesus are two different beings?

[Harbal]

Because my argument is simply that conscience changes.

Is such an argument necessary? I don't think that anyone would deny that it can change, although that does not necessarily mean that it does.

What it means, though, is that the answer "I have a conscience that tells me about right and wrong" is a non-answer to anything. Of course everybody has feelings. What we don't know for sure is which feelings are justified or true. Conscience, if I believe Atheism, would be a mere quirk of the way the universe accidentally produced us. It's deliverances would mean nothing. We'd have no reason to think we have to follow them, as opposed to "being man enough" to ignore them, just as Nietzsche said.

Morality isn't just conscience. Conscience is just what we call the feeling we experience when we behave contrary to our moral sense; our sense of right and wrong. That sense seems partly intuitive, where we just feel something is either right or wrong, but we also have principles by which we can arrive at some evaluation of a moral situation. Most of the moral situations we encounter in our daily lives are pretty trivial matters, like, should we tell the shopkeeper he gave us 50p too much change? Maybe you think everything in his shop is overpriced, so justice is being served if you accidentally get a small refund. There is no ultimate right or wrong to the situation; it is purely a matter of personal judgement, based on our personal principles. When it comes to far more important moral issues, then of course we should approach them with a more serious attitude, but we are still only able to use the same principles to arrive at our moral position.

"Objective morality" is an oxymoron to my understanding,...

The real oxymoron is "subjective morality." Because if it's subjective, you don't have to pay attention to it at all.

There is nothing in the definition of morality that demands it must be paid attention to. You don't have to pay attention to God and the Bible; you choose to, and I choose to pay attention to my own moral sense and conscience.

It's not "moral" or obligatory or serious in any way. Maybe you want to follow it. But maybe you should just get over it. How would you know which you should do?

Well I have to figure it out myself, just like you have to figure out what God wants you to do. In both our cases, the final decision about what we do is ours.

But you, also, could be wrong about the legitimacy of your "objective" source.

Well, in theory, I could. So could anybody. Human beings can make mistakes: which makes it all the more important for us to be careful about which objective view of morality we take. Fair enough.

But let us go further. Let us guess that they're ALL wrong. In that case, morality still isn't "subjective": rather, it's nothing at all. All we can say is "Harbal has a peculiar twinge (of conscience) in the presence of certain actions." But that doesn't give us reason to say the twinge is anything serious, and far less that Harbal has a duty to act on the basis of his twinge. All that tells us is that Harbal has twinges. But "moral" isn't even involved in mere twinges.

There is no such thing as ultimate right and wrong; there is only right and wrong in relation to preferred human outcomes. The source of morality, and the practice of morality, are exclusively human. "Twinges" -if you must diminish and degrade them to that- are all we have.

That is even more dangerous, because, unlike me, you are unable to to re-evaluate you moral stance.

Except that re-evaluating is exactly why I became a Christian. So it seems I can do it.

Yes, you could do it, but then you locked yourself into a particular brand of religion and it now seems you are no longer able to do it.

What got me started was this very issue: the absolute bankruptcy of secular thinking when it came to morality.

If you found your capacity for thought was leaving you morally bankrupt, then perhaps you were right to look for an alternative, but we don't all end up in that position.

Like you, I intuitively knew that human beings have a problem, something deeply wrong with them and with the order of the world.

I don't think there is anything wrong with human beings, or with the "order" of the world. They are both simply what they are. I might not like some things about human beings, or the state of the world, but by what other than arbitrary standards can we say there is anything wrong with either? I intuitively feel there is something deeply wrong with woodlice, and with the conditions that usually prevail underneath rotting tree trunks, but that is just the way things happened to work out with that particular species in that particular environment. Nature doesn't have a problem with it; therefore nature has produced no handbook or set of rules for dealing with the matter. If we, as human beings, have problems with each other, and with the environment in which we have to coexist, then we can only approach them from a human point of view, using human resources to solve those problems in such a way that is satisfying to human sensibilities and tastes. The correct procedure is not written in the stars, or in heaven.

It's not that there weren't good things too, but that there were enough bad things that they needed an explanation. And re-evaluating the answers the secularists were trying to give to why the world is flawed, or unhealthy, or somehow twisted in some ways -- call it "the problem of evil," if you will, made me contemptuous of the Atheists. That's when I got interested in alternatives. And one of them turned out to be a much better alternative.

God and Christianity have been around for quite a while now, so not only have they not prevented the world from getting into the state you complain about, but who is to say they are not partly responsible for it?

The problem of evil made you "contemptuous" of Atheists?

No. Not of "Atheists." Of "Atheism," because the answers it tries to offer are totally dusty. Really, it has none.

But hey, if you think it does, I'd love to hear a new one. How do you think Atheism can explain the existence of evil?

I wonder what "Atheism" is trying to answer. I never really know what people mean by "evil".

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's right or wrong because God says so, doesn't seem much better of an answer. It doesn't say anything about why something is right or wrong, other than that it's whatever God happens to think is right or wrong. And if we look at the Bible, then God's idea of right and wrong seem awfully "human-all-to-human". I mean, drowning people in anger, telling people to kill women and children, telling a father to sacrifice his son. Do those things not seem wrong to you? Or are they right because God (allegedly) did them?

You got it wrong.
The above God of the OT is not the Christian God per se.

So Yahweh and Jesus are two different beings?

The essence is the same but the form is different.
I believe Jesus mentioned Yahweh somewhere in the Gospels.

What is critical is the "CONTRACT" [divine covenant] of Christianity a believer has entered into and the obligation to comply fully to his best of abilities to the contract terms which is only within the Gospels.

Whatever are in the Acts, Epistles and OT are not the effective contractual terms of the contract a Christian had entered into with God [whatever the label God in Hebrew or Greek, etc. is given].

A Christian per se in obligated within a contract [new covenant] to comply with the contractual terms within the Gospels and never in the OT, Acts nor Epistles.

The overriding contractual term of the Gospels is 'love all, even enemies', thus overrides whatever that is seemingly [subject to context] in counter to it.

The usual counter is 'what about the crusades' 'burning of abortion clinic' and other violence committed by 'Christians'.

The point is these "Christians" did not commit the above evil acts as per the terms of their contract as a Christian but rather acting on their own as human beings at their own risk of sinning.
As such they have committed sins in not complying with the terms of their contract as a Christian per se.
Fortunately the Christian God is a forgiving God and if the Christians had sinned for a good cause, they are likely to be forgiven or punished lightly.

[Immanuel Can]

That is even more dangerous, because, unlike me, you are unable to to re-evaluate you moral stance.

Except that re-evaluating is exactly why I became a Christian. So it seems I can do it.

What got me started was this very issue: the absolute bankruptcy of secular thinking when it came to morality. Like you, I intuitively knew that human beings have a problem, something deeply wrong with them and with the order of the world. It's not that there weren't good things too, but that there were enough bad things that they needed an explanation. And re-evaluating the answers the secularists were trying to give to why the world is flawed, or unhealthy, or somehow twisted in some ways -- call it "the problem of evil," if you will, made me contemptuous of the Atheists. That's when I got interested in alternatives. And one of them turned out to be a much better alternative.

The problem of evil made you "contemptuous" of Atheists?

No. Not of "Atheists." Of "Atheism," because the answers it tries to offer are totally dusty. Really, it has none.

But hey, if you think it does, I'd love to hear a new one. How do you think Atheism can explain the existence of evil?

[Immanuel Can]

Is such an argument necessary? I don't think that anyone would deny that it can change, although that does not necessarily mean that it does.

What it means, though, is that the answer "I have a conscience that tells me about right and wrong" is a non-answer to anything.

It's right or wrong because God says so, doesn't seem much better of an answer. It doesn't say anything about why something is right or wrong, other than that it's whatever God happens to think is right or wrong. And if we look at the Bible, then God's idea of right and wrong seem awfully "human-all-to-human".

Good thing, then, that that's not the answer we give.

You're misconstruing the situation. It's not an either-or. When God identifies to us something that is wrong, it's BOTH because it's destructive to our ultimately spiritual health, destructive to our proper destiny or purpose AND God has informed us that it is. It's not as if it were the case that if God hadn't told us murder was evil that murder or theft or lying would become good for us. These would still destroy things like life, social harmony and truth, but we would lack the clarity of a divine pronouncement on the same; and given that human beings are manifestly very foggy on moral matters, as a species, we would certainly be worse off.

But you're misunderstanding the critique I'm posing here, and thus departing the topic for a kind of "et tu quoque" strategy. I'm pointing out the secular problem, a problem that would persist whether or not there was a "religious" alternative.

That is, the mere fact that a person has a feeling does not tell them that the feeling is justified.

If I have a feeling that I hate my neighbour and want to club him to death, is that feeling justified by the fact that I have it? If I feel I want his wife or his car, is my lust or covetousness justified by the fact that I feel it? And what about his feeling that he wants to retain his own life or wife or car; why is my feeling more important than his?

So "I have a conscience" would mean no more than "I have a feeling," unless that feeling is actually reflective of an objective truth. My neighbour's feeling is actually more truth-oriented than mine: he has a right to his life, his wife and his car, and I have none. My feelings are not truth-oriented, but only a product of my passions and self-interest. But subjectivism cannot tell you that is so: it can only regard all feelings as equivalent in value, which is to say deviod of any objective value, since the bare fact is that my neighbour has a feeling and so do I.

[Immanuel Can]

...we also have principles by which we can arrive at some evaluation of a moral situation.

Oh, I'm very interested in your exposition of these "principles" you say we have. What do you think they are?

"Objective morality" is an oxymoron to my understanding,...

The real oxymoron is "subjective morality." Because if it's subjective, you don't have to pay attention to it at all.

There is nothing in the definition of morality that demands it must be paid attention to. You don't have to pay attention to God and the Bible; you choose to, and I choose to pay attention to my own moral sense and conscience.

Actually, there IS something that says you do have to pay attention: the fact that all good is centered in God, and that God Himself will judge the world. One can decide not to pay attention: what one can't decide is not to face the consequences of that decision.

It's not "moral" or obligatory or serious in any way. Maybe you want to follow it. But maybe you should just get over it. How would you know which you should do?

Well I have to figure it out myself,

How?

just like you have to figure out what God wants you to do.

Obviously not like that. I don't make it up for myself.

In both our cases, the final decision about what we do is ours.

That much is true, of course, because we have free will. It doesn't mean that the decision we make is going to be right or consequence free.

But you, also, could be wrong about the legitimacy of your "objective" source.

Well, in theory, I could. So could anybody. Human beings can make mistakes: which makes it all the more important for us to be careful about which objective view of morality we take. Fair enough.

But let us go further. Let us guess that they're ALL wrong. In that case, morality still isn't "subjective": rather, it's nothing at all. All we can say is "Harbal has a peculiar twinge (of conscience) in the presence of certain actions." But that doesn't give us reason to say the twinge is anything serious, and far less that Harbal has a duty to act on the basis of his twinge. All that tells us is that Harbal has twinges. But "moral" isn't even involved in mere twinges.

There is no such thing as ultimate right and wrong; there is only right and wrong in relation to preferred human outcomes.

Instrumental "effectiveness," you mean? That won't do. If a person's "preferred human outcome" is the death of his neighbour, the fact that a kitchen knife is his most effective instrument to do it will not make it right.

"Twinges" -if you must diminish and degrade them to that- are all we have.

I'm not diminishing them: but I'm afraid you are, without realizing it. No Christian believes that the deliverances of conscience are mere "twinges." But non-Theists would have to, in all honesty, admit to themselves that "twinges" are all that they are. They're just contingent feelings, untied to any objective truth at all. They can happen for any reason, and one can never really know when one is being led aright or misled by them.

That is even more dangerous, because, unlike me, you are unable to to re-evaluate you moral stance.

Except that re-evaluating is exactly why I became a Christian. So it seems I can do it.

Yes, you could do it, but then you locked yourself into a particular brand of religion and it now seems you are no longer able to do it.

That's called "finding the right answer."

But that's a bit tongue-in-cheek as an answer, so let me be less cavalier. I'm quite able to rethink, and do it all the time. But I've spent a lot of time exploring Atheist responses...not just here, on this site, as you can see, but by reading the foundational works of the major theorists in the Atheist "field" or pantheon of alleged greats, like Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx, Freud, and so on. And if any of these have better answers, I try to take them seriously, and figure out whether they've got a point. Consequently, I'm very, very interested in anything new some Atheist has to say about the subject of evil -- if they've got any real answer at all, I want to confront it. That's why I'm asking you for your exposition of the "principles" you say secularists can have in guiding their moral sense. I have heard a few such principles, such as the principle of utility (Mill, Bentham), the principle of the categorical imperative(s) (Kant), or the principle of the golden mean (Aristotle) and really would like to know if you can add to my stock of such things to think about.

Sounds a little like rethinking, doesn't it?

What got me started was this very issue: the absolute bankruptcy of secular thinking when it came to morality.

If you found your capacity for thought was leaving you morally bankrupt,

Yeah, yeah.

No, it was Atheism's answers that were morally bankrupt. But you knew what I meant. Still, I'd actually consider it a great thing if you could give me some "principles" they so far have failed to think of. And I think they'd have reason to thank you, as well.

Like you, I intuitively knew that human beings have a problem, something deeply wrong with them and with the order of the world.

I don't think there is anything wrong with human beings, or with the "order" of the world.

Sure you do. You think it's "wrong" that Christians sometimes show up and challenge people's self-comforting existing beliefs, don't you?

I wonder what "Atheism" is trying to answer.

It's desperately and irrationally trying to foreclose on the question of the existence of God, obviously. Even impartially, you can see that.

I never really know what people mean by "evil".

That's exactly the problem all Atheists also have. They really can't say. But you say there are "principles," so maybe you could talk about them in specific, and do us all a favour in that regard.

[Gary Childress]

Except that re-evaluating is exactly why I became a Christian. So it seems I can do it.

What got me started was this very issue: the absolute bankruptcy of secular thinking when it came to morality. Like you, I intuitively knew that human beings have a problem, something deeply wrong with them and with the order of the world. It's not that there weren't good things too, but that there were enough bad things that they needed an explanation. And re-evaluating the answers the secularists were trying to give to why the world is flawed, or unhealthy, or somehow twisted in some ways -- call it "the problem of evil," if you will, made me contemptuous of the Atheists. That's when I got interested in alternatives. And one of them turned out to be a much better alternative.

The problem of evil made you "contemptuous" of Atheists?

No. Not of "Atheists." Of "Atheism," because the answers it tries to offer are totally dusty. Really, it has none.

But hey, if you think it does, I'd love to hear a new one. How do you think Atheism can explain the existence of evil?

I don't think it's so much that atheism needs an "answer" to the problem of evil. All an atheist would probably say is that the problem of evil confirms their views.

[Harbal]

...we also have principles by which we can arrive at some evaluation of a moral situation.

Oh, I'm very interested in your exposition of these "principles" you say we have. What do you think they are?

I know what mine are, but those of others may well be different. Honesty is a principle I try to stick to, but it might sometimes be necessary to compromise on that if it happens to conflict with other principles. Without the assumption of honesty, communication is worthless. To try to avoid any action that seems likely to cause a negative change to someone's life is another. I wouldn't want to do something that resulted in someone losing their job, for example, unless there was a compelling reason why they should lose it. I always prefer to put more in than I take out, because I would prefer to feel taken advantage of rather than having it the other way round, so that is another of my principles. I don't suppose I always stick rigidly to my principles, but I try to, and doing so is my first impulse. The fact that there is no "objective" authority to which I can look for endorsement of my moral principles does not stop them from meaning something to me.

There is nothing in the definition of morality that demands it must be paid attention to. You don't have to pay attention to God and the Bible; you choose to, and I choose to pay attention to my own moral sense and conscience.

Actually, there IS something that says you do have to pay attention: the fact that all good is centered in God, and that God Himself will judge the world. One can decide not to pay attention: what one can't decide is not to face the consequences of that decision.

But that doesn't apply to me, of course. The God part, I mean. Of course there are consequences to ignoring your moral obligations, even when they are self imposed, but the fact that you are able to ignore a moral imperative does not strip it of it's moral quality.

It's not "moral" or obligatory or serious in any way. Maybe you want to follow it. But maybe you should just get over it. How would you know which you should do?

Well I have to figure it out myself,

How?

The same way you would, I suppose. You have your own reasons for thinking that it is important that you act in accordance with what you believe to be the will of God. I can't think of any justifiable reason for your thinking that, but I don't know what possible reasons you might actually have. Likewise, I have reasons for thinking it is important that I live up to the moral standards I set for myself. There are situations when it can be difficult to know what to do, because it is not always clear what all the moral implications of a situation and your response to it might be, but that is a possibility that must be no less likely for you than for me. Your question seems to be based on the assumption that your sense of duty must be superior to mine, but I don't see how you could actually know that.

In both our cases, the final decision about what we do is ours.

That much is true, of course, because we have free will. It doesn't mean that the decision we make is going to be right or consequence free.

Right relative to what? I imagine you mean morally right, in which case we can only measure the decision against what we each believe to be morally right.

There is no such thing as ultimate right and wrong; there is only right and wrong in relation to preferred human outcomes.

Instrumental "effectiveness," you mean?

That won't do. If a person's "preferred human outcome" is the death of his neighbour, the fact that a kitchen knife is his most effective instrument to do it will not make it right.

I never said anything about effective instruments. If you wish to see your neighbour dead, the moral correctness of that desire must be judged by you. How it will be judged by others is a separate matter, and not really within your control.

"Twinges" -if you must diminish and degrade them to that- are all we have.

I'm not diminishing them: but I'm afraid you are, without realizing it.

Your decision to dismissively call strong feelings and emotional compulsions "twinges" is intended to trivialise them, and create a false impression of their significance. So the act is very much being committed by you, and certainly not without your realising it.

No Christian believes that the deliverances of conscience are mere "twinges." But non-Theists would have to, in all honesty, admit to themselves that "twinges" are all that they are.

I am a non-theist who doesn't have to believe that, and who indeed does not believe that, so I, in all honesty, have to admit no such thing to
myself.

I'm quite able to rethink, and do it all the time. But I've spent a lot of time exploring Atheist responses...not just here, on this site, as you can see, but by reading the foundational works of the major theorists in the Atheist "field" or pantheon of alleged greats, like Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx, Freud,

I don't know why you bothered to read those theorists, but you could have just come straight to me.

And if any of these have better answers, I try to take them seriously, and figure out whether they've got a point. Consequently, I'm very, very interested in anything new some Atheist has to say about the subject of evil

I only recognise the word, "evil", as an adjective, describing something unusually malicious, and that's about all I have to say about it.

I want to confront it. That's why I'm asking you for your exposition of the "principles" you say secularists can have in guiding their moral sense. I have heard a few such principles, such as the principle of utility (Mill, Bentham), the principle of the categorical imperative(s) (Kant), or the principle of the golden mean (Aristotle) and really would like to know if you can add to my stock of such things to think about.

I can only hope you have managed to glean the information you are looking for from my comments to you in this current reply.

If you found your capacity for thought was leaving you morally bankrupt,

Yeah, yeah.

No, it was Atheism's answers that were morally bankrupt. But you knew what I meant. Still, I'd actually consider it a great thing if you could give me some "principles" they so far have failed to think of. And I think they'd have reason to thank you, as well.

I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about the theory or practice of "Atheism".

I don't think there is anything wrong with human beings, or with the "order" of the world.

Sure you do. You think it's "wrong" that Christians sometimes show up and challenge people's self-comforting existing beliefs, don't you?

No, it is their attempts to get other people to share their own self comforting beliefs that I think wrong. I think it is morally questionable to try to persuade and influence people into religious belief, but that is not the same as saying there is something wrong with human beings. I don't think there is either anything right or wrong with human beings; just as I don't think there is anything right or wrong with elephants, or shrimps.

I never really know what people mean by "evil".

That's exactly the problem all Atheists also have. They really can't say.

I wonder why they see that as a problem.

But you say there are "principles," so maybe you could talk about them in specific, and do us all a favour in that regard.

If you want to ask me specifically about any particular principle I've already mentioned, I'll try my best to answer.