but you cannot believe in objective morality as a concept
Yes you can… but even if you couldn’t, that’s not problematic in the slightest for atheists.
Morality is subjective. Some people think invading other countries and killing civilians is fine because their leader convinced them it’s a good thing, and others see that as evil. Some people think eating pork is a sin, some couldn’t care less. Some people think eating ANY meat is cruel, and many others think it’s necessary to live healthily.
But you can objectively measure morality by applying objective criteria. For example, if we agree that someone’s well-being is an objective measure to consider when determining if an act is moral or not, then you can make all kinds of objective moral claims. Punching a person/cat in the head? That’s immoral because it negatively impacts their well-being. Shooting a cat/person in the head? That’s immoral because they will cease to “be” entirely. Treating someone’s wounds? Moral, because it positively impacts their well-being. Donating to charity? Moral, positively impacts people’s well-being.
That destroys someone’s shelter and potentially injures or kills them. Not to mention the mental grief losing your home causes people. That is not good for their well-being.
(Edit):Also, I’m not even saying it’s a good moral system. In fact I don’t think it’s possible to have an objective moral standard that isn’t majorly flawed or incomplete.
I’m saying definitionally wecanmeasure morality objectively, not that it’s a good idea.
Yes you can… but even if you couldn’t, that’s not problematic in the slightest for atheists.
Morality is subjective. Some people think invading other countries and killing civilians is fine because their leader convinced them it’s a good thing, and others see that as evil. Some people think eating pork is a sin, some couldn’t care less. Some people think eating ANY meat is cruel, and many others think it’s necessary to live healthily.
But you can objectively measure morality by applying objective criteria. For example, if we agree that someone’s well-being is an objective measure to consider when determining if an act is moral or not, then you can make all kinds of objective moral claims. Punching a person/cat in the head? That’s immoral because it negatively impacts their well-being. Shooting a cat/person in the head? That’s immoral because they will cease to “be” entirely. Treating someone’s wounds? Moral, because it positively impacts their well-being. Donating to charity? Moral, positively impacts people’s well-being.
What if someone is a pyromaniac and letting them set fires to people’s houses improves their wellbeing?
That destroys someone’s shelter and potentially injures or kills them. Not to mention the mental grief losing your home causes people. That is not good for their well-being.
(Edit): Also, I’m not even saying it’s a good moral system. In fact I don’t think it’s possible to have an objective moral standard that isn’t majorly flawed or incomplete.
I’m saying definitionally we can measure morality objectively, not that it’s a good idea.