(May 27, 2015 at 7:34 am)Randy Carson Wrote: What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

Well, that's a different question to the one you originally asked, and there's two important points to keep in mind here, but one really important thing we need to get out of the way before we can even get to that:

There is no objective morality in EITHER of our positions.

From a purely secular point of view, there is no objective morality; there is, however, an objective framework through which we can develop a situational, context-driven system of morality. You may have heard of it: it's called reality. You can use reality to develop a sense of what's good or bad, because in reality we are beings of a specific nature, who react in predictable ways to stimuli, and for whom that stimuli has specific ramifications; we generally feel pain universally, and it denotes a specific thing for us all, namely bodily damage. Therefore, since pain not only feels bad, but has a specific function biologically that is objectively bad for us, we can determine that causing pain is bad, as its effects are uniformly bad for humans, which we are also, and pragmatically we don't want to be hurt, nor do we want to live in a society that permits that. There are exceptions- vaccinations being an obvious one- but this is a situational ethical scenario, and there is an overriding benefit to vaccinations that renders the temporary pain useful. That's all you really need; a series of at times very basic observations about how we live and interact in reality, and an understanding that occasionally the rules we derive from that may conflict with each other, and that this happens in every ethical system. Morality isn't some incredibly complex thing that's a huge puzzle to figure out without god, it's just a lengthy process to fully encompass, full of ifs and buts and conditional statements. That doesn't mean the benefits of having it aren't obvious, if you take a moment to think about it.

Conversely, from a theistic standpoint there's no objective morality either. You've already asserted that god determines your morality, but god is a subject, by literal definition; if his opinions on morality are what determines its nature, then what you have is a subjective morality that you happen to have imbued with a lot of authority. But that doesn't make it objective, and calling it that inverts the meaning of both those terms, so why even bother using them, at that point?

Either way, the one with the thing closest to objective morality is the atheist, not the theist. But objectivity also doesn't matter, given that neither of us can produce a truly objective morality, since morality doesn't exist as some quantity independent of minds to apprehend it; it's just that I'm not willing to pretend that's otherwise, while theists generally are.

Lol it appears you guys have this well in hand but I've got to open my big mouth anyway. I never understood why theists feel religion is the source of morality. I know there isn't one singular morality but most would consider helping the community as moral. There is evidence of cooperation in early man and over many different species that long predate all existing religions. What religion has been used for is control both over our environment and each other. It offers explanations for concepts we didn't understand so dispelling our fear of the unknown and provides a weapon of the mind to use to influence others in your community.

Yeah Esquilax, going all Euthyphro on his ass!

(May 27, 2015 at 10:41 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Ha ha! Man did those goalposts move pretty quick!


Went from why to where in a flash.

These guys never keep their story straight. Slippery as an eel.

(May 27, 2015 at 10:43 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 7:34 am)Randy Carson Wrote: What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

Well, that's a different question to the one you originally asked, and there's two important points to keep in mind here, but one really important thing we need to get out of the way before we can even get to that:

There is no objective morality in EITHER of our positions.

From a purely secular point of view, there is no objective morality; there is, however, an objective framework through which we can develop a situational, context-driven system of morality. You may have heard of it: it's called reality. You can use reality to develop a sense of what's good or bad, because in reality we are beings of a specific nature, who react in predictable ways to stimuli, and for whom that stimuli has specific ramifications; we generally feel pain universally, and it denotes a specific thing for us all, namely bodily damage. Therefore, since pain not only feels bad, but has a specific function biologically that is objectively bad for us, we can determine that causing pain is bad, as its effects are uniformly bad for humans, which we are also, and pragmatically we don't want to be hurt, nor do we want to live in a society that permits that. There are exceptions- vaccinations being an obvious one- but this is a situational ethical scenario, and there is an overriding benefit to vaccinations that renders the temporary pain useful. That's all you really need; a series of at times very basic observations about how we live and interact in reality, and an understanding that occasionally the rules we derive from that may conflict with each other, and that this happens in every ethical system. Morality isn't some incredibly complex thing that's a huge puzzle to figure out without god, it's just a lengthy process to fully encompass, full of ifs and buts and conditional statements. That doesn't mean the benefits of having it aren't obvious, if you take a moment to think about it.

The faulty assumption here, is that other humans being harmed is bad.  What we'd do in your line of thinking, which I think starts out right, is determine what we need to do to assure we don't feel pain (if we care about that).  If the best way is to form a global team human with a bunch of rules that say 'no hurting' eachother, then so be it.  But that's fairly impractical, inneffective, and certainly not the only path.

As we've seen through out history, a popular solution is to amass a bunch of power to protect yourselves from others being able to hurt you.  Another is to form small groups that takes care of themselves.  

So what we're talking about here with your reality based system isn't really related to morality.  It's just self-preservation.  Because from the actual framework, being a brutal dictator is just as legit a solution as being a hippy in a commune or being a psychopath mass murderer who doesn't view his own death as a particular problem.

christianity is a slippery slope you try to start out rational and keep going down a straight road you notice there is turns
and even exists to get to your final destination you take them then you are as still far away when you started thinking you would get
closer but in the end that destination is never reached because you know why? You had faith the car was started and its all in your head.

(May 27, 2015 at 1:10 am)robvalue Wrote: So why are we good? The simplest answer, I think, is evolution. Those who have been good at cooperating and at caring for society as well as themselves have fared better, so it has been promoted by natural selection.

This.

We evolved to be a social species and certain behaviors/values promote our success as a social species. So part of our evolving social behaviors involved developing a meta-cognitive faculty we call moral judgement. We intuitively value good behavior, and are repulsed by impulses to engage in bad behavior. It's a subconsciously driven system of influencing what our consciousness wants so as to promote behavior that benefits a social animal. In short, evolution built us to desire the good. (This basic desire is also shaped and reinforced by childhood training, along with an inbuilt desire to belong.)

(May 27, 2015 at 11:13 am)wallym Wrote: The faulty assumption here, is that other humans being harmed is bad.

But that's not an assumption, it's a direct consequence of the fact that morality requires minds to apprehend it, and minds of sufficient complexity to do so, in all our experience, require human meat bodies to exist. If you want a system of morality you need thinking agents capable of considering it, and so therefore their survival is paramount to maintaining that system.

Also though, what else would you consider morality? Absent references to moral actors and what directly impacts them, what would you consider moral? And in what way is morality meaningful at all, if it either does not deal with moral actors, or deals with them in such a way that things they can only ever interpret as bad are somehow good?

Quote:What we'd do in your line of thinking, which I think starts out right, is determine what we need to do to assure we don't feel pain (if we care about that).  If the best way is to form a global team human with a bunch of rules that say 'no hurting' eachother, then so be it.  But that's fairly impractical, inneffective, and certainly not the only path.

As we've seen through out history, a popular solution is to amass a bunch of power to protect yourselves from others being able to hurt you.  Another is to form small groups that takes care of themselves.  

So what we're talking about here with your reality based system isn't really related to morality.  It's just self-preservation.  Because from the actual framework, being a brutal dictator is just as legit a solution as being a hippy in a commune or being a psychopath mass murderer who doesn't view his own death as a particular problem.

I'm sorry, what? Being a brutal dictator doesn't involve causing people pain? Who is the dictator being brutal to, then? And if it's just, like, rocks and stuff, then where is the disparity that shows my moral system ends up with people being hurt?

(May 27, 2015 at 11:18 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 1:10 am)robvalue Wrote: So why are we good? The simplest answer, I think, is evolution. Those who have been good at cooperating and at caring for society as well as themselves have fared better, so it has been promoted by natural selection.

This.

We evolved to be a social species and certain behaviors/values promote our success as a social species.  So part of our evolving social behaviors involved developing a meta-cognitive faculty we call moral judgement.  We intuitively value good behavior, and are repulsed by impulses to engage in bad behavior.  It's a subconsciously driven system of influencing what our consciousness wants so as to promote behavior that benefits a social animal.  In short, evolution built us to desire the good.  (This basic desire is also shaped and reinforced by childhood training, along with an inbuilt desire to belong.)

Which is something observed in the currently ongoing program to breed foxes as pets.

(May 27, 2015 at 7:34 am)Randy Carson Wrote: I'm not asking whether atheists can be good people or whether they are good people. Despite much of the rudeness and foul language directed at me (and others) in this forum, it should be obvious that atheists may strive to be kind, tolerant, generous and respectful toward others. And they do this because they recognize that "right" and "wrong" behavior is real and not theoretical.

What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

If some feel that they have already answered, my apologies; however, I re-phrased my OP based on a quick scan of a few responses.

I will try to get through all of the posts as quickly as time permits. Sorry for the delay.

Sorry but that is not even remotely what you asked in the OP:

(May 26, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If there is no God, then there is no hell; and if there is no hell, then there are no ultimate, eternal repercussions, good or bad, for how we live out our mortal lives. Of course, atheists insist that people should be "good without God."

But why? If God does not exist, why be good?

You originally asked why be good if there are no god made consequences?  To which many of us replied, there certainly are consequences for bad behavior right here and now, both for society as whole, the victim, and the person behaving badly.  And that further, evolution has given us empathy among other useful things which makes us generally want to be good.

Now you want to know how we decide what good is. That is a very different question.  Esquilax has already explained why it is that to answer god determines what good is, is not really an objective standard.  I would add that determining what god wants is a pretty subjective exercise in itself.  Christians all profess that this is the standard, but they don't all reach the same conclusions.  On the finer points the Bible can be clear as mud.  And there are various things in Bible (such as slave holding and stoning rape victims) that polite Christians simply ignore.  The reasons they ignore them are subjective.

We could invent objective standards like utility (the best outcome for the most people), selflessness (the best system for societal death under the weight of freeloaders I can imagine), might makes right (the ultimate authoritarian view), and so on. 
Such standards can provide a framework for talking about what we should consider right and wrong, but they don't entirely explain what it is we actually do think is right and wrong.

For example consider incest.  Most people have very strong anti-incest reactions.  Visceral reactions.  If pressed most people will tell you that incest is wrong because of possible birth defects.  But in point of fact, unless there are recessive genes likely to produce birth defects shared between the couple, there aren't any real objective reasons why we shouldn't commit incest. And if one member of the couple in infertile, there is no reason why they shouldn't have sex.  Nor are most people mollified if the couple agrees to have one of them rendered infertile.  So at least some of what we consider right and wrong has to do with visceral reaction, not reasons and standards.

I think that evolution has endowed humans, like all social species, with some basic morals, mostly based upon empathy and survival of the species as a whole.   Beyond that it's all societal evolution.   Which is to say, it's not the least bit objective, except that moral systems that survive, survive.  A moral system that produces a working society that can defend itself lasts, one that doesn't doesn't. There is a reason we should not return to the morals of ancient Judea.  That is being tried in the Middle East with rather catastrophic results.  Religious states fair worse than secular ones.  It's less clear whether secular states where most people are religious fair worse than secular states where most people are atheist.