Why did the Hebrew God Create Carnivores.

[Diogenes]

Most of the arguments against the idea of a loving god who created the planet Earth and its creatures are so obvious they occur to a child. One of them is, 'Why would a caring, loving god create a world where so many organisms can only survive only by killing and eating others? Christians usually fall back on the old "Original Sin" argument, that everything was perfect until "The Fall."

Is "The Fall" a reasonable argument to explain the existence of God-created organisms that can only survive by tearing the flesh off other organisms? . . . or by consuming and torturing them to death like brainless cancer cells, viruses and bacteria?

When God made his creation and called it 'good.' then called it evil and drowned 99.9999 percent of his 'creation,' why didn't that 'New Start' fix everything? Wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient God have known all this would transpire before 'He' created the first clod of earth, the first drop of water, the first atom of 'the firmament?'

[POI]

You've skipped my statement(s), twice, regarding (wellbeing). For the context of this exchange, the terms (wellbeing and morality) are essentially interchangeable. And we've explored exactly what (wellbeing) entails. And it's not necessarily just to seek maximal comfort. In terms of objectivity, if the inherent goal is to achieve maximal (wellbeing) for his "created" agents, then we can objectively measure directed action(s) against, or pertaining to, the (wellbeing) of these 'created' agents. This goes directly back to the continued (2) avoided questions I keep asking, for which you are finally starting to address, at the bottom. Okay, now to what you responded to...

While God has subjective thoughts about moral actions, that isn’t what is grounding the goodness or badness of the action. The act of creation is. The difference between atheism and theism in the act of creation is that a personal agent can build in objective purpose that the moral creature should be acting for the wellbeing of other beings.

The act of creation does not inherently ground objective "morals". Some creation can instead be 'amoral.' I'll explain more below.

If morality is based on God’s thoughts, morality becomes arbitrary because if God commanded that murder was good, it would be good. My view doesn’t lead to this. Morality is based on the nature of beings plus the objective purpose to act towards the good of others that God creates in moral agents.

The same answer as directly above.

Sure, that act of creation comes from God’s subjective actions which came because of His subjective thoughts, but that doesn’t make morality subjective any more than God’s subjective thoughts leading to the subjective action to create the Earth with a certain shape doesn’t mean the shape of the Earth is a subjective fact.

Here lies the distinction. Creating a shape can be an amoral action, as opposed to a moral or immoral action. The inherent question becomes, is the created shape of the earth 'good' or 'bad'? Does the shape of the earth promote (wellbeing)? Well, in Genesis, god stated he created, and he also stated it was 'good.' Hence, he seems to think that what he created was in line with promoting the (wellbeing) of his "creation".

Okay, then does my view succumb to the other horn? Is God just commanding what is inherently right and, therefore, morality exists independent of God?

I have yet to hear or read about an argument which does not adhere to one of the two horns alone. But I'm willing to still be open to one?

My view doesn’t result in this either. God is the source through the act of creation and morality logically follows from that act of creation.

An act of creation itself can be moral, immoral, or amoral. You first need to determine which one of the three this particular act entails?

I’m saying that because God created the world and moral agents in a certain way, what is good or evil for them logically follows. God gives moral agents freedom to obey what is logically good for them or not.

Then here is where the Bible objectively falls apart. I could list commands and assertions, but we will instead stick with the (2) unanswered questions for now, to remain on direct task to this topic.

This is trivially true. The one who creates something, by definition, determines its nature and rules about what is good for it naturally follows from that act of creation. This isn’t follow God’s rules because He says so, but because that is logically how you work.

It's more than 'trivial.' If we were only discussing inanimate objects, then sure. However, if a creator creates sentient agent(s), another layer is inherently added. Does the directed action(s) promote these sentient agent's (wellbeing)? This can be objectively measured.

Your case was an appeal to authority, which is a textbook fallacy.

I already spoke to this Tanager. Mentioning that most scholars agree, is merely an additional observation, or sidebar. The passage asserts that suffering did not exist prior to "the fall". You have not adequately rebutted the given passage.

My point there was that just because suffering is overcome, this doesn’t mean suffering didn’t have to be a part from the beginning. You have the burden of showing it shouldn’t have been a part at the beginning.

And my point(s) are that suffering is not required, as it apparently did not exist prior to "the fall", nor will it exist again in 'Heaven.' The onus is on you to demonstrate that suffering existed prior to "the fall", which looks to be the antithesis of what the Bible states is place(s). The onus is also on you to clearly explain why suffering is a necessary part of consciousness, when it is clearly stated not to exist in the Heavenly realm.

If suffering is an initial necessary feature of conscious systems, suffering as suffering is amoral. The suffering that comes through a carnivorous system, then, is not evil. This takes out the force of your questions. Maybe it isn’t necessary, but it isn’t evil so it doesn’t matter if it is necessary or not.

But it's not amoral, as he deems his creation tactics 'good', in Genesis, in several places. Which means we are instead discussing (morality), or the promotion of (wellbeing). Please try again.

1) In order to achieve god's goal(s), why MUST the animal kingdom also be required to tear one another apart -- in a slow and painful way?
2) Couldn't god's goals and plans have been achieved by either making the animal kingdom herbivores, or even yet, not having animals required to consume anything at all for survival? If not, why not?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #151]

You've skipped my statement(s), twice, regarding (wellbeing). For the context of this exchange, the terms (wellbeing and morality) are essentially interchangeable. And we've explored exactly what (wellbeing) entails. And it's not necessarily just to seek maximal comfort. In terms of objectivity, if the inherent goal is to achieve maximal (wellbeing) for his "created" agents, then we can objectively measure directed action(s) against, or pertaining to, the (wellbeing) of these 'created' agents. This goes directly back to the continued (2) avoided questions I keep asking, for which you are finally starting to address, at the bottom.

You stated that they are synonyms for our discussion and I’m fine with that and then used them as such. Why did I need to say something else about that?

The act of creation does not inherently ground objective "morals". Some creation can instead be 'amoral.' I'll explain more below.

I agree. I argued that the act of creation that includes the following: building in objective purpose that the moral creature should be acting for the wellbeing of others grounds morality as objective.

Here lies the distinction. Creating a shape can be an amoral action, as opposed to a moral or immoral action. The inherent question becomes, is the created shape of the earth 'good' or 'bad'? Does the shape of the earth promote (wellbeing)? Well, in Genesis, god stated he created, and he also stated it was 'good.' Hence, he seems to think that what he created was in line with promoting the (wellbeing) of his "creation".

Yes, the shape of the Earth is amoral. My point was that something coming from the subjective actions (which come from the subjective thoughts) of a being doesn’t automatically make that thing a subjective fact. Therefore, the mere fact that morality ultimately comes from God’s actions and thoughts doesn’t necessarily make morality subjective. Otherwise, you’d have to say the shape of the Earth is a subjective fact.

What matters is how it comes about. God’s will considered after the fact of creation could fall to the horn of arbitrariness, but not how I’ve

To your seeming point above, ‘good’ can refer to other kinds of goodness than moral goodness, as it does in Genesis 1.

My view doesn’t result in this either. God is the source through the act of creation and morality logically follows from that act of creation.

An act of creation itself can be moral, immoral, or amoral. You first need to determine which one of the three this particular act entails?

I need to determine whether the creation of morality is moral, immoral, or amoral? How does that question make logical sense?

It's more than 'trivial.' If we were only discussing inanimate objects, then sure. However, if a creator creates sentient agent(s), another layer is inherently added. Does the directed action(s) promote these sentient agent's (wellbeing)? This can be objectively measured.

The directed action we are talking about is that God made humans sentient beings who ought to seek other agents’ wellbeing (i.e., act morally). The creation of moral agents means creating those agents’ wellbeing to include seeking the wellbeing of others.

I already spoke to this Tanager. Mentioning that most scholars agree, is merely an additional observation, or sidebar. The passage asserts that suffering did not exist prior to "the fall". You have not adequately rebutted the given passage.

That isn’t an argument but just sharing your interpretation. Support why the context of this passage is about all of reality, not just humans, for example.

And my point(s) are that suffering is not required, as it apparently existed prior to "the fall", and will exist again in 'Heaven.' The onus is on you to demonstrate that suffering existed prior to "the fall", which looks to be the antithesis of what the Bible states is place(s).

You don’t think science backs up that suffering existed prior to the existence of humans? I thought you’d agree with me there. Certain interpretations of the Bible are antithetical to this, but that doesn’t mean those are good interpretations. If you want to show the passages actually are that way, do so, don’t just claim it.

The onus is also on you to clearly explain why suffering is a necessary part of consciousness, which is clearly claimed to not exist in the Heavenly realm.

Of course it is. I sketch my argument out and then you ask clarifying questions and raise critiques of where you disagree, which allows me to clarify and explain things further. You hadn’t raised this question before (or at least I didn’t clearly perceive that as yet raised); we were focused on other thoughts first.

I probably need to re-emphasize that I was talking about conscious beings like us. You can have conscious beings without suffering, but they don’t get the goals God has in having free people live in a loving community together. That’s the context we have been discussing, but could be missed by some.

Things like valuing, caring, agency, meaningful experience seems to necessitate suffering. Evaluating something as bad or threatening will inevitably create suffering as even the possibility of the threat is a form of suffering. Without negative states (suffering), positive states lose meaning. Suffering is useful from a biological standpoint. Pain helps us avoid injuries, fear to avoid danger, social pain to maintain stronger relationships. Suffering can push you away from certain actions towards goals and preferences. Without it there is no reason to avoid harm or change anything.

For all these reasons I still maintain my previous answer (on multiple occasions) to your 2 questions that you keep claiming I’m avoiding: the questions are irrelevant since the creation of animal suffering is amoral.

[POI]

I’m fine with that and then used them as such.

Thanx for clarifying.

I agree.

I argued that the act of creation that includes the following: building in objective purpose that the moral creature should be acting for the wellbeing of others grounds morality as objective.

Just to be clear, are we still exactly on the same page, when compared to what I stated prior here --> "we can objectively measure directed action(s) against, or pertaining to, the (wellbeing) of these 'created' agents"? Or, are we veering off into differing directions? I want to make sure we are merely using different words to explain the (same) argument? If not, please clarify where we differ here?

Yes, the shape of the Earth is amoral.

My point was that something coming from the subjective actions (which come from the subjective thoughts) of a being doesn’t automatically make that thing a subjective fact.

I think we are arguing differing point(s). My point here is that it makes it an 'amoral' fact. However, the Bible god adds an additional layer. in also pronouncing the creation of such things as 'good.' Which then means the creation of (earth/other) is also deemed "morally good".

Therefore, the mere fact that morality ultimately comes from God’s actions and thoughts doesn’t necessarily make morality subjective. Otherwise, you’d have to say the shape of the Earth is a subjective fact.

See directly above.

Support why the context of this passage is about all of reality, not just humans, for example.

Let's start from the beginning. Genesis 1:29–30 states that before "the fall", both humans and animals were given plants for food, suggesting a non-predatory, non-violent environment. (i.e.):

"29 God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good."

You don’t think science backs up that suffering existed prior to the existence of humans? I thought you’d agree with me there.

I agree that science clearly demonstrates that predation has always been a thing. However, my argument is that the Bible suggests otherwise. Just add this observation to the running list of things the Bible gets wrong.

I probably need to re-emphasize that I was talking about conscious beings like us. You can have conscious beings without suffering, but they don’t get the goals God has in having free people live in a loving community together. That’s the context we have been discussing, but could be missed by some.

Suffering came into the mix because of 'original sin', not because suffering is a necessary part of consciousness here on earth. The original plan was no suffering.

Things like valuing, caring, agency, meaningful experience seems to necessitate suffering.

Then this would mean 'Adam and Eve' were incapable of these expressed traits prior to "the fall". This would also mean that house pets are less fortunate than animals in the wild. This also even further means that prey is more meaningfully fulfilled than any predator.

Evaluating something as bad or threatening will inevitably create suffering as even the possibility of the threat is a form of suffering. Without negative states (suffering), positive states lose meaning.

Again, the original intent was for "Adam and Eve" to never experience those expressed 'negative' things. So, if they had not disobeyed god, then by applying your logic, their existence would never have possessed any true meaning.

Suffering is useful from a biological standpoint. Pain helps us avoid injuries, fear to avoid danger, social pain to maintain stronger relationships. Suffering can push you away from certain actions towards goals and preferences. Without it there is no reason to avoid harm or change anything.

1) Cutting to the heart of the matter, why do animals have to eat anything at all, or why couldn't they at least all remain herbivores? Animals already endure countless (kinds/types) of suffering in nature as it is. But we do not know why they need to actually suffer at all, being they apparently did not suffer prior to "the fall" anyways?
2) Why was predation also necessary to achieve god's over-all plan for the animal kingdom?
3) Further, why did the animals have to endure even more suffering, due to "the fall" of humans? By mere definition, how is this even 'just', to punish the ones not committing the disobedience in the first place?
4) And what is the over-all (end-goal) or (point) for their suffering, since we agree they cannot achieve any type of "theodicy" anyways?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #153]

I argued that the act of creation that includes the following: building in objective purpose that the moral creature should be acting for the wellbeing of others grounds morality as objective.

Just to be clear, are we still exactly on the same page, when compared to what I stated prior here --> "we can objectively measure directed action(s) against, or pertaining to, the (wellbeing) of these 'created' agents"? Or, are we veering off into differing directions? I want to make sure we are merely using different words to explain the (same) argument? If not, please clarify where we differ here?

To me, your statement is about knowing what is for/against the well-being of entities and my statement is about being designed to care what is for/against the well-being of entities, so that our well-being is tied up with acting for the well-being of others. If atheism is true, we can still know that an action is against the well-being of X, but I don’t see what objectively grounds that we should care about the well-being of X.

My point was that something coming from the subjective actions (which come from the subjective thoughts) of a being doesn’t automatically make that thing a subjective fact.

I think we are arguing differing point(s). My point here is that it makes it an 'amoral' fact.

Why do you think it automatically makes it an ‘amoral’ fact?

However, the Bible god adds an additional layer. in also pronouncing the creation of such things as 'good.' Which then means the creation of (earth/other) is also deemed "morally good".

Why do you think God is talking about deeming these things morally good rather than good in some other way?

You then skipped over addressing the following:

Why do I need to determine whether the creation of morality is moral, immoral, or amoral before showing that my model of God’s grounding of morality avoids the other horn of Euthyphro’s dilemma? How does that question make logical sense?

Support why the context of this passage [Romans 5:12] is about all of reality, not just humans, for example.

Let's start from the beginning. Genesis 1:29–30 states that before "the fall", both humans and animals were given plants for food, suggesting a non-predatory, non-violent environment.

Why think Genesis is concerned about answering that kind of question? If it were, then why doesn’t it (in Gen 9:3) include animals in those that can now eat other animals?

Suffering came into the mix because of 'original sin', not because suffering is a necessary part of consciousness here on earth. The original plan was no suffering.

Why do you think this is what the Bible teaches?

Things like valuing, caring, agency, meaningful experience seems to necessitate suffering.

Then this would mean 'Adam and Eve' were incapable of these expressed traits prior to "the fall".

Why do you think this is what Romans 5:12 (or other passages in the Bible) teach? Romans 5:12 says sin and death entered, not suffering.

Things like valuing, caring, agency, meaningful experience seems to necessitate suffering.

This would also mean that house pets are less fortunate than animals in the wild. This also even further means that prey is more meaningfully fulfilled than any predator.

Why do these follow? You seem to be adding a hidden premise that the more you suffer the more you value, care, have agency, have meaning. Why add that?

Again, the original intent was for "Adam and Eve" to never experience those expressed 'negative' things. So, if they had not disobeyed god, then by applying your logic, their existence would never have possessed any true meaning.

Why do you think the Bible teaches this?

1) Cutting to the heart of the matter, why do animals have to eat anything at all, or why couldn't they at least all remain herbivores? Animals already endure countless (kinds/types) of suffering in nature as it is. But we do not know why they need to actually suffer at all, being they apparently did not suffer prior to "the fall" anyways?
2) Why was predation also necessary to achieve god's over-all plan for the animal kingdom?
3) Further, why did the animals have to endure even more suffering, due to "the fall" of humans? By mere definition, how is this even 'just', to punish the ones not committing the disobedience in the first place?
4) And what is the over-all (end-goal) or (point) for their suffering, since we agree they cannot achieve any type of "theodicy" anyways?

My answer to 1, 2, and 4 are still the same; those are irrelevant if the creation of animal suffering isn’t evil.

3) Why do you think the Bible teaches this?

[POI]

In cutting to the chase, is your ultimate argument...

Any and all acts of creation are amoral? If not, please clarify?

To me, your statement is about knowing what is for/against the well-being of entities and my statement is about being designed to care what is for/against the well-being of entities, so that our well-being is tied up with acting for the well-being of others. If atheism is true, we can still know that an action is against the well-being of X, but I don’t see what objectively grounds that we should care about the well-being of X.

Allow me to play devil's advocate and grant everything you just said above (for now). Okay, now let's turn to another category, in economics. Humans make 'value' statements, such as..."She's rich." "He's poor." "That's too expensive." "Save this percentage for your retirement." "You should be giving some of your money to charity." Etc etc etc.... Heck, even Jesus made value statements about the topic of money/economics. In that he did not seem to like it all too much, but I digress here.

Does anyone really really really care, that these statements above, are not tied to any actual empirical objective standard either? I mean, sure, the money was objectively created (by a creator) for use. And we humans use this objectively created money accordingly. Hence, the money objectively exists and was objectively created. But, we humans evaluate the actions taken with the objectively created money. And these evaluations, even though the money was objectively created, are still not tied to any intrinsic objective standard themselves. Here lies the kicker Tanager... The only time I get this kind of pushback, is usually from theists, when evaluating the (claims, statements, and actions) from their Holy book(s), which seem or appears "illogical or immoral". To me, it is a diversional tactic to throw off the sent, with a 'technicality', in that the applied value assessment is not tied to any actual objective standard. Okay, when we observe things people do with their money, it seems that only the ones which offer similar pushback are the ones who (internally know) the action is 'suspect.'

***********************************

I'm going to stop here, for now. Once we get all this squared away, we can certainly address the rest, as needed.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #155]

In cutting to the chase, is your ultimate argument...

Any and all acts of creation are amoral? If not, please clarify?

No, that is not my argument. My argument is that subjective beings can cause both objective and subjective realities.

Me (a subjective being) stating an opinion about what a hammer is does not make that what a hammer is. My opinion, as an opinion, says something about me, not the hammer’s objective nature and is, therefore, a subjective reality in relation to the objective hammer.

The creator of the hammer (a subjective being) stating an opinion about what a hammer is does not make that what a hammer is. Her opinion, as an opinion, says something about her, not the hammer’s objective nature and is, therefore, a subjective reality in relation to the objective hammer.

The creator of the hammer’s act of creating the hammer in a specific way (its shape, material, etc.) with a specific, objective purpose (say to nail nails) makes a hammer what it is. Her act gives the hammer an objective nature and is, therefore, an objective reality even though it came from the mind of a being with subjective thoughts and actions.

If reality is just a bunch of beings with different ideas about what acts are moral or not, morality is subjective. I like one thing and you like another; just like how we like different ice cream flavors. This includes even God’s opinion as an opinion. That’s one of Euthyphro’s horns.

But if reality involves God’s act of creating moral agents in a certain way with an objective purpose to care about the wellbeing of others, morality (what caring for the wellbeing of others looks like) is objective. That horn of Euthyphro’s is avoided.

Allow me to play devil's advocate and grant everything you just said above (for now). Okay, now let's turn to another category, in economics. Humans make 'value' statements, such as..."She's rich." "He's poor." "That's too expensive." "Save this percentage for your retirement." "You should be giving some of your money to charity." Etc etc etc.... Heck, even Jesus made value statements about the topic of money/economics. In that he did not seem to like it all too much, but I digress here.

Yes, moral value is one type of value, but there are others. There is also mixture to where some economic judgments are also moral judgments, but some are not.

Does anyone really really really care, that these statements above, are not tied to any actual empirical objective standard either? I mean, sure, the money was objectively created (by a creator) for use. And we humans use this objectively created money accordingly. Hence, the money objectively exists and was objectively created. But, we humans evaluate the actions taken with the objectively created money. And these evaluations, even though the money was objectively created, are still not tied to any intrinsic objective standard themselves. Here lies the kicker Tanager... The only time I get this kind of pushback, is usually from theists, when evaluating the (claims, statements, and actions) from their Holy book(s), which seem or appears "illogical or immoral". To me, it is a diversional tactic to throw off the sent, with a 'technicality', in that the applied value assessment is not tied to any actual objective standard. Okay, when we observe things people do with their money, it seems that only the ones which offer similar pushback are the ones who (internally know) the action is 'suspect.'

So, you get pushback on moral issues, but not non-moral issues like if a dress is overpriced or not or what ice cream flavor is good? Is that your point?

If so, perhaps that points to how people know deep down that moral issues are different from those subjective, personal preferences? Atheistic worldviews can’t account for that difference; moral values should be viewed as a personal preference on par with ice cream flavor preferences. Theism can ground this difference in that God designed us to prefer acting morally over immorally.

If your point was something else, please clarify it.

[POI]

If reality is just a bunch of beings with different ideas about what acts are moral or not, morality is subjective.

It depends. If the standard is wellbeing, and the evaluation of actions is in comparison to wellbeing, then humans can objectively identify if the observed actions, when compared to wellbeing, (hit or missed) the mark or objective. And as we have discovered through 'science', biological processes drive these forces. The onus is on the theist to demonstrate that these desires are instead driven by the invisible sky fairy.

I like one thing and you like another; just like how we like different ice cream flavors.

How might liking one flavor of ice, and not another, involve assessing actions against wellbeing? I'd instead argue that the preference of one flavor over another is instead more-so 'benign' or almost an 'amoral' expressed preference rather than a 'moral or immoral' one.

Alternatively, one could make an objective assessment, in that vanilla ice cream is 'bad' for a particular so-and-so because it would adversely affect their direct wellbeing, (if that recipient is allergic to vanilla beans for instance).

But if reality involves God’s act of creating moral agents in a certain way with an objective purpose to care about the wellbeing of others, morality (what caring for the wellbeing of others looks like) is objective.

Creation, with specific intent, is no more grounded in "objective reality" verses what I expressed prior about the creation of (money/economics) and its intension(s). I'll explain more below.

Yes, moral value is one type of value, but there are others. There is also mixture to where some economic judgments are also moral judgments, but some are not.

But none of them are truly objective regardless, even though (money/economics) was actually proven to have a designer/creator.

So, you get pushback on moral issues, but not non-moral issues like if a dress is overpriced or not or what ice cream flavor is good? Is that your point?

No. I'm instead saying that the 'pushback' comes from the individuals who likely actually (internally agree) with the one making the observation or statement which looks to defy "logic or morality" against the assertion(s) of their holy book(s). Case/point, what "logical or moral" reason(s) exist, which promote the actual wellbeing of the animal kingdom -- where they are slowly eaten alive, while also (acknowledging/identifying) that they lack ability for "theodicy"?

If so, perhaps that points to how people know deep down that moral issues are different from those subjective, personal preferences?

Okay. 'Deep down', is the observance of animal predation a true "moral/immoral" issue, or is it instead merely a personal 'benign' or 'amoral' observation? And why do you think so?

Atheistic worldviews can’t account for that difference; moral values should be viewed as a personal preference on par with ice cream flavor preferences.

I explained above. We can still evaluate the objective 'goodness or badness' of a particular flavor of an ice cream in <some> cases against wellbeing, whether or not a god actually exists. Why? <Biological processes>, as opposed to the unproven assertion of an <invisible sky fairy>, drives the human need for survival and wellbeing...

Theism can ground this difference in that God designed us to prefer acting morally over immorally.

Explained above.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #157]

It depends. If the standard is wellbeing, and the evaluation of actions is in comparison to wellbeing, then humans can objectively identify if the observed actions, when compared to wellbeing, (hit or missed) the mark or objective. And as we have discovered through 'science', biological processes drive these forces. The onus is on the theist to demonstrate that these desires are instead driven by the invisible sky fairy.

Previously I agreed to use ‘well-being’ as a synonym for morality, but this is using it in a different way. Let’s say you have a desire to help others even if they can’t pay you back and you experience some suffering in order to help them. An ethical egoist has a desire to not help the other because limiting their own suffering is what they consider ‘well-being’. How does science objectively decide between the two?

If reality is just a bunch of beings with different ideas about what acts are moral or not, morality is subjective. I like one thing and you like another; just like how we like different ice cream flavors. This includes even God’s opinion as an opinion. That’s one of Euthyphro’s horns.

How might liking one flavor of ice, and not another, involve assessing actions against wellbeing? I'd instead argue that the preference of one flavor over another is instead more-so 'benign' or almost an 'amoral' expressed preference rather than a 'moral or immoral' one.

Alternatively, one could make an objective assessment, in that vanilla ice cream is 'bad' for a particular so-and-so because it would adversely affect their direct wellbeing, (if that recipient is allergic to vanilla beans for instance).

Yes, I agree. My point there was that we need something more than subjective opinions to ground objective morality. You seem to agree with that.

Creation, with specific intent, is no more grounded in "objective reality" verses what I expressed prior about the creation of (money/economics) and its intension(s). I'll explain more below.

…

But none of them are truly objective regardless, even though (money/economics) was actually proven to have a designer/creator.

Creators can produce subjective truths in reality (“that’s too expensive”) and objective truths in reality (“the Earth is an oblate spheroid”).

No. I'm instead saying that the 'pushback' comes from the individuals who likely actually (internally agree) with the one making the observation or statement which looks to defy "logic or morality" against the assertion(s) of their holy book(s). Case/point, what "logical or moral" reason(s) exist, which promote the actual wellbeing of the animal kingdom -- where they are slowly eaten alive, while also (acknowledging/identifying) that they lack ability for "theodicy"?

So, back to the ‘come on, Tanager, deep down you know you agree that the creation of animal suffering is bad, but are just trying to save your faith’ bit? I’ve already addressed that irrational move.

To then answer your oft-repeated question a new way: If suffering is a part of the initial state of conscious beings (such as animals), then the alternative is they don’t exist. A creature can’t have wellbeing if they don’t exist.

Okay. 'Deep down', is the observance of animal predation a true "moral/immoral" issue, or is it instead merely a personal 'benign' or 'amoral' observation? And why do you think so?

I’ve already given my argument as to why the creation of animal suffering (including in the form of animal predation) is amoral.

[POI]

Previously I agreed to use ‘well-being’ as a synonym for morality, but this is using it in a different way. Let’s say you have a desire to help others even if they can’t pay you back and you experience some suffering in order to help them. An ethical egoist has a desire to not help the other because limiting their own suffering is what they consider ‘well-being’. How does science objectively decide between the two?

To the bold, under "theism", such a being's identified characteristic might be defined as being consumed by 'evil.' Meaning, any thought(s) or action(s) contrary to the will of god. Under "science", most/all humans, outside of (exception/mutation/other), are a tribal/social species. Therefore, the over-all wellbeing would be adversely affected by avoidance to cooperation, as we fear consequentialism, which may include, but not confined to --(isolation/retaliation/shunning/other). Case/point, such a character would not want others to know they acted in selfishness, for fear of the aforementioned, and/or the mere judgement of their peers.

Yes, I agree. My point there was that we need something more than subjective opinions to ground objective morality. You seem to agree with that.

I think we need to vet this particular topic out some more? Is it 'subjective opinion' to state that eating vanilla is bad for someone who is allergic? I'd say not, as we can make an objective evaluation, when compared to wellbeing, which is synonymous with morality.

Alternatively, expressing that you prefer chocolate over vanilla, in your hot fudge Sunday, can be 'amoral, as it really does not address or mess with your over-all wellbeing. Which means it's not really a true 'moral' concern.

Creators can produce subjective truths in reality (“that’s too expensive”) and objective truths in reality (“the Earth is an oblate spheroid”).

Is the statement "animal predation is evil" a (subjective truth statement) or an (objective truth statement), and why?

So, back to the ‘come on, Tanager, deep down you know you agree that the creation of animal suffering is bad, but are just trying to save your faith’ bit? I’ve already addressed that irrational move.

Wait a minute Tanager, you stated, "perhaps that points to how people know deep down that moral issues are different from those subjective, personal preferences?"

If you admit that 'deep down', we all really know the difference between actual "moral" issues, as opposed to only expressing opinions regarding subjective personal preferences, then why do I, deep down, know this topic is addressing a true 'moral' concern -- which involves evaluating identified actions against these animal's wellbeing?

If suffering is a part of the initial state of conscious beings (such as animals), then the alternative is they don’t exist. A creature can’t have wellbeing if they don’t exist.

This is where we can bring some of the rest of the conversation back into play... Genesis 1:29–30 clearly states that all animals ate plants at one point. Well, we know that some animals don't even eat plants.

"29 God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good."

Hence, you are beginning at the wrong starting point.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #159]

Under "science", most/all humans, outside of (exception/mutation/other), are a tribal/social species. Therefore, the over-all wellbeing would be adversely affected by avoidance to cooperation, as we fear consequentialism, which may include, but not confined to --(isolation/retaliation/shunning/other). Case/point, such a character would not want others to know they acted in selfishness, for fear of the aforementioned, and/or the mere judgement of their peers.

Many humans care about overall wellbeing; many care about their own wellbeing over the overall wellbeing. How does science tell us one desire is better than the other?

I think we need to vet this particular topic out some more? Is it 'subjective opinion' to state that eating vanilla is bad for someone who is allergic? I'd say not, as we can make an objective evaluation, when compared to wellbeing, which is synonymous with morality.

Eating vanilla is bad for someone who is allergic because of the nature of vanilla interacting with that person, whether or not you state it. This was my other point, that just because God has an opinion about morality, that doesn’t tell us whether morality is subjective or objective.

Is the statement "animal predation is evil" a (subjective truth statement) or an (objective truth statement), and why?

I think that is an objective truth claim that is wrong, but I think a consistent atheist must say it is a subjective truth statement like their ice cream preferences.

So, back to the ‘come on, Tanager, deep down you know you agree that the creation of animal suffering is bad, but are just trying to save your faith’ bit? I’ve already addressed that irrational move.

If you admit that 'deep down', we all really know the difference between actual "moral" issues, as opposed to only expressing opinions regarding subjective personal preferences, then why do I, deep down, know this topic is addressing a true 'moral' concern -- which involves evaluating identified actions against these animal's wellbeing?

I was saying that people who say they are moral subjectivists (I don’t know if you say that about yourself or not) that treat moral preferences as unique among socio-biologically produced personal preferences, aren’t acting like moral subjectivists. I think there are very few consistent moral subjectivists. You seem like a moral objectivist to me; I’m not sure what you consider yourself.

But also notice that I am pointing to evidence (how the person acts) to show the inconsistency between what they claim about themselves (that they are moral subjectivists) and what their actions say they believe. I’m not saying “I know what you (the general ‘you’) say and I don’t have any evidence otherwise, but come on, you deep down know moral objectivism is true”. I’m certainly capable of being inconsistent, but I’m not here.

This is where we can bring some of the rest of the conversation back into play... Genesis 1:29–30 clearly states that all animals ate plants at one point. Well, we know that some animals don't even eat plants.

Why do you think this passage is a literal scientific statement?