That many disagree or fail to grasp what is part of our human nature does not mean it is not possible to know good and evil. Perhaps it means too many have dulled consciences or refuse to accept what is true because it would mean changing the way they lead their lives?
The problem we’re faced with here is not whether ‘objective morality’ exists (it may or it may not) but whether it’s possible to establish it as ‘objective’ when faced by somebody unimpressed by arguments about ‘dulled consciences’ or any of the ‘usual suspects’ premises that religious people work with - nevermind a concept like ‘Natural Law’ which leaves not just atheists’ eyes glazing.
Again, what proof would you accept?
Good and evil are not invented by man, are they? I mean can I decide that murder is good? If I do would that make murder good?
The OP is about talking to an atheist and an atheist would say that, yes, the whole business is a human construct. Heaven’s there are differences between religions on the origin and nature of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, nevermind differences between a believer’s position and a non-believer’s position - not only that, even if you could establish that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ were not invented by man, you’d still be stuck with the problem that the apprehension of the whole problem is very much a human activity - with all that entails in terms of subjectivities.
It is objectively wrong to kill another human being for personal gain or satisfaction.
Why would I exclude metaphysics?
So, if I am understanding you there may be an objective order but we cannot know it for sure? The conflicting examples you gave would say to me there is an objective order that is how you know the conflicting examples cannot all be correct.
Or not as the case may be - while all those are really, really nice things, you’ve merely stated that they’re objective, you haven’t established that the over-arching ‘objective morality’ that they are deduced from is, in fact, ‘objective’ - no matter how many ways you find of saying them or describing how really, really nice they are.
Cheat? That you are not persuaded by metaphysics does not make their arguments and proofs wrong.
We can’t? Is murder right or wrong?
Huh? if conflict exists does that not presuppose there is a correct answer? Do you at least agree a right answer exists or are you skeptic?
They are not simply nice they are true. Objectively we know they are true. You deny that? Is murder now only simply subjectively wrong?
That’s not exactly the point - we’re dealing with the concept of ‘objective’ which rather precludes arguments from beyond the physical.
It’s not whether it’s right or wrong that we’re arguing about, it’s about whether the morality from which the deduction is made that it’s right or wrong is objective.
I’m firmly skeptical about the approach. I think the concept of ‘objective morality’ creates more problems than it could (theoretically) solve. Then again, as a Jewess, I’m not required to believe in concepts like ‘natural law’ in the first place.
Well, go ahead and establish that it’s objectively true, not that you know that it’s objectively true but that it is, in fact, objectively true. This does not involve repeatedly asking me whether I believe murder to be ‘objectively’ wrong, by the way, it requires you to argue, from non-metaphysical precepts, that the morality on which the deduction would be made is ‘objective’.