God created evil first. Think about it.

Therefore aiding Third World Nations naturally becomes a secondary and unimportant issue, and let's be honest, your average Joe probably never considers the issue at all, as they are  too preoccupied with the day to day necessities and requirements of their own survival.

We think that we are more civilised, and we might try to be more civilised, but at the end of the day when our own success or failure becomes an issue, do we not become the same instinct driven organisms that we ever were?

What do you think?

All of that is through your modern, Western, Judeo-Christian worldview. For example, while you might find abortions immoral, others would argue that it is immoral to deny a woman an abortion. (I think we talked about this before in an old thread.)

I would not classify Judeo-Christianity as a modern worldview.

Yes, we probably did discuss it before but since you applied that as your example I will once again respond.

Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Do you find that immoral? Once you lose the concept of equal justice anything goes. Injustice is something that you would not want to be applied to you. I believe the only time it is immoral to deny a woman an abortion is when doing so will result in the loss of her life. 

I would not classify Judeo-Christianity as a modern worldview.

"Modern" and "Judeo-Christian" were referring to two different things.

Yes, we probably did discuss it before but since you applied that as your example I will once again respond.

Abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Do you find that immoral? Once you lose the concept of equal justice anything goes. Injustice is something that you would not want to be applied to you. I believe the only time it is immoral to deny a woman an abortion is when doing so will result in the loss of her life. 

Abortion was just an example I used to illustrate the subjective nature of morality.

There are many other examples I could've used to show the same point: same-sex marriage, voluntary self-euthanasia (also known as Doctor-Assisted Suicide), the death penalty, medical testing on animals, etc, etc, etc.

Then I'm not following the statement, "All of that is through your modern, Western, Judeo-Christian worldview." It seems that you joined everything together. 

There are somethings that cannot be subjective to have moral values rather than preferences. I question why something is moral if you can't establish something as right or wrong.

In such cases how do you have morals?

If morals are subjective they are changeable.

How do you establish right from a standard that is shifting and has no fixed reference point?

Whatever example you choose I could probably provide a contrary view that is believed somewhere in this world for those laws or beliefs.

That brings into question a violation of a law of logic, the law of identity that states A=A. With two opposing views of the same thing, there is no fixed identity. Which one is right? Something cannot be right and wrong at the same time and in the same manner. It makes no sense to say homosexuality is right and at the same time, it is wrong. If two individuals or two societies believe the opposite which view is right?

If morality is subjective who is to say which opposing view is the true view?

Again, you need a fixed, unchanging, objective standard for morality to make sense of it.

If you can't supply one then what makes your opinion any "better" than mine?

Better, just like right and wrong, implies a qualitative moral measurement, obtained from a reference that is "best" and one in which we compare good and better, right and wrong against.

What is your "Best?" Can you establish one?

Then I'm not following the statement, "All of that is through your modern, Western, Judeo-Christian worldview." It seems that you joined everything together. 

Allow me to clarify. They are two different aspects of your worldview. I assume that you have a modern worldview (for example, I assume you believe it is wrong to own other human beings as property) and that you have a Judeo-Christian worldview (that you hold the morals taught in the bible in high regard).

There are somethings that cannot be subjective to have moral values rather than preferences. I question why something is moral if you can't establish something as right or wrong.

Stating that there are "right" and "wrong" morals assumes that morality is objective in the first place.

In such cases how do you have morals?

You have morals because the society to which you are born has a set of moral rules (either written down specifically in rules or unwritten) that you adopt from the people close to you (parents, teachers, friends, etc.).

If morals are subjective they are changeable.

Yes, morals are changeable. Three hundred years ago, slavery was morally acceptable to most people. Nowadays that isn't the case.

How do you establish right from a standard that is shifting and has no fixed reference point?

What you perceive as "right" is what the society you were raised in taught you is "right". More specifically, it is what the people around you say is "right". Morality isn't a standardized test. There are no "right" and "wrong" answers. There's just what you, and the people around you, think is right.

Whatever example you choose I could probably provide a contrary view that is believed somewhere in this world for those laws or beliefs.

Yes, that is a major problem of objective morality, especially since in almost all cases, both sides have valid arguments for their moral stances.

That brings into question a violation of a law of logic, the law of identity that states A=A. With two opposing views of the same thing, there is no fixed identity. Which one is right? Something cannot be right and wrong at the same time and in the same manner. It makes no sense to say homosexuality is right and at the same time, it is wrong. If two individuals or two societies believe the opposite which view is right?

Again, this assumes that there is a "right" and "wrong" (basically assuming objective morality).

If morality is subjective who is to say which opposing view is the true view?

This assumes that there is a "true view". If so, then which one is it (for any moral issue)?

Again, you need a fixed, unchanging, objective standard for morality to make sense of it.

Then what is that standard?

If you can't supply one then what makes your opinion any "better" than mine?

This assumes that there is a "better" and "worse".

Better, just like right and wrong, implies a qualitative moral measurement, obtained from a reference that is "best" and one in which we compare good and better, right and wrong against.

Then what is that "best" reference point?

What is your "Best?" Can you establish one?

I don't know. Can you?

Yes, I agree it is wrong to own slaves and I do not believe that is the biblical intent or God's best for humanity. I believe chattel slavery was common in the ANE (Ancient Near East), practiced by surrounding nations, but God told Israel not to adopt the practices of slavery witnessed (and they experienced) in ancient Egypt, and I can pull up Scripture that teaches against that kind of slavery. I believe the type read of in the Mosaic Laws in the OT and God's desired intent was indentured service, the same kind of principle relationship we understand in an employer/employee relationship. The NT teaches that all humans are free in Christ. That is God's ideal - our freedom in Christ. 

How can you have morality unless it is an objective measure? Why is your subjective preference any "better" than an opposing subjective preference?

How do two preferences, "I like to kill," and "I don't like to kill," make something right? Only if there is a universal or objective first principle that makes something right or wrong.

A description, what is described, is different from a prescription, what should be the case.  

A set of rules that often contradict and conflicts that of other individuals, sub-cultures, cultures, and societies. I could bring up many examples but you highlighted abortion. Some countries and even some states have different rules regarding abortion. Which is right? Can two opposing beliefs about the same thing both be right? Can two contradictory preferences or moral views/rules be "right" at the same time regarding the same thing? If you believe so I suggest you have a logical conflict. 

Second, if there is no objective value and reference point that applies to all humanity then what you call morals are nothing more than preferences. How do preferences make anything morally right? A preference is a subjective or personal taste such as I like ice-cream or I don't like ice-cream. How does a description turn into a moral prescription or an ought? "Might makes right" is a subjective preference used in the hands of a dictator, an oligarchy, or a select few to a majority to influence a preference. Hitler liked to kill Jews. The allied nation liked to protect them. The question is what makes either of those two things morally wrong rather than just preferences?

So which is the actual wrong, that which was believed 300 years ago or that which is believed today? If morals are not based on the best or ultimate measure how do you ever get to something being "better?" Better in relation to what? In relation to something that is fleeting and shifting and that can turn into the opposite of what was once legislated and believed.

That brings into question which standard is the correct one, and how do you, or can you, ever determine it? Why is your view any "better" than mine in such a situation of moral relativism. Why "should" your preference override mine? How does your preference or personal taste make something that I should do? I like ice-cream. You should/must too. Preferences are what wars are fought over. 

So the teaching of society makes things right for you (once it was thought you had the right to kill a slave since you owned him/her, or the "moral climate" taught that Jews were subhuman and they could be put to death) even though that same society once taught the polar opposite. Again, I believe you confuse what "is" with what "should be" and with a worldview structure that is not true to what is the case, the actual right, I do not believe it can get to what should be. The problem is that your views are relative and shifting. You do not have what is necessary for morality, just preference. 

As I have pointed out, if morality is not a "standardized test," or is relative then anything can be made possible and passed off as "right." You make sense of morals as that which the majority of society passes as "right." It has no objective reference point, just whims and preferences of those who have the might to make the rules. How does might make right? It does not, it just makes it what is forced on others. 

For something to be wrong it must conform to an objective measure. If I measure a piece of wood with my tape-measure to be 11 inches when the true measurement is 12 inches I have not obtained a true reading. I am WRONG in my understanding of the true measurement. When I go to apply the cut piece to the desired length it is not going to fit properly. The same is true for morals. They need an exact measurement for them to be "right."

Are you denying the law of identity, that a thing it what it is? Is a dog (A) a fish (B)? A=B? Does a dog have a true identity? Or can what I call a dog mean anything?

If you do not recognize something that is a self-evident principle you need to think about it further. The laws of logic are universal principles that are REQUIRED to make sense of things. 

If there is not a true measure then anything can be passed off as right or good. Can you live with that? "Step this way! You are the next in line for the gas chambers!" The problem is you can say something is "right" like gassing people to death until something wrong like this is done to you, then you understand and know the difference between the two. Some things are just plain wrong, like killing innocent people. If you deny that first principle or self-evident truth the killing of an innocent person could be you. Should you live with that? 

You believe there is or else you would not obey laws and rules or would not select one thing over another. It is self-evident when applied to physical things, but how do you apply it to intangible or abstract things? You believe it is good to obey particular rules for your well-being, like don't eat rotten food because it will make you sick. You would not be able to select a piece of rotten food as worse than a piece of fresh food without evaluating it as better or worse. With quantitative values, there is physical measurements and standards. Qualitative values require a different measuring standard. The problem is that without a moral objective standard it becomes futile in determining the best or better because people tend very often to do what they like or desire and can get away with doing rather than what is good or right. 

Do you just assume it is wrong to kill innocent human beings for pleasure or do you know this is wrong to do? If you don't know that I think others would soon label you as psychopathic and want to lock you up or avoid you at all costs. 

Yes, I agree it is wrong to own slaves and I do not believe that is the biblical intent or God's best for humanity. I believe chattel slavery was common in the ANE (Ancient Near East), practiced by surrounding nations, but God told Israel not to adopt the practices of slavery witnessed (and they experienced) in ancient Egypt, and I can pull up Scripture that teaches against that kind of slavery. I believe the type read of in the Mosaic Laws in the OT and God's desired intent was indentured service, the same kind of principle relationship we understand in an employer/employee relationship. The NT teaches that all humans are free in Christ. That is God's ideal - our freedom in Christ. 

What I meant by that was that the idea that humans beings shouldn't become others' property was only widely accepted relatively recently. I wasn't talking about the bible's stance on slavery, but if you insist, I can talk about that too.

How can you have morality unless it is an objective measure? Why is your subjective preference any "better" than an opposing subjective preference?

Once again, what you think of as "moral" is what you perceive others thinking of as "moral". Your subjective preference is only "better" than an opposing one in you your eyes. As I have demonstrated already, there are many moral issues where both sides have equally valid arguments. If you are to claim an objective morality, then you need to prove why one moral stance is irrefutably right, and the other undeniably wrong.

How do two preferences, "I like to kill," and "I don't like to kill," make something right? Only if there is a universal or objective first principle that makes something right or wrong.

A description, what is described, is different from a prescription, what should be the case.  

The reason why almost everyone finds things like killing wrong is that this mindset was evolutionarily beneficial to our ancestors.

When we first formed social groups, we did so to raise our collective odds of survival and procreation. A social group where killing each other is seen as morally acceptable will lessen its members' chance of survival (as killing people reduces the total numbers of your group, thus weakening it and making it more vulnerable to outside threats). With time, such groups would be eliminated, leaving groups with an aversion to killing each other as the ones to populate the Earth. 

How do two preferences, "I like to kill," and "I don't like to kill," make something right? Only if there is a universal or objective first principle that makes something right or wrong.

A description, what is described, is different from a prescription, what should be the case.  

[1] The reason why almost everyone finds things like killing wrong is that this mindset was evolutionarily beneficial to our ancestors. When we first formed social groups, we did so to raise our collective odds of survival and procreation. A social group where killing each other is seen as morally acceptable will lessen its members' chance of survival (as killing people reduces the total numbers of your group, thus weakening it and making it more vulnerable to outside threats). [2] With time, such groups would be eliminated, leaving groups with an aversion to killing each other as the ones to populate the Earth. 

A set of rules that often contradict and conflicts that of other individuals, sub-cultures, cultures, and societies. I could bring up many examples but you highlighted abortion. Some countries and even some states have different rules regarding abortion. Which is right? Can two opposing beliefs about the same thing both be right? Can two contradictory preferences or moral views/rules be "right" at the same time regarding the same thing? If you believe so I suggest you have a logical conflict. 

Again, if one is right and one is wrong, then which one is right, and why? For many moral issues, there isn't a clear-cut "right" and "wrong", as both sides have legitimate moral arguments. 

Second, if there is no objective value and reference point that applies to all humanity then what you call morals are nothing more than preferences. How do preferences make anything morally right? A preference is a subjective or personal taste such as I like ice-cream or I don't like ice-cream. How does a description turn into a moral prescription or an ought? "Might makes right" is a subjective preference used in the hands of a dictator, an oligarchy, or a select few to a majority to influence a preference. Hitler liked to kill Jews. The allied nation liked to protect them. The question is what makes either of those two things morally wrong rather than just preferences?

The key here is that reference points are set by each society, not by each individual.

So which is the actual wrong, that which was believed 300 years ago or that which is believed today? If morals are not based on the best or ultimate measure how do you ever get to something being "better?" Better in relation to what? In relation to something that is fleeting and shifting and that can turn into the opposite of what was once legislated and believed.

To us today, what they believed 300 years ago was wrong. Our stance is "better" than theirs in our eyes. Perhaps something we do today (for example, consuming meat) will be looked upon as "morally inferior" by those living in the future. Saying that our morals are "better" than theirs is framed in the context of our worldview. For example, people who practice Hinduism see beef consumption as a grave sin. We don't. Who's "right"? Who's "wrong"? Whose moral stance is "better", and whose is "worse"? Once again, in order to have objective morality, you need to be able to objectively answer such questions.

That brings into question which standard is the correct one, and how do you, or can you, ever determine it? Why is your view any "better" than mine in such a situation of moral relativism. Why "should" your preference override mine? How does your preference or personal taste make something that I should do? I like ice-cream. You should/must too. Preferences are what wars are fought over. 

I don't know, you tell me. For instance, is the death penalty moral or immoral? There are many compelling arguments for both sides. If I believe that the death penalty is immoral, then you need to tell me, according to objective morals, why I'm objectively right or wrong.

So the teaching of society makes things right for you (once it was thought you had the right to kill a slave since you owned him/her, or the "moral climate" taught that Jews were subhuman and they could be put to death) even though that same society once taught the polar opposite. Again, I believe you confuse what "is" with what "should be" and with a worldview structure that is not true to what is the case, the actual right, I do not believe it can get to what should be. The problem is that your views are relative and shifting. You do not have what is necessary for morality, just preference. 

If you were born in Tenochtitlan in the pre-Columbian era, then you would believe that human sacrifice was necessary in order to stave off the wrath of the gods and to keep the sun rising every day. You may not think you would believe that, but in that circumstance, having a belief in those gods, you would. 

As I have pointed out, if morality is not a "standardized test," or is relative then anything can be made possible and passed off as "right." You make sense of morals as that which the majority of society passes as "right." It has no objective reference point, just whims and preferences of those who have the might to make the rules. How does might make right? It does not, it just makes it what is forced on others. 

If morality is a standardized test, then what does the answer key look like?