Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[Deesse23]

I dismiss their view due to a lack of evidence, and i am not reading minds when i hear the argument from "but, but....without god and his morals there would be no ultimate justice" (the same god that possibly pardons any monster for any crime).

[Belacqua]

i am not reading minds when i hear the argument from "but, but....without god and his morals there would be no ultimate justice" 

Yes, that's a very bad argument.

Obviously it's not the argument used by Phillipa Foot and others who have serious reasons to support moral realism. 

We want to be sure that we don't reject those serious arguments because we don't want them to be true. Have you worked on the published arguments for moral realism? Do you have reasons you can type out here as to why you reject them?

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, we shouldn't dismiss moral realism out of hand because of what Christian apologists argue. Often times, they're not even moral realists themselves, and divine command theory is typically placed in a separate category from moral realism anyway, as it is more subjectivist rather than objectivist.

That said, I currently remain agnostic about whether morality is ultimately objective or subjective. I'm not well-read enough on philosophical ethics (and it doesn't really interest me that much) to have a more definite position on this.

[Foxaèr]

I'm not well-read enough on philosophical ethics (and it doesn't really interest me that much) to have a more definite position on this.

You could always read to become better read.

[Belacqua]

Yeah, we shouldn't dismiss moral realism out of hand because of what Christian apologists argue. Often times, they're not even moral realists themselves, and divine command theory is typically placed in a separate category from moral realism anyway, as it is more subjectivist rather than objectivist.

That said, I currently remain agnostic about whether morality is ultimately objective or subjective. I'm not well-read enough on philosophical ethics (and it doesn't really interest me that much) to have a more definite position on this.

Me too.

There seem to be some moral statements that are so clear that no sane person would disagree with them. E.g. "Chopping the arms off of healthy babies for fun is bad." 

But even if all sane people would agree with that sentence, I'm not sure we can use it as a case for moral realism.

I just want to be sure that if we reject the stance, we are doing so for real reasons.

[Alan V]

Wikipedia: "Moral realism (also ethical realism or moral Platonism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. This makes moral realism a non-nihilist form of ethical cognitivism (which accepts that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be evaluated as true or false) with an ontological orientation, standing in opposition to all forms of moral anti-realism and moral skepticism, including ethical subjectivism (which denies that moral propositions refer to objective facts), error theory (which denies that any moral propositions are true); and non-cognitivism (which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all). Within moral realism, the two main subdivisions are ethical naturalism and ethical non-naturalism. Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine, and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine. A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other)."

If you define morality as whatever decreases human suffering or promotes human thriving, then of course it must be objective. Humans are real bodies with real needs.

[polymath257]

Most groups are composed of individuals. And most individuals prefer fair rules. That is enough for morality. When 'might' oppresses, people tend to get unhappy and overthrow it. That is simply asserting their moral authority.

The problem is that morality is all about how people interact with other people. it is *only* about that, not something independent of people.

Yes... so as you said... a thing isn’t right or wrong in itself, it’s just culturally taboo.  So then you can’t really judge another’s morality, or really even condemn them for being immoral.  Just state that you personally don’t like it.

Also, to add:   When you talk about asserting moral authority, that is only if they win. Otherwise, they might be immoral;  it all depends on whose point of view. But neither has a moral right to appeal to, outside of themselves.

But the point is that it isn't just one person's viewpoint. The vast majority of people agree on the basics, as I'm sure you agree. That is what keeps it from being arbitrary: the people still decide.

[Belacqua]

But the point is that it isn't just one person's viewpoint. The vast majority of people agree on the basics, as I'm sure you agree. That is what keeps it from being arbitrary: the people still decide.

One problem is how people use the word "objective." Sometimes it seems people want it to mean "eternal and universal," in the way we assume the laws of nature are unchanging and everywhere. But I don't think "objective" means this. I think it's closer to what you mean -- non-arbitrary, not just personal.

For example, for a long time, people thought that ulcers were caused by stress. Doctors would -- objectively -- tell their patients that this was the case. But it turns out everybody was wrong, and ulcers are caused by H. pylori, or whatever it's called. They were objective, but the best explanation changed. 

"Moral realism" seems much clearer, for this reason. "Objective morality" tends to mislead, I think.

[RoadRunner79]

But the point is that it isn't just one person's viewpoint. The vast majority of people agree on the basics, as I'm sure you agree. That is what keeps it from being arbitrary: the people still decide.

One problem is how people use the word "objective." Sometimes it seems people want it to mean "eternal and universal," in the way we assume the laws of nature are unchanging and everywhere. But I don't think "objective" means this. I think it's closer to what you mean -- non-arbitrary, not just personal.

For example, for a long time, people thought that ulcers were caused by stress. Doctors would -- objectively -- tell their patients that this was the case. But it turns out everybody was wrong, and ulcers are caused by H. pylori, or whatever it's called. They were objective, but the best explanation changed. 

"Moral realism" seems much clearer, for this reason. "Objective morality" tends to mislead, I think.

I have been using the word objective to mean that it is outside of and independent of the subject (or mind).  This is what is being referred to commonly in the moral argument and when talking about ontology.  It is a different sense of the word; from a reporter giving the news objectively.

[Deesse23]

Have you worked on the published arguments for moral realism? Do you have reasons you can type out here as to why you reject them?

Lack of evidence. The fact that people claim to have access to moral truths doesnt mean they actually have. But thats not the point. The point is:
My original response was not to you, it was in response to a Christian (RR79) who claims that his morals are objective because they are pronouncements from the subjective view of a higher authority his gods moral. Or do you think he is a fan of Foot? So what does foot have to do with all of this?

Moral realism may be true or it may be false, I'm not sure.

Looks like Foots serious arguments are still not good enough for you, are they? You are trying to attack my position by naming an authority that doesnt convince you of said position either ?[/quote]

But it's unfair to say that people who argue in favor of moral realism do so because they dislike the alternative. These are serious people, and we don't have the right to dismiss them based on mind-reading their motives.

Bolding mine: Who is mind reading?

Obviously it's not the argument used by Phillipa Foot and others who have serious reasons to support moral realism.

Her reasons may suffice for you, but not for me. I may share the same values with Foot, but i dont claim them to be based on objective truths. Oh wait, you dont accept them either.

We want to be sure that we don't reject those serious arguments because we don't want them to be true.

Please dont strawman me. You are just projecting on behalf of the persons i originally adressed.