Greetings.
I recently attended a debate, theists vs atheists on "Can there be good without God?"
Questions were taken from the floor at the end. One attendee stated that if the atheists were only willing to argue subjective good, they were giving the debate to the theists.
While I agree this would likely have seen the theists win on points, it was neither picked up by them, nor was the debate formal enough to see either side declared winners.
Can atheists argue for an objective ethics?

Comments?

(June 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm)martin02 Wrote: Can atheists argue for an objective ethics?

I still want someone to define "objective morals" or "objective ethics" for me.

Last I checked, "objective" means it's measurable in a way not subject to opinion, as in what can be determined in a science lab. Mass, temperature and velocity are all mathematically and therefore objectively measurable. Do those who argue for "objective ethics" mean to imply we can establish units of measure for right and wrong? Can we plug these numbers into a spreadsheet and determine the right course of action?

OK, that aside, I don't see how acknowledging subjective morality concedes anything to the theist. Does the theist think that God makes morality any less subjective?

If GodWillIt* because it's good, then morality exists outside of God and good would still be good without God.

If things are good because GodWillsIt, then this is not objective morality by definition. This is a being, however wise or powerful, who makes up rules.

Theists try to create an escape clause by claiming that "goodness is part of God's nature" (whatever the fuck that means) which leads to circular thinking like "God is good because God is good". I also wonder if this fits the definition of begging the question, inventing a definition of God and then using it to "prove" that one can't be moral without God ("We define God as good, you don't believe in God so therefore you can't be good").

* GodWillsIt = my moral philosophy version of GodDidIt.

If you are serious about this issue here is a 2 hour long video from sam harris and richard dawkins on this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk

It covers the issue very lightly compared to his book the moral landscape. I would try to make some of his points here but he makes them way better.

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Sc...465&sr=8-1

Martin02 Wrote:Can atheists argue for an objective ethics?

Yes.

And just like anyone else arguing for objective ethics:

They fail to get out the door with the argument.

(June 15, 2011 at 12:57 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: OK, that aside, I don't see how acknowledging subjective morality concedes anything to the theist. Does the theist think that God makes morality any less subjective?

My interpretation of the comment (he seemed to be pro-atheist) was that by strictly defining good as subjective, they were giving away the greater part of the potential definition of good.

(June 15, 2011 at 12:57 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: If GodWillIt* because it's good, then morality exists outside of God and good would still be good without God.

If things are good because GodWillsIt, then this is not objective morality by definition. This is a being, however wise or powerful, who makes up rules.

I like where you're going with this last; almost an inversion of the problem of evil being answered by free will. An idealist reading would then have all ethics subjective, just some exist in a bigger mind!

(June 15, 2011 at 1:05 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: They fail to get out the door with the argument.

It's usually more like repeatedly walking into the door face-first.

Michael Martin addressed this problem in Atheism, Morality, and Meaning. It is a silly argument raised by Christian apologists, and it has been given perfectly adequate treatment by serious philosophers.

What's for dinner?

Quote:Atheism and objective ethics

When did we get an ism, why wasn't I told?
If anyone's got a copy of the manifesto could they post it please.
I know what I don't believe, but I didn't realise I had to believe something else.

I'm happy with subjective ethics they can change, I probably shouldn't say improve but I will, improve.
I don't think it's hard to become better than Yawa, I'd rather have defensible subjective morals than pretend "real" ones.

I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed to this thread do far. I appreciate the civil tone and advice.

(June 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm)martin02 Wrote: Greetings.
I recently attended a debate, theists vs atheists on "Can there be good without God?"
Questions were taken from the floor at the end. One attendee stated that if the atheists were only willing to argue subjective good, they were giving the debate to the theists.
While I agree this would likely have seen the theists win on points, it was neither picked up by them, nor was the debate formal enough to see either side declared winners.
Can atheists argue for an objective ethics?

Comments?

What do you mean they were "only willing to argue subjective good"? Should they have argued something else? If so, what, and why?

How were they "giving the debate to the theists"? Answering this might explain why, in your opinion, the theists might then win on points.

What are objective ethics anyway? What is your definition of objective ethics? What is it of subjective ethics?

It is nice to know you are happy, but what is your position? What are you saying? If you refer to the debate, please cite a time stamp in the web-available video.