In Defense of the God's Benevolence towards Job

[Truthseeker]

An agreement between two or more human beings to live or play according to a designated set of rules does not really make those rules objective. And if it did, that does not matter much. Those rules could be other rules instead. We would have no reason to take a rule as better than another given rule except subjective preference.

[Enjolras]

An agreement between two or more human beings to live or play according to a designated set of rules does not really make those rules objective.

It depends upon what you mean by the term 'objective.' In moral terms, by objective I mean that something is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. I do not mean objective values somehow 'exist' independently of human minds.

And if it did, that does not matter much. Those rules could be other rules instead. We would have no reason to take a rule as better than another given rule except subjective preference.

Unless you take it as a given that human well-being is really what morality is all about. Think about it another way: let's say you want to be physically healthy. It is objectively less healthy to eat potato chips and watch TV on the couch every day vs. eating balanced meals and exercising. Now if you don't care about being healthy, there isn't much anyone can say to convince you to behave in healthy ways, but that doesn't negate the fact that some behaviors are objectively better for health than others. In the same way, if you regard human well-being as a proper goal of morality, then you have a means to objectively determine correct behavior.