Objective moral standards do exist

editorial image

I note that Brian Mc Clinton (‘Following God is the real might is right perspective’, 04 May) was unable to offer any ‘objective’ basis for morality in his response.

His response simply reinforced his opinions on what was right or wrong but opinions differ, surely he can see that?

So who is correct on these matters? The humanist shouting for the woman’s rights or the theist reminding him there is a child involved who also has rights?

I was careful to use the word ‘objective’ moral standards in my comment. It remains a fact that humanism can seemingly offer no ‘objective’ basis for morality. And how can it possibly? We are all simply atoms making it all up as we go along if humanism is true. There can be no standard ‘above and beyond’. Therefore, it simply boils down to subjective tastes if humanism is correct. Why not admit it?

But everyone knows that objective moral standards do exist. For example, It is objectively wrong to murder for fun. It’s not just my ‘taste’, it is really ‘wrong’.

I stand by the comment. If humanism is true is anything really right or wrong by any objective standard? I think not.

Richard Dawkins has put it like this: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

Please do note “no evil and no good”.

Enough said.

Mark Taggart LL.B, Fermanagh