Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[RoadRunner79]

Your equivocating on subjective and objective here.   And once again this isn't about knowing what is moral or immoral.  It's about the nature of morality.   Compassion and fairness are a part of morality.... I agree.  However you have no basis for saying that one ought to be compassionate and fair.   And according to what you have said, if the majority or evolution as your just so story states had made greed and the suffering of others more prevalent, then would you call that moral?  

Unfortunately, I'm going to be going on vacation over the weekend; so I'll be limited for a little while.   This is also why I'm not getting into some of the more off topic parts of the discussion.   I am still asking how you came to the conclusion that evolution was the basis for morality though.

Consider compassion and fairness as being moral axioms. They are the basic assumptions for morality. Furthermore, they are basic assumptions that most people agree to.

Take it as moral *axioms* that one should be fair and compassionate. Those axioms are common sense and clear. Whether they are 'objective' or 'subjective' is beside the point. People agree to them (probably because of genetics and evolution) and so they are part of the *definition* or morality.

In a very different, non-social species, they may NOT be axioms for behavior or for a definition of morality. For us, they are.

I came to the conclusion that our moral sensitivities are *derived* from evolution because it seems to exist in other primates and because such compassion and fairness are clearly helpful for the survival of social species. What makes it a stable equilibrium is an interesting idea, but clearly it is.

Let me give a couple other examples that may clarify the issues.

When people look at clouds, we see faces. This is something that happens to pretty much everyone. It is almost certainly a genetic thing to see faces whenever possible, even when they aren't appropriate.

Are faces in clouds objective or subjective? Well, everyone sees faces in clouds. People can even agree that certain clouds look like certain types of faces. it is an objective fact that people see faces in clouds. But clouds do not, objectively, have faces. They are masses of water vapor and simply don't actually have faces.

As another example, people generally agree that certain pieces of art are beautiful. Every culture has art and different cultures can appreciate the art of other cultures. Does that make the beauty of art objective? Even if people agree that a certain piece is beautiful, does that make it *objectively* beautiful? Is artistic beauty an objective or a subjective thing?

In both cases, everyone experiences a phenomenon. The phenomenon of art is even valued by most people. But that *doesn't* make either faces in clouds or artistic beauty an objective thing. Both are subjective. But that doesn't make art,, for example, less important. If anything, it is its very subjectivity that makes it so important.

In the same way, almost everyone has a moral sense. Fairness and compassion are aspects of this common moral sense. But the fact that it is common to all does NOT mean it is objective. It just means we have common subjective experiences. Further, the subjectivity does NOT make it less important or valuable to us or our societies. If anything, it makes it more important.

But, just like faces in clouds or artistic beauty, there is NOTHING inherent in the real world that dictates the subjective experiences we have no matter how important or meaningful. These are not objective things, but are very much subjective things, although common to almost all people.

And, in the case of art, the richness of our lives is enhanced by this. And, for morality, the structures of our societies and our lives benefit from having the twin moral guides of fairness and compassion.

It's interesting that you bring up seeing faces in clouds after you give your reasons to claim "evolution done it" with similar reasoning.  Have you considered that the vague similarities you see are just faces in clouds in this case?

However seeing a face in the cloud or your taste in art are subjective (The cloud and it's inherent shape are objective).   They are based on the individual, and another may not share and is not required to have the same experience, because that feeling is based on them.   I still don't think that you understand objective and subjective in this sense in regards to the nature of morality, and what it entails if the it is subjective.   Anyways, that doesn't seem to be what you are discussing.  You seem to be equating morality to something like mere tastes or feelings.   I've asked a number of times (not necessarily to you) and never received an answer.   What is it in a subject (person), that you are claiming is the basis for morality?   Is it just feelings or personal preference as I suggested here? Or something else?   Do you think that morality is unique to the individual perhaps with some commonalty as in your art example?  Or do you think that the example of beating one's wife is actually wrong in spite of ones personal affinity or tastes regarding it?  Ought one not be a bigot, or a racist, or is it just a matter of cultural acceptance and upsetting others?    Is it only immoral, if you don't get caught, and there are no consequences to you?  It's not just that there is a set of common traits, but that most sane people cannot act as if morality is subjective. I can't, and I don't think that you do either.

[Whateverist]

And you have what exactly .. a direct line to God?  Is that your opinion?

It’s not that it’s an opinion, but that there is nothing outside of youself to justify the veracity of that opinion ( under subjective morality). You are just telling me about the subject. It stops there. I was talking about the nature of saying that something is subjective. Not making a deragatory or snide remark.

But you just go right on asserting that mine is an opinion but yours is transcendent.  Got to call bullshit.

[RoadRunner79]

It’s not that it’s an opinion, but that there is nothing outside of youself to justify the veracity of that opinion ( under subjective morality). You are just telling me about the subject. It stops there. I was talking about the nature of saying that something is subjective. Not making a deragatory or snide remark.

But you just go right on asserting that mine is an opinion but yours is transcendent.  Got to call bullshit.

I’m saying that their is a moral truth dispute either one of ours opinion or knowledge of it. I’m not the one saying that morality is just an opinion, I suggest you take your beef up with them.

[Abaddon_ire]

I do, but you claim that you do not.

No I don’t. I may not be perfect, but I think that we both know and behave as if there is a real right and wrong; good and evil.

Where do you get your morals? From your god. You have none of your own.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's similar to saying, "I can walk without crutches."

The theists have their imaginary crutch, so the point works there as well.

---

No I don’t. I may not be perfect, but I think that we both know and behave as if there is a real right and wrong; good and evil.

Where do you get your morals? From your god. You have none of your own.

And as each person's god resides entirely and completely in that person's mind and nowhere else you have just won today's circularity prize.

[RoadRunner79]

No I don’t. I may not be perfect, but I think that we both know and behave as if there is a real right and wrong; good and evil.

Where do you get your morals? From your god. You have none of your own.

Do you think that there is a "my morals" and a "your morals"?   Do "your morals" apply to me?  Is morality something that we just make up or are free to change if it causes issues?  

I also don't understand your implied issue with the statement(question) "you have none of your own".  It's like asking, where do you get your physics from.   Don't you have your own physics?    Now I have my own view and understanding of physics and morality.  But it doesn't start and end with me, for either of them.  Hopefully, my understanding of these things matches the reality of the world outside of me.  I don't see where each of us having our own morality is a good thing, and if true, then moral outrage, when another morality doesn't line up with your own is unreasonable.  Even with the theory that society decides morality, you then don't are not a moral authority of your own, meaning that this statement doesn't make sense.   And then you can not coherantly complain, if society doesn't grant you rights, that you think are moral, nor can you complain that  another society is behaving immortally. 

I see this as an inconsistency in worldview.  People say one thing, but haven't really thought through the implications of what that view means.   If you think that the world is this way, then I think that your actions should follow accordingly.   If you cannot do this, then perhaps you should re-examine your worldview.

[polymath257]

Consider compassion and fairness as being moral axioms. They are the basic assumptions for morality. Furthermore, they are basic assumptions that most people agree to.

Take it as moral *axioms* that one should be fair and compassionate. Those axioms are common sense and clear. Whether they are 'objective' or 'subjective' is beside the point. People agree to them (probably because of genetics and evolution) and so they are part of the *definition* or morality.

In a very different, non-social species, they may NOT be axioms for behavior or for a definition of morality. For us, they are.

I came to the conclusion that our moral sensitivities are *derived* from evolution because it seems to exist in other primates and because such compassion and fairness are clearly helpful for the survival of social species. What makes it a stable equilibrium is an interesting idea, but clearly it is.

Let me give a couple other examples that may clarify the issues.

When people look at clouds, we see faces. This is something that happens to pretty much everyone. It is almost certainly a genetic thing to see faces whenever possible, even when they aren't appropriate.

Are faces in clouds objective or subjective? Well, everyone sees faces in clouds. People can even agree that certain clouds look like certain types of faces. it is an objective fact that people see faces in clouds. But clouds do not, objectively, have faces. They are masses of water vapor and simply don't actually have faces.

As another example, people generally agree that certain pieces of art are beautiful. Every culture has art and different cultures can appreciate the art of other cultures. Does that make the beauty of art objective? Even if people agree that a certain piece is beautiful, does that make it *objectively* beautiful? Is artistic beauty an objective or a subjective thing?

In both cases, everyone experiences a phenomenon. The phenomenon of art is even valued by most people. But that *doesn't* make either faces in clouds or artistic beauty an objective thing. Both are subjective. But that doesn't make art,, for example, less important. If anything, it is its very subjectivity that makes it so important.

In the same way, almost everyone has a moral sense. Fairness and compassion are aspects of this common moral sense. But the fact that it is common to all does NOT mean it is objective. It just means we have common subjective experiences. Further, the subjectivity does NOT make it less important or valuable to us or our societies. If anything, it makes it more important.

But, just like faces in clouds or artistic beauty, there is NOTHING inherent in the real world that dictates the subjective experiences we have no matter how important or meaningful. These are not objective things, but are very much subjective things, although common to almost all people.

And, in the case of art, the richness of our lives is enhanced by this. And, for morality, the structures of our societies and our lives benefit from having the twin moral guides of fairness and compassion.

It's interesting that you bring up seeing faces in clouds after you give your reasons to claim "evolution done it" with similar reasoning.  Have you considered that the vague similarities you see are just faces in clouds in this case?

However seeing a face in the cloud or your taste in art are subjective (The cloud and it's inherent shape are objective).   They are based on the individual, and another may not share and is not required to have the same experience, because that feeling is based on them.   I still don't think that you understand objective and subjective in this sense in regards to the nature of  morality, and what it entails if the it is subjective.   Anyways, that doesn't seem to be what you are discussing.  You seem to be equating morality to something like mere tastes or feelings.   I've asked a number of times (not necessarily to you) and never received an answer.   What is it in a subject (person), that you are claiming is the basis for morality?   Is it just feelings or personal preference as I suggested here? Or something else?   Do you think that morality is unique to the individual perhaps with some commonalty as in your art example?  Or do you think that the example of beating one's wife is actually wrong in spite of ones personal affinity or tastes regarding it?  Ought one not be a bigot, or a racist, or is it just a matter of cultural acceptance and upsetting others?    Is it only immoral, if you don't get caught, and there are no consequences to you?  It's not just that there is a set of common traits, but that most sane people cannot act as if morality is subjective. I can't, and I don't think that you do either.

Your question seems strange and ill-posed to me. You ask for a subject or person that is the basis of morality. The closest I can answer this strange question is that morality is the common feeling we have because we are a social species saying that certain behaviors are to be done or not to be done. It is common because of our ancestry. In that sense, it is part of being human.

But I don't think there is anything *objective* about the structure of the universe that makes certain behaviors wrong or right.  It isn't a matter of the structure of the universe, but the structure of humans and what it takes to make human societies. An act isn't immoral only if it is not caught (although there may not be consequences if it isn't). It is immoral because of the way behaviors need to be for societies of humans to function towards human (the relevant species) well being.

A different species would have different moral rules. In that sense, morality is NOT objective. But, since this is a human society and because humans are the way they are, there are certain types of behavior that promote well being and certain types that do not. This includes both physical and mental well being (both of which are objective). 

I don't think that morality in general is objective. In fact, I think it is quite society dependent. There is no objective reason to consider shaking hands to be polite. Yet that is one of the common behavioral rules for our society. On the other hand, it is universal that killing another without proper cause is condemned. Again, I think the reason, from a survival viewpoint, is clear. Pretty universally, beating one's wife until she dies has been condemned (although way too much violence has been approved).

I also think that we are getting better at morality. The basic principles of fairness and compassion are more widely applied, no longer to just a tribe, but to all people. Because we have moved away from religious superstitions, we are far more likely to condemn the sorts of torture that were common only 500 years ago. We have grown to see religious differences with compassion instead of hatred. We no longer support slavery, another form of stifling human well being that was common not so long ago and accepted by almost all religious scholars as normal. But compassion and a sense of fairness have shown such behaviors to be wrong.

For me, morality is axiomatic: it is defined by fairness and compassion (and also consideration--thought is crucial also). It consists of rules of behavior that produce societies that are more fulfilling of their members and survive.

[RoadRunner79]

---

It's interesting that you bring up seeing faces in clouds after you give your reasons to claim "evolution done it" with similar reasoning.  Have you considered that the vague similarities you see are just faces in clouds in this case?

However seeing a face in the cloud or your taste in art are subjective (The cloud and it's inherent shape are objective).   They are based on the individual, and another may not share and is not required to have the same experience, because that feeling is based on them.   I still don't think that you understand objective and subjective in this sense in regards to the nature of  morality, and what it entails if the it is subjective.   Anyways, that doesn't seem to be what you are discussing.  You seem to be equating morality to something like mere tastes or feelings.   I've asked a number of times (not necessarily to you) and never received an answer.   What is it in a subject (person), that you are claiming is the basis for morality?   Is it just feelings or personal preference as I suggested here? Or something else?   Do you think that morality is unique to the individual perhaps with some commonalty as in your art example?  Or do you think that the example of beating one's wife is actually wrong in spite of ones personal affinity or tastes regarding it?  Ought one not be a bigot, or a racist, or is it just a matter of cultural acceptance and upsetting others?    Is it only immoral, if you don't get caught, and there are no consequences to you?  It's not just that there is a set of common traits, but that most sane people cannot act as if morality is subjective. I can't, and I don't think that you do either.

Your question seems strange and ill-posed to me. You ask for a subject or person that is the basis of morality. The closest I can answer this strange question is that morality is the common feeling we have because we are a social species saying that certain behaviors are to be done or not to be done. It is common because of our ancestry. In that sense, it is part of being human.

But I don't think there is anything *objective* about the structure of the universe that makes certain behaviors wrong or right.  It isn't a matter of the structure of the universe, but the structure of humans and what it takes to make human societies. An act isn't immoral only if it is not caught (although there may not be consequences if it isn't). It is immoral because of the way behaviors need to be for societies of humans to function towards human (the relevant species) well being.

A different species would have different moral rules. In that sense, morality is NOT objective. But, since this is a human society and because humans are the way they are, there are certain types of behavior that promote well being and certain types that do not. This includes both physical and mental well being (both of which are objective). 

I don't think that morality in general is objective. In fact, I think it is quite society dependent. There is no objective reason to consider shaking hands to be polite. Yet that is one of the common behavioral rules for our society. On the other hand, it is universal that killing another without proper cause is condemned. Again, I think the reason, from a survival viewpoint, is clear. Pretty universally, beating one's wife until she dies has been condemned (although way too much violence has been approved).

I also think that we are getting better at morality. The basic principles of fairness and compassion are more widely applied, no longer to just a tribe, but to all people. Because we have moved away from religious superstitions, we are far more likely to condemn the sorts of torture that were common only 500 years ago. We have grown to see religious differences with compassion instead of hatred. We no longer support slavery, another form of stifling human well being that was common not so long ago and accepted by almost all religious scholars as normal. But compassion and a sense of fairness have shown such behaviors to be wrong.

For me, morality is axiomatic: it is defined by fairness and compassion (and also consideration--thought is crucial also). It consists of rules of behavior that produce societies that are more fulfilling of their members and survive.

---

I don't think that refusing to shake hands with someone is akin to beating ones wife to death. And it is wrong and should be condemned; even if the structure of the society allows it. And by generalizing moral obligations into a category of compassion (which I don't necessarily disagree with; we ought to be compassionate) your not solving the problem, but just pushing it back a little farther.

[The Grand Nudger]

 There is no objective reason to consider shaking hands to be polite. Yet that is one of the common behavioral rules for our society.

Etiquette =/= Morality.  We may state that in some general senses it's good to be polite, but the content of politeness is explicitly cultural..and when in rome.  Further, even within that statement, and within a country where shaking hands is polite, it's still morally admissible not to shake hands - and may not even tank your politeness all that much depending on your explanation for abstaining (if one is even required).  Additionally, if there is a moral compulsion to politeness, it is not borne solely by the guest, but also by the host. Each must be cognizant and understanding of the others culture.

It's important to note that moral realism does not contend that -all- moral statements held to be true by a given society -are-, in fact, true.  Pointing out a meaningful subjectivity or arbitrarity in a given system just gives a moral realist an application for their system.

To use an earlier example. Believers in some specific faith might contend that some thing or action or state of being x is harmful and dangerous. This is why their pet god prohibits it. Well, they need to show that it is dangerous and harmful..if they can't, then -that- is..just..like, their opinion, man. That prohibition would not belong in an objective system. If they can, it is wrong because they've shown the danger and harm, and that stands or fails wholly apart from their god and could or would be admissible in an objective system. If they contend that it's wrong because their pet god says so. That, too, is an opinion based justification. It has no place in an objective moral system. If they contend that something is harmful, and god says so..in contradiction to fact, not only is that just their opinion..their opinion is wrong as a matter of fact.

Repeat the same exercise with "society says, and because society says".

Repeat the same exercise with an individual interaction.

[Whateverist]

It's similar to saying, "I can walk without crutches."

Standard apologist response:  "But, but, but .. that's only your opinion!  Besides you rely on your own form of crutches as everyone must.  Also, you hate God."

Fun to have you here by the way, Thor.  (Can I call you that for short?)