I'm arguing from a purely philosophical position, one where objective moral values don't exist. This is the default position of atheism from which our moral norms are derived. The problem is, our atheistic position cannot RATIONALLY reject the possibility of genocide, rape, murder and the likes being morally good. There is always the possibility. And more importantly, it's a metaphysical possibility, not just a logical one.

This is worrying for the rational atheists among us, and this is an area I am enormously interested in researching. My problem is, I need a better grasp of the fundamentals of ethics and moral studies.

(August 31, 2012 at 11:20 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm arguing from a purely philosophical position, one where objective moral values don't exist. This is the default position of atheism from which our moral norms are derived.

No, it really isn't.

(August 31, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Red Celt Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 11:20 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm arguing from a purely philosophical position, one where objective moral values don't exist. This is the default position of atheism from which our moral norms are derived.

No, it really isn't.

You wish it wasn't. We all do.

But any argument for objective morality fails without appealing to an objective standard. And seeing as our epistemic limitations cannot provide us an objective standard, but rather a subjective one (considering (a) subjective cognitive limitations and (b) inherently neutral moral authority of all moral agents), we are forced to concede that there is no rational basis for objective morality as an atheist, and in some possible world, without a necessary being, or objective source, it would be morally good to eat babies, or whatever other moral abomination you can think of: wearing white after labor day, for example.

This is the position of pre-eminent atheistic moral philosophers of the past 50 years as far as I can see.

As far as I can see, the easiest way for an atheistic worldview to escape this problem is to attack (b) and say that one human being is morally perfect, and thus everything he says is morally good. But we can't do that.

Or we can attack (a) and say that human beings have perfect cognitions, are omniscient, and therefore make consequentialistically (pertaining to a consequentialist theory of morality) perfect moral decisions. A deontological moral theory would be better covered by the attack on (b) as detailed above.

We atheists "get" our morality from the exact same place you "got" your morality when you were an atheist for 25 years (as you stated in post #365 of the "Where did the Jesus myth come from?" thread), you disingenuous prick.

(August 31, 2012 at 11:38 pm)Strongbad Wrote: We atheists "get" our morality from the exact same place you "got" your morality when you were an atheist for 25 years (as you stated in post #365 of the "Where did the Jesus myth come from?" thread), you disingenuous prick.

Ho Ho Ho! That's a good one. I'm amazed how shameless my fellow Christians can be. I always cringe when I read what they post and I feel so embarrassed for them. It's like they have gone absolutely nuts and need to be thrown into the padded cell or they're really incredibly stupid or they're all 3 year olds.

(August 31, 2012 at 11:38 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Red Celt Wrote: No, it really isn't.

You wish it wasn't. We all do.

It isn't about wishing. I'm a moral relativist, therefore I strongly reject your claims about the default position of atheism.

(August 31, 2012 at 11:43 pm)greneknight Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 11:38 pm)Strongbad Wrote: We atheists "get" our morality from the exact same place you "got" your morality when you were an atheist for 25 years (as you stated in post #365 of the "Where did the Jesus myth come from?" thread), you disingenuous prick.

Ho Ho Ho! That's a good one. I'm amazed how shameless my fellow Christians can be. I always cringe when I read what they post and I feel so embarrassed for them. It's like they have gone absolutely nuts and need to be thrown into the padded cell or they're really incredibly stupid or they're all 3 year olds.

Stick around, young one, you'll soon learn that their shameless-ness has no bounds. The amazement wears off quickly.

(August 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Red Celt Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 11:38 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You wish it wasn't. We all do.

It isn't about wishing. I'm a moral relativist, therefore I strongly reject your claims about the default position of atheism.

If you're a moral relativist than you AGREE with me. I'm saying moral relativism IS the atheistic position.

The problem with moral relativism is self-evident: That baby-punching is morally good in some possible world on moral relativism. And that's not a moral theory that babies want to be in. Or anybody if they happen to find themselves on the less favorable side.

(September 1, 2012 at 12:36 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(August 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Red Celt Wrote: It isn't about wishing. I'm a moral relativist, therefore I strongly reject your claims about the default position of atheism.

If you're a moral relativist than you AGREE with me. I'm saying moral relativism IS the atheistic position.

The problem with moral relativism is self-evident: That baby-punching is morally good in some possible world on moral relativism. And that's not a moral theory that babies want to be in. Or anybody if they happen to find themselves on the less favorable side.

The morality of social animals is based upon reciprocity. Actions have consequences. I'm not interested in possible worlds; they are a construct of metaphysics. In this world, punching babies has consequences... and those consequences aren't devolved between theism and atheism.

(September 1, 2012 at 12:55 am)Red Celt Wrote:

(September 1, 2012 at 12:36 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: If you're a moral relativist than you AGREE with me. I'm saying moral relativism IS the atheistic position.

The problem with moral relativism is self-evident: That baby-punching is morally good in some possible world on moral relativism. And that's not a moral theory that babies want to be in. Or anybody if they happen to find themselves on the less favorable side.

The morality of social animals is based upon reciprocity. Actions have consequences. I'm not interested in possible worlds; they are a construct of metaphysics. In this world, punching babies has consequences... and those consequences aren't devolved between theism and atheism.

Reciprocity is only one factor guiding the formation of ethical norms in a society. Certain moral duties have decidedly non-reciprocal origins and non-reciprocal expressions, such as "It is morally wrong to rape somebody, even if they raped you first and you are reciprocating." Reciprocity in this capacity does nothing to inform the problem of subjective morality that we as atheists need to grapple with: The problem that a relativistic, atheistic moral worldview RATIONALLY NECESSITATES the possibility that the raping of babies could be considered morally good.

It's not appealing, but it's true and we as atheists need to find a solution to this problem. Not by appealing to ad hoc evo-psych, but by finding ways to mitigate the subjectivity of our morality when it comes to behavior that we think ought to be wrong in all circumstances.