The Atheist Perspective
If there can be objective morality without a God (and there can), then there can be an objective morality with a God. It just wouldn't be subject to God's will. God would be subject to it.
Can there be objective morality with a God? If God is the source of morality, then morality is subject to the will of God, so isn't it by definition subjective?
Christian View
The Christian Perspective
There can only be objective moral values with God.
When we state that objective moral values exist, what we mean is that there are moral values that govern all humans, regardless of whether or not those humans want those values to govern them, like those values, or accept those values.
If moral values were the result of popular vote, then they would only govern humans because humans had decided to allow them to govern them. Then moral values would not be objective, but rather, subjective.
However, moral values are not subjective in this sense, in the sense that they are the complete invention of the minds of those they govern. If they were subjective in this sense, Hitler's Germany would be no less moral than any other society, and this is not the case.
Thus, moral values are not subjective in this sense. Instead, they are objective in the sense that they govern all humans, at all times, regardless of those individuals' approvals.
If God did not exist, there would not only be no concept of "ought", there would also be no one around to conceptualize it.
Since there is a God, there is a Higher Moral Authority, and therefore there are things we "ought" to do. One of the first and foremost of these things is that we ought to obey our God.
Thus, moral values that govern humans stem from the existence of, and perfect qualities of, our Creator, who is an eternally objective reality. They do not come from the whimsical fancies of a transient consciousness.
So, no, moral values are certainly not subjective.
Comments
E.G.: function(rape a defenseless woman) = -10, function(kill in self defense) = 2.5, function(help the sick) = 10, function(send bears to kill children for making fun of an old dude) = -5 and so on
This kind of basis for morality would not concern itself as to where those factors originated from, and therefore would not need god or a creator.
As I said above, "If God did not exist, there would not only be no concept of 'ought', there would also be no one around to conceptualize it". Atheism is inherently contradictory. If it is true, then the laws of logic are invalid. If the laws of logic are invalid, then there is no such thing as Math (nor morals).
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=4Phil,
As I said above, "If God did not exist, there would not only be no concept of 'ought', there would also be no one around to conceptualize it". Atheism is inherently contradictory. If it is true, then the laws of logic are invalid. If the laws of logic are invalid, then there is no such thing as Math (nor morals).
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=4
Care to present evidence for that proposition?
Anyway
Jesus certainly stated the Golden Rule, as did Hillel. But for Christianity or Judaism to claim it as proof of the truth of their religion as opposed to the almost identical statements in regions as diverse as ancient China and Egypt is preposterous.
What I wrote was to the effect that morality beyond the Golden Rule is indeed relative and subject to the conditions on the ground. Some societies have no effective notion of private property thus find the injunction against theft to be meaningless. Others have the notion of partible paternity in which the participation of several men is essential to the foetal development of a child. Where then is the notion of adultery? Private property and monogamic fidelity are cultural artefacts, not absolutes.
Defining "moral values" as "societal norms", as you have done, misses the concept posed in the question. Whether the English term "moral values" can be properly defined in the way you are defining it isn't relevant -- that did not appear, contextually, to be how the questioner intended his question, and it is not the way that Christians generally define the term.
Having said that, I agree that we as humans often insist that certain things are objectively wrong for all people at all times, when in fact they are not. For example, children ought to obey their parents; but it is not the case that you and I ought to obey those children's parents, no matter how much those same children insist upon it.
So I certainly agree that what is morally right for one is not necessarily morally right for another, but my point is that these rules are not determined by men, rather by our objective Creator, whom we all ought to obey.
Slavery in itself IS perfectly moral. According to the Bible, we are either slaves to sin or slaves to Christ. There are no other options in the world our perfect God designed.
But you miss the point of the question and also the point of my answer. Regardless of changes in culture, point of view, or even changes in explicit commands of God, there is no getting past this single, continuous, ongoing, unchanging, moral directive: all human beings ought to obey their Creator. This has never changed and never will. This single command is what grounds all other moral values as objective: they come from outside of us, from our transcendent Creator who by definition has ontological authority over us.
Without said Creator, we make up our own rules (assuming we could even exist, LOL, which we couldn't).
And if our morality depends on our subjective interpretation of this objective divine morality, then what is the difference between it and making up your own rules?
One human treating another as property is in itself perfectly acceptable from a moral perspective (Leviticus 25:44). This does not mean that every example of slavery throughout history was perfectly acceptable.
"...what is the difference between it and making up your own rules?"
You raise an excellent point, one that, from my personal perspective, cannot be addressed simply. I will try to briefly summarize the multiple points that would need to be fleshed out for a really satisfactory answer.
[continued]
1. The difference is the presence or absence of objective rules by which we will be judged.
2. God has given each of us a conscience which will accuse or excuse us on the day of judgment (Romans 2:15-16), so the notion that we are in every way completely incapable of understanding God's commands for us in incorrect.
3. Christians have been given the Holy Spirit as an additional guide to knowing God's commands for us (Luke 12:12; John 16:13; Galatians 5:22-23).
4. When all is said and done, however, we all sin. That is exactly why God sent His Son to die on our behalf (1 Peter 3:18).
God bless.
Regarding you prior post, two simple but, in my eyes, unanswerable questions are raised:
1. If, according to your god's morality, "One human treating another as property is in itself perfectly acceptable from a moral perspective," where does one draw the line between the historical examples that were perfectly acceptable and those that were not? The Mosaic law only prevents Israelites from buying other Israelites. Doesn't that mean god condones any and all other forms of slavery?
2. Your number 4 makes no logical sense. We (as created by god and in his image) all sin (which must be the fault of our free will which he also gave us). How does sending his son to die on our behalf fix that? Unless you live in a pre-Judaic mindset that recognizes the efficacy of human sacrifice as an expiating act to appease Moloch or some similar god, how does the self-sacrifice of an immortal son of a god do anything in relation to our sin?
Athena bless.
"Where does one draw the line between the historical examples that were perfectly acceptable and those that were not?"
Christianity doesn't claim that humans know everything. "Drawing the line" is often not crystal clear. The final question in any issue of morality is "does what I am doing honor God or dishonor Him?" In the end we may unintentionally sin, but we know that we can be forgiven through Christ.
[continued]
"The Mosaic law only prevents Israelites from buying other Israelites. Doesn't that mean god condones any and all other forms of slavery?"
The premise is inaccurate.
Israelites were prohibited from selling other Israeilites into slavery (Leviticus 25:42), but not from buying them (Leviticus 25:39). Further, an Israelite who has sold himself to another Israelite was to be released in the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:40).
When men were set free under these circumstances, they were to be paid liberally (Deuteronomy 15:14).
If a Hebrew man and his wife have been purchased while married, then his wife is to go with him when he is released (Exodus 21:3).
Duteronomy 23:15-16 says not to return escaped slaves to slavery. It is prohibited.
Plenty of other rules and regulations of slavery were given to the Israelites.
[continued]
Other Biblical principles govern this issue too, some that don't mention slavery. We are to obey our government (Romans 13:1). If owning slaves is illegal in our country, then, since there is no divine command for us to own slaves, we are not to be slave owners.
"...which must be the fault of our free will which he also gave us..."
Free will?
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=164
"How does sending his son to die on our behalf fix that?"
The exact hows are not universally agreed upon within Christendom, nor have I yet seen them outlined in perfect detail in the scriptures. I have my own theories, which I would be happy to share if you are interested, but theories (based on scripture) is all they are.
While I may not be able to decicively answer either of your questions, there is no sense in which the questions raised point out contradictions in Christianity -- my lack of answers to these specific questions does not suggest that there can be no answers to them.
Lol, stop cherry picking.
There is not truth in atheism. Why? Because atheism is not about truth. it's not a worldview or and explination. It's not an ideology or even a positive stance. it is soley are rejection of the deities presented. It is the rejection of a belief claim. Nothing more.
Now as humans, yes we can have objective morality. what is good for the species? what is good for society. If you drink battery acid, it will harm you. Is this subjective? No, of course not. Killing someone is not beneficial to life or society, so it's immoral. This is not subjective.
"It is up to the whims of your god."
God is not whimsical. He is consistent and cannot deny Himself. His perfect consistency is a necessary foundation for both rational thought and the practice of science.
"There is not truth in atheism."
Atheism demands a rejection of the possibility of justified conclusions. The concept of "truth" is utterly meaningless if there is no God:
http://www.godcontention.org/christian/an-easy-way-to-demonstrate-that-atheism-is-false
"Killing someone is not beneficial to life or society, so it's immoral. This is not subjective."
Who told you that killing someone is not beneficial to life or society? Who told you that this is what makes something immoral? Who told you that these things lead to your premises NOT being subjective?
And more important than who told you, why did you believe them?
[continued]
Under a humanist-atheistic view, the answer is some human being(s) (possibly you yourself) told you these things, and you have no reason whatsoever to believe them -- these claims are merely the product of human imagination. Human imagination didn't create the universe, so human imagination is not a reliable authority to declare what the universe is truly like... the universe doesn't have to behave the way that human imagination wants it to.
God's imagination did create the universe. If the existence of our morality is grounded in the same foundation as the existence of the universe, then it is as objectively grounded as the rest of the universe is, and it is as universal as the authority behind the universe wants it to be.
Humanist morality can only be as universal as the authority of the humans who dreamed it up.
Richard, your logic is catastrophically poor, cute, but really bad..
1) there can be no objective morality on the naturalism/determinism view. You don't believe in morality at all. Your view is that all thoughts and actions are the purely determined result of the particles of your body interacting with deterministic environmental stimuli. You believe that every single thought and action you will ever have could be laid out in advance (like weather for example) if we merely had a powerful enough computer. You don't believe in free will.
2) "objective" morality is defined as a morality that exists whether or not WE as humans recognize it. God is the author and creator of this closed system we live in, and morality is defined by Him, within it.
poor effort on your part Richard..