Forum

I almost always get the same argument for objective versus subjective morals when arguing animal cruelty. Basically, I get "who died and made you king?" Why do you think your morality is better than say Iran's morality for treating animals? The mere fact that animal rights is so different between Great Britain and Iran shows morals are subjective.

If I bring up the murder argument, they rely that murder is unlawful killing and under certain societies killing is legal, Stalin for example. Thus, saying murder is wrong is an argument for obeying the law and subjective morality.

I'm stumped to tell you the truth. I've seen this argument over and over and it seems subjective morals tend to win. Seems a barrier I can never penetrate. This is why I'm beginning to realize arguing with an atheist is more difficult than a believer.

For example, lets say the theist says animals don't have souls, then I'm like okay, but we don't do x,y, and z in the Bible. Then, they say alright, but then without following God's morals, moral are subjective. At least, if I stick to the Bible instead of arguing against it I can try to catch them on greed and gluttony.

I just find it impossible to argue morals with atheists. Their line of thinking basically is God doesn't exist, so morality is unimportant. Very frustrating. The mere fact that there is such difference in morality in different societies shows morals are subjective.

For example, compare modern day Great Britain to Iran and then compare modern day Great Britain to middle age Great Britain. Then, they can call me a specist for arguing morals just from a human point of view. That perhaps we should see morals from a lion's point of view.

Honestly, I'm new at this. I'm not comfortable yet arguing morals.

My responses are basically we already know the difference between right and wrong, it just takes awhile to get it right. Ego manic dictators can make laws favoring them, but that doesn't make the laws moral/immoral. I think the problem is my opponent's are using a very results orientated philosophy.

Nation A has different laws the same nation in a different time period therefore moral are subjective. Yet, there are many unsatisfied people. The problem is balancing laws versus good. The powerful people keep order, stifling both good and bad.

I don't know, I need a better argument thanks for reading.