Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[Starlight]

Let me try again: as a source for objective law

As JimL has pointed out to you, having a source makes things subjective. Objective things just exist, they don't have sources. Distance objectively exists, it doesn't have a source.

People's interpersonal interactions can be positive or negative: They can be to the detriment of others or to the benefit of others. That's just what morality refers to - that objectively existing reality.

God's law would still exist whether we all got it wrong or not.

Okay. So do you think your 'objective' moral law is what God wishes or what God commands?

I like to use the analogy of distance: Two objects that are a mile apart would still be a mile apart regardless of God's existence. Humans can, of course, use various arbitrary measurements of that distance - some people says it's "one mile", others say "1.6km" etc - but the distance remains real and objective regardless of God's existence. So objective distance exists apart from God. Likewise with morality, which is about how people are affected by our actions. People are still helped or harmed by my actions, regardless of whether God exists. Bringing God into the discussion doesn't change the amount of objective harm I do to someone when I break their leg. Bringing God into the discussion doesn't change the amount of objective help I give someone when they are starving and I give them food. People are objectively real, and the harms or benefits done to them by actions and intentions are objectively real, and adding God doesn't change that. Morality is simply the harm and good done in interpersonal interactions. It is objectively real in a similar sense to how a mile is objectively real - you can change the length of your yard-stick, but the distance itself being measured fundamentally exists. In the same way, the help or harm done to others by my actions fundamentally exists, regardless of what words or measuring system anyone wants to use to measure it by. But the concept of morality itself is simply that interpersonal interactions can be positive or negative in their nature, and that seems to me to clearly be an objective reality. I can wish someone harm and set out to hurt them, or I can wish someone good and set out to help them. And any harm or help my actions provide them is likewise real.

Well I'm not sure what your point is. I agree that we treat each other in particular ways, but my point is there, in your world is there an objective moral standard that can mediate between conflicting moral ideals? I'm not asking now, if we can know that standard, only if, even in theory, it exists - and how it could exist.

People treat each other in particular ways, sometimes well and sometimes not. That's all morality is. Treating people well is what is good and treating them not well is what is bad. It's really simple, obviously objective, and you're just massively over-engineering it.

Look, the core of the confusion people tend to have on this issue comes down to them using really bad and vague definitions of the words "morality" and "right" and "wrong", and their definitions have them running in circles like headless chickens because they create for themselves a complicated conundrum that doesn't really exist by defining the words in ways that are fundamentally useless. So I like to prune the definitions back to things that are clear and obviously exist. To me 'morality' is about assessing whether interpersonal interactions are positive or negative, and 'right'/'good' is treating other people well, and 'wrong'/'evil' is treating other people badly. Those things are obviously objectively real and obviously important, and seem to be at the heart of what most people mean when they talk about morality but often struggle to put into words.

[seer]

As JimL has pointed out to you, having a source makes things subjective. Objective things just exist, they don't have sources. Distance objectively exists, it doesn't have a source.

This doesn't make sense. The sun exists, and is objective, and it has a source (whatever you make think that source is).

Okay. So do you think your 'objective' moral law is what God wishes or what God commands?

Correct.

People treat each other in particular ways, sometimes well and sometimes not. That's all morality is. Treating people well is what is good and treating them not well is what is bad. It's really simple, obviously objective, and you're just massively over-engineering it.

Look, the core of the confusion people tend to have on this issue comes down to them using really bad and vague definitions of the words "morality" and "right" and "wrong", and their definitions have them running in circles like headless chickens because they create for themselves a complicated conundrum that doesn't really exist by defining the words in ways that are fundamentally useless. So I like to prune the definitions back to things that are clear and obviously exist. To me 'morality' is about assessing whether interpersonal interactions are positive or negative, and 'right'/'good' is treating other people well, and 'wrong'/'evil' is treating other people badly. Those things are obviously objectively real and obviously important, and seem to be at the heart of what most people mean when they talk about morality but often struggle to put into words.

That is not what I asked Star, I asked: in your world is there an objective moral standard that can mediate between conflicting moral ideals? I'm not asking now, if we can know that standard, only if, even in theory, it exists - and how it could exist.

This is what I have been trying to get at with atheists, there are other things that follow but we have to begin here.

[JimL]

This doesn't make sense. The sun exists, and is objective, and it has a source (whatever you make think that source is).

The sun is a physical object, not a moral law, and the sun, in agreement with your own definition, exists independently, or external to a mind. Thus, the sun can't be subjective. You've already agreed that not to be the case with regard to moral law. They only have existence in their source, which is a mind, without the which they do not exist. That makes them subjective.

Correct.

A God could neither wish nor command that which is pre-determined by his own nature.

That is not what I asked Star, I asked: in your world is there an objective moral standard that can mediate between conflicting moral ideals? I'm not asking now, if we can know that standard, only if, even in theory, it exists - and how it could exist.

I believe he gave you that standard which can best be defined by the "Golden Rule". But it is only objective in the sense that it is based on reason, not on authority. I don't think that you really care much about a standard though seer, so much as you want absolute justice, or accountability.

This is what I have been trying to get at with atheists, there are other things that follow but we have to begin here.

No, what you are trying to get at is that there must be absolute accountability and punishment for immoral behavior else there is no reason for you to behave morally. Therein is a good reason why we may still need religion. Some people just can't behave themselves without it!

[Starlight]

This doesn't make sense. The sun exists, and is objective, and it has a source (whatever you make think that source is).

It has a historical origin, sure, everything does. That's not really quite the same thing.

So do you think your 'objective' moral law is what God wishes or what God commands?

Correct.

All right, I'll put you down as 'confused' on that issue.

That is not what I asked Star, I asked: in your world is there an objective moral standard that can mediate between conflicting moral ideals? I'm not asking now, if we can know that standard, only if, even in theory, it exists - and how it could exist.

This is what I have been trying to get at with atheists, there are other things that follow but we have to begin here.

Let me try to answer that in the following way. Let's consider six different people, with six different moral views:

1. Seer - morality is about following God's will (as revealed in the Bible).
2. Muhammed (a modern-day Arab) - morality is about following Allah's will (as revealed in the Koran).
3. Ivan (a communist Russian in the 1950s) - morality is about adherence to the teachings of The Party, particularly as written in a particular manifesto.
4. Starlight - morality is about treating others well.
5. Kant (an interpretation of some of the writings of the philosopher) - morality is about endorsing as moral any rule that could be coherently applied to everyone without leading to obviously bad consequences.
6. Bob (a random guy off the street who doesn't think too hard) - morality is a combination of everything my parents or society ever told me was "moral" or "immoral".

Obviously all six people have various different ideas of what things are moral or immoral, and they will even have different ideas of what things are within the sphere of things covered by the word 'morality'. At this point, some people might want to say "well look, the fact that those six people all have different moral ideas shows that all morality is relative." It's obviously true that moral ideas vary from person to person. How people use words is somewhat arbitrary. So if someone wants to say that morality is 'relative' because different people have different moral standards, it's hard to argue against that.

However, what we're normally talking about when we discuss moral objectivity is, given the person's basic definition of morality, if multiple people accept that definition, are those people going to be able to reach general agreement on what is moral and what isn't? So if two people who subscribe to Ivan's idea of morality consider the question of "is murder wrong?" are they going to be naturally led towards agreement on the subject, or are they reasonably likely to come up with different views? When we consider the answer to that question for the various different views, I'd suggest that views 1-5 look like they are 'objective' - people on the whole following those criteria independently are generally going to reach similar moral views. I'll grant that two people might have very different interpretations of the bible on a certain issue, but overall on most issues they can probably reach some kind of agreement. And that's going to be the case whenever the moral view provides some sort of document or principle that people can independently refer to in order to settle moral disputes. Moral view #6 looks like it's 'subjective' rather than 'objective' - two different people who follow the rule of believing as moral whatever they've grown up hearing their family and society tell them was 'moral' have no great likelihood of ending up believing the same things are moral if they grew up in different families or different societies, and if they have a dispute with each other they have no way of resolving that dispute. So that's how the various moral views would function at resolving moral disputes between two people who hold to the same basic view of morality.

We can pull back a step, and consider how two people who hold different moral views might try to convince one another to switch moral views. So in the previous situation it was a situation of "Seer meets Adrift: How do two people subscribing to the same basic moral framework resolve moral disagreements on specific moral issues?" But now it's a "Ivan meets Kant: How do two people subscribing to different moral frameworks convince each other to switch moral frameworks in general?" The short answer is that they will each try to point out the pros of their own moral paradigm and the cons of the other persons moral paradigm. They will probably end up doing a lot of talking past each other, because they likely don't share a lot of the same values. Most moral frameworks boil down to values. Anytime someone says that someone "should" or "shouldn't" do something, it tends to boil down to a statement along the lines of "I value thing X, and your potential action Y is in accord / is not in accord with valuing X, therefore you should / shouldn't do it." So, anytime you run across a moral framework, it is worth asking: What values underpin that moral framework?

So let's look at our list: What do those six people's moral framework imply that they value?

1. Seer: God's will.
2. Muhammed: Allah's will.
3. Ivan: The Communist Party.
4. Starlight: People.
5. Kant: Abstract principles (maybe?). Possibly no coherent system of underlying values actually backs this framework.
6. Bob: No coherent system of underlying values actually backs this framework.

I find that one of the most effective ways of making people re-evaluate their moral frameworks is to point them to the underlying values, and then ask them why they subscribe to those values. So the Bobs of this world, when they actually think about their moral system and why they hold to it, will quickly realize that actually they don't have a very sound underlying rationale for it, and may well be willing to change their view. Likewise the Ivans of this world, might say "well the reason that I value the Communist Party is that I am convinced that Communism will lead to a utopian future for humanity", so through discussion he might be led to realize that his belief in the Communist Party is a secondary value and that the value that actually underlies that is a concern for the well-being of humanity itself, so he might be led to subsequently endorse a Starlight paradigm. The Kants of this world, or those who endorse any similar moral framework that is based on fixed rational rules, with relatively little that they actually value underpinning it, might be led to realize that they don't really place any great value in abstract rules, and that their whole endorsement of some abstract moral rules over others is relatively arbitrary.

And that basically leaves the religious people (the Seers/Muhammeds) who tend to value the will of the god(s) as their first and foremost value squaring off against the non-religious people (the Starlights) who tend to value the well-being of humanity as their first and foremost value. At that point, each can try and question why the other person values what they do and what the incentive is in doing so. So I would say to you, that I value humans because I am a human, and all my friends and their friends are human, and everyone I've ever loved is human, so I see pretty obvious reasons why I and other people might both actually value humanity and wish to value humanity. That seems to me like a basic value that all humans are likely to be able to agree on and unite around. And indeed, we find that in the studies of different cultures and their moral views, this is the one single basic underlying value that we find always in every cultural everywhere: Humans value the wellbeing of humans. So as far as objective, everyone-can-agree-upon-this, moral views, go, that seems like a sure winner. Whereas you seer, well you have your idea about valuing the will of your particular God, who's opinion I frankly don't care about, and lots of different people have their own god(s) with different wills (the Greeks and Romans had plenty of different gods, many of whom willed things that you and I probably both find to be distasteful), so your choice seems pretty arbitrary... what incentive can you provide for me or others to place value on the will of your God and to consider that our number value in life which we consider as of primary importance in any decision we make?

Alternatively, some Christians might admit that (similar to the communist Ivan) that their underlying value is a concern for humanity, and say "well the reason that I value the will of God is because I believe God knows what's best for humanity since he's omniscient and loving, and out of my underlying concern for the well-being of humanity, I think it's best to follow God's will as revealed in the bible, because I'm confident that will lead to an optimal world for humanity." In which case that's fundamentally endorsing a Starlight moral paradigm as their primary view, overlaid simply with a belief in God and desire to learn from God's wisdom. But they are not inherently valuing the will of God over and above the well-being of humanity: If you were to convince them that the two were actually in conflict (ie they were to come to believe in a given situation that God was angry and wanted to hurt humanity), they would then be prepared to say that God's action was immoral because it hurt humanity which they value. So in this situation they value God as a teacher of knowledge due to his omniscience, but they believe morality is actually based on valuing humanity, and as such exists independently of God and is just something God happens to have some knowledge about.

[Adrift]

You don't happen to have a TLDR, do you?

[Starlight]

You don't happen to have a TLDR, do you?

I considered trying to give one, but found it was impossible to summarize such an important overview in a couple of sentences.

[Abigail]

Extreme examples aside, all that's required is that the standard service be available to all.

However, since we both agree all people should have a basic level of service, it is exactly the extreme example we have been debating (the Christian equivalent ie where a guy was forced to make a cake saying 'support gay marriage' ) and you are now trying to put these (or in the case of Muslims ) to one side.

[seer]

It has a historical origin, sure, everything does. That's not really quite the same thing.

Well yes it does, if something is objective as defined, it exists independently. Our opinion does not change it status. Like I said the color red would still exist even if we all were color blind.

All right, I'll put you down as 'confused' on that issue.

I'm not the least bit confused. Please point to the confusion.

Let me try to answer that in the following way. Let's consider six different people, with six different moral views:

1. Seer - morality is about following God's will (as revealed in the Bible).
2. Muhammed (a modern-day Arab) - morality is about following Allah's will (as revealed in the Koran).
3. Ivan (a communist Russian in the 1950s) - morality is about adherence to the teachings of The Party, particularly as written in a particular manifesto.
4. Starlight - morality is about treating others well.
5. Kant (an interpretation of some of the writings of the philosopher) - morality is about endorsing as moral any rule that could be coherently applied to everyone without leading to obviously bad consequences.
6. Bob (a random guy off the street who doesn't think too hard) - morality is a combination of everything my parents or society ever told me was "moral" or "immoral".

Obviously all six people have various different ideas of what things are moral or immoral, and they will even have different ideas of what things are within the sphere of things covered by the word 'morality'. At this point, some people might want to say "well look, the fact that those six people all have different moral ideas shows that all morality is relative." It's obviously true that moral ideas vary from person to person. How people use words is somewhat arbitrary. So if someone wants to say that morality is 'relative' because different people have different moral standards, it's hard to argue against that.

However, what we're normally talking about when we discuss moral objectivity is, given the person's basic definition of morality, if multiple people accept that definition, are those people going to be able to reach general agreement on what is moral and what isn't? So if two people who subscribe to Ivan's idea of morality consider the question of "is murder wrong?" are they going to be naturally led towards agreement on the subject, or are they reasonably likely to come up with different views? When we consider the answer to that question for the various different views, I'd suggest that views 1-5 look like they are 'objective' - people on the whole following those criteria independently are generally going to reach similar moral views. I'll grant that two people might have very different interpretations of the bible on a certain issue, but overall on most issues they can probably reach some kind of agreement. And that's going to be the case whenever the moral view provides some sort of document or principle that people can independently refer to in order to settle moral disputes. Moral view #6 looks like it's 'subjective' rather than 'objective' - two different people who follow the rule of believing as moral whatever they've grown up hearing their family and society tell them was 'moral' have no great likelihood of ending up believing the same things are moral if they grew up in different families or different societies, and if they have a dispute with each other they have no way of resolving that dispute. So that's how the various moral views would function at resolving moral disputes between two people who hold to the same basic view of morality.

We can pull back a step, and consider how two people who hold different moral views might try to convince one another to switch moral views. So in the previous situation it was a situation of "Seer meets Adrift: How do two people subscribing to the same basic moral framework resolve moral disagreements on specific moral issues?" But now it's a "Ivan meets Kant: How do two people subscribing to different moral frameworks convince each other to switch moral frameworks in general?" The short answer is that they will each try to point out the pros of their own moral paradigm and the cons of the other persons moral paradigm. They will probably end up doing a lot of talking past each other, because they likely don't share a lot of the same values. Most moral frameworks boil down to values. Anytime someone says that someone "should" or "shouldn't" do something, it tends to boil down to a statement along the lines of "I value thing X, and your potential action Y is in accord / is not in accord with valuing X, therefore you should / shouldn't do it." So, anytime you run across a moral framework, it is worth asking: What values underpin that moral framework?

So let's look at our list: What do those six people's moral framework imply that they value?

1. Seer: God's will.
2. Muhammed: Allah's will.
3. Ivan: The Communist Party.
4. Starlight: People.
5. Kant: Abstract principles (maybe?). Possibly no coherent system of underlying values actually backs this framework.
6. Bob: No coherent system of underlying values actually backs this framework.

I find that one of the most effective ways of making people re-evaluate their moral frameworks is to point them to the underlying values, and then ask them why they subscribe to those values. So the Bobs of this world, when they actually think about their moral system and why they hold to it, will quickly realize that actually they don't have a very sound underlying rationale for it, and may well be willing to change their view. Likewise the Ivans of this world, might say "well the reason that I value the Communist Party is that I am convinced that Communism will lead to a utopian future for humanity", so through discussion he might be led to realize that his belief in the Communist Party is a secondary value and that the value that actually underlies that is a concern for the well-being of humanity itself, so he might be led to subsequently endorse a Starlight paradigm. The Kants of this world, or those who endorse any similar moral framework that is based on fixed rational rules, with relatively little that they actually value underpinning it, might be led to realize that they don't really place any great value in abstract rules, and that their whole endorsement of some abstract moral rules over others is relatively arbitrary.

And that basically leaves the religious people (the Seers/Muhammeds) who tend to value the will of the god(s) as their first and foremost value squaring off against the non-religious people (the Starlights) who tend to value the well-being of humanity as their first and foremost value. At that point, each can try and question why the other person values what they do and what the incentive is in doing so. So I would say to you, that I value humans because I am a human, and all my friends and their friends are human, and everyone I've ever loved is human, so I see pretty obvious reasons why I and other people might both actually value humanity and wish to value humanity. That seems to me like a basic value that all humans are likely to be able to agree on and unite around. And indeed, we find that in the studies of different cultures and their moral views, this is the one single basic underlying value that we find always in every cultural everywhere: Humans value the wellbeing of humans. So as far as objective, everyone-can-agree-upon-this, moral views, go, that seems like a sure winner. Whereas you seer, well you have your idea about valuing the will of your particular God, who's opinion I frankly don't care about, and lots of different people have their own god(s) with different wills (the Greeks and Romans had plenty of different gods, many of whom willed things that you and I probably both find to be distasteful), so your choice seems pretty arbitrary... what incentive can you provide for me or others to place value on the will of your God and to consider that our number value in life which we consider as of primary importance in any decision we make?

Alternatively, some Christians might admit that (similar to the communist Ivan) that their underlying value is a concern for humanity, and say "well the reason that I value the will of God is because I believe God knows what's best for humanity since he's omniscient and loving, and out of my underlying concern for the well-being of humanity, I think it's best to follow God's will as revealed in the bible, because I'm confident that will lead to an optimal world for humanity." In which case that's fundamentally endorsing a Starlight moral paradigm as their primary view, overlaid simply with a belief in God and desire to learn from God's wisdom. But they are not inherently valuing the will of God over and above the well-being of humanity: If you were to convince them that the two were actually in conflict (ie they were to come to believe in a given situation that God was angry and wanted to hurt humanity), they would then be prepared to say that God's action was immoral because it hurt humanity which they value. So in this situation they value God as a teacher of knowledge due to his omniscience, but they believe morality is actually based on valuing humanity, and as such exists independently of God and is just something God happens to have some knowledge about.

Star, you do realize that you did not answer the question? When I speak of an objective moral standard I'm speaking of a standard that exists independently of men, independently of their musings, or subjective reasoning. I was hoping for something like Plato's Forms. Nothing you posted offers such a rule or standard.

[Starlight]

Star, you do realize that you did not answer the question?

To the extent that the question made sense, I answered it abundantly clearly. You asked "in your world is there an objective moral standard that can mediate between conflicting moral ideals?" and I discussed how conflicts between moral ideals could be mediated by people who shared the same moral codes and between people who did not, and what might be considered 'objective' moral standards and why. Everything you asked and more. Deal with my discussion.

When I speak of an objective moral standard I'm speaking of a standard that exists independently of men, independently of their musings, or subjective reasoning.

I'm just going to continue to outrightly reject your ridiculous assertions that when God does something it's "objective" but when humans do exactly the same thing it's "subjective". That's just plain special-pleading.

I was hoping for something like Plato's Forms.

Plato's forms are just... dumb.

[seer]

To the extent that the question made sense, I answered it abundantly clearly. You asked "in your world is there an objective moral standard that can mediate between conflicting moral ideals?" and I discussed how conflicts between moral ideals could be mediated by people who shared the same moral codes and between people who did not, and what might be considered 'objective' moral standards and why. Everything you asked and more. Deal with my discussion.

That is not objective Star. I'm not arguing that we can't come to moral agreement, in some areas. But all moral reasoning is subjective. How could it be otherwise? Let's do a case study:

You are speaking to a Maoist who is in the process of killing dissenters. You may believe this behavior is immoral, he does not. Why is your opinion more valid or correct than his?

I'm just going to continue to outrightly reject your ridiculous assertions that when God does something it's "objective" but when humans do exactly the same thing it's "subjective". That's just plain special-pleading.

Yes or no - does God's law exist independently of mankind?

Plato's forms are just... dumb.

At least he had an objective standard.

[Starlight]

But all moral reasoning is subjective. How could it be otherwise? Let's do a case study:

Try dealing with my discussion.

You are speaking to a Maoist who is in the process of killing dissenters. You may believe this behavior is immoral, he does not. Why is your opinion more valid or correct than his?

How would show your opinion was "more valid or correct" than his? Those strike me as really strange words to use.

The Maoist and I could almost certainly reach agreement that his actions were not kind, loving, and compassionate. He might well agree that he was not being motivated by wanting what is best for the people he is killing.

Yes or no - does God's law exist independently of mankind?

Humans clearly wrote the bible, just like they did the Koran, and every other holy book in history. So biblical law is clearly dependent on mankind.

I guess you could say that any historical document, eg the US Constitution, or Plato's Republic, exists independently once it's authors are dead, and can provide a way of arbitrating morality independently of any living human. So in that sense you could say that every written document exists 'independently' of mankind, and could potentially provide you with 'objective' moral truths.

But the question of "why use one document rather than another" is going to remain forever subjective - why the Bible and not the Koran?

At least he had an objective standard.

Hmm. Well it wasn't objective in any way that was useful, and wouldn't meet the standard for 'objectivity' I outlined in my earlier post - two followers of Plato wouldn't be particularly likely to reach independent agreement on moral issues. It was 'objective' in your stupid sense of existing 'out there somewhere', which to my mind makes it not any better than the US Constitution or any other written document in history, all of which definitely do exist (unlike Plato's speculative Forms).

[JimL]

This doesn't make sense. The sun exists, and is objective, and it has a source (whatever you make think that source is).

The sun began to exist seer, it has a source to which it is subject, aka the universe. You are mixing apples and oranges. All things in the universe are objective to each other, but they are not objective in themselves. Did morals begin to exist, do they exist independently of God. Of course you would say that no they are not, that morals are "grounded in god," that they have no independent existence of their own. That makes them, just like the sun, subjective. The difference is that unlike the sun, your moral standard, at least from your perspective, is subject to a mind. Only if morals have an independent reality are they truly objective. What you are doing is trying to rationalize "objective" to fit your agenda, but that is not what we are talking about when discussing "objective" realities. The question is, do morals exist in and of themselves, independent of any source? If not, then they are subjective. And if their source is a mind, I'm assuming that you believe god to be/have a mind, then morals are arbitrary as well. Unless of course you now would like to argue that god is a determined being, determined by his own eternal nature! I don't think you want to do that?

Okay. So do you think your 'objective' moral law is what God wishes or what God commands?

Correct.

So. would you now argue then that god is determined to do so, or can he arbitrarily wish or command otherwise, if he so chooses?

That is not what I asked Star, I asked: in your world is there an objective moral standard that can mediate between conflicting moral ideals? I'm not asking now, if we can know that standard, only if, even in theory, it exists - and how it could exist.

This is what I have been trying to get at with atheists, there are other things that follow but we have to begin here.

As per your example of the sun, the moral laws of society are objective to the individuals making up that society, but they are not objective unto themselves.

[Tassman]

However, since we both agree all people should have a basic level of service, it is exactly the extreme example we have been debating (the Christian equivalent ie where a guy was forced to make a cake saying 'support gay marriage' ) and you are now trying to put these (or in the case of Muslims ) to one side.

OK! I think we can agree that “standard service” re wedding cakes would be a message such as “Congratulation Bill and Fred” with a couple of miniature mannequins on top, whereas propaganda/political messages such as “White Supremacy Rules” or "Support Gay Marriage" can, I think, be reasonably refused by any cake shop as being not part of the standard service.

[Tassman]

That is not objective Star. I'm not arguing that we can't come to moral agreement, in some areas. But all moral reasoning is subjective. How could it be otherwise? Let's do a case study:

You are speaking to a Maoist who is in the process of killing dissenters. You may believe this behavior is immoral, he does not. Why is your opinion more valid or correct than his?

It's fairly easy to discern whether or not one's behaviour is in accordance with the evolved instincts of altruism and reciprocity, which historically have formed the basis of our moral systems long before morality was high-jacked by divinities.

Yes or no - does God's law exist independently of mankind?

No.

At least he had an objective standard.

Maybe but the notion of Platonic Forms is nonsense. How one can have "forms" existing in a special realm of the universe, apart from space and time? Answer, you can't.

[Abigail]

OK! I think we can agree that “standard service” re wedding cakes would be a message such as “Congratulation Bill and Fred” with a couple of miniature mannequins on top, whereas propaganda/political messages such as “White Supremacy Rules” or "Support Gay Marriage" can, I think, be reasonably refused by any cake shop as being not part of the standard service.

So you agree something along these lines:
Gay Couple: We would like to place an order for our wedding cake.
Christian Baker: Sure, though holding to the scriptural teaching that marriage should be between a man and a woman we only stock male/female combos of the mini mannequins for the top of the cake. However if you can source your own mannequin we'll do the cake.