Atheists must appeal to an absolute moral standard when complaining about wrongs.

The problem is that the argument seems to be about our response to "real life situations", and I agree that there is no absolute moral response to our actions in response to situations. It might be different for different people in different times and cultures.If our real life situations require any kind of moral response, the moral decision should simply be based on it whether it is loving or unloving. Any absolute standard is simply about whether the response is loving, lovingly neutral or unloving.I suggest that this standard is something that can be part of a Christian belief as well as for anyone of any religious faith or of no religious faith.

Of course it is subjective. As humans we can't know if the perpetrators actually did care about the victims or if they were, which is far more likely, simply sadists.
It is also easy to cherry pick an obvious example like that where the claim is made that they are doing something positive when it is obvious that they aren't.Edited by GDR, : terrible typos. Should have taken the time to read it

Not really. I might interact with a pan handler on the street and give him cash. That generally speaking would seem like a moral and loving thing to do. However if that money is used to buy drugs that result in death from an overdose it was obviously not a benefit and was harmful.

Tangle's claim is that morality boils down to harm or benefit. I think that it is clear that it is a moral thing to do to reach out to help others even at our own expense. However sometimes doing a moral thing can have negative consequences so therefore it isn't as simple as harm or benefit.

No it does not.We are essentially on the same page. As I read what Tangle wrote using strictly harm and benefit as the criteria, then the emphasis is on the outcome and not on the motivation.By making the criteria loving or unloving then the end result has no impact on the morality of the act. Absolutely

Yes, but if the criteria is harm or benefit then you can't know whether it was harmful or beneficial until later or maybe never. In my example it was a loving act when the money was given but when the money was given it was an unknown as to whether or not it was harmful or beneficial.

I'm sure you're right. I think though it rather than just saying harm or benefit it would be more accurate to say: intent to harm or intent to benefit.

If we use the term loving then intent is implied. That isn't really the case with beneficial.

I agree that intent is the point. Firstly being hateful and unloving are two different things. Hatred is unloving but it is only one aspect of it. In a broader sense unloving is simply indifference to the well being of others.My point was that you can have a negative outcome from a loving moral act. Just to use the terms harm or benefit focuses on the outcome rather than the intent.

So far so good. [/qs] ..and there is the same problem again. An attempt to do the right thing can result in harm.Help or harm are the result and independent of the morality of the original act.

..but we don't know if it was beneficial or harmful until after we see the results.
I'll go back to my initial example. I give money, out of care and compassion to someone who is homeless, but he uses the money to buy drugs. He later dies from an overdose as a result of having that money to buy the drugs.The original act was moral because of the intent to "help" but the outcome was one of "harm".

That is exactly my point. It is the intent to "benefit". It isn't simply the benefit itself.

That's what I said. The only point I am making is that an act that is intended to be helpful might be harmful. So, if you are going to distinguish the morality of an act you can't just say help or harm. Intent to help or intent to harm would define the morality of the act.However, I would still go further than that because an even an "intent to help" can be self serving in that it might also be a benefit to the self making the act morally neutral.

I agree with the comment about atheism. In some cases I would agree with your statement about religious people. From a Christian perspective I would say that if someone performs a loving or helpful act to get themselves a benefit in the life to come then it is no longer a moral act. It is simply self serving.