Do atheists even need an objective moral system?

[genkaus]

The theists are always asking us "how do you get your moral values?" And then I see a few atheists try to justify some sort of objective moral system as an alternative to a theistic moral system grounded in God.

Is this even necessary?

I don't see an objective moral system as a requirement as an "alternative" to a theistic one. Would you say that we require science as an alternative to theistic explanations or that we require it irrespective of it?

Why can't morals be as subjective as liking cheese on apple pie?

When the theist asks "If there's no God, what's wrong with rape?" Instead of going through the trouble of positing some godless moral order, why can't we just reply "because I don't like rape"?

If the theist asks "but if the rapist likes rape, how is that wrong in a godless universe?" Instead of trying to argue that we have some universal duty to love our neighbor or other such nonsense I might reply "it isn't actually wrong. I just don't like rape and I want it illegal. Tough luck for rapists" The end.

Taking your idea to its logical conclusion - I like apple pie, but hate cherry and I like Swiss Cheese but hate goat cheese. So I can just say that because I don't like those things I want to make them illegal and if I get enough people on my side, I should succeed in doing so. If you happen to like Cherry Pie or Goat Cheese - tough luck.

As atheists we could say things are "right" or "wrong" in so far as they are consistent with certain basic values but these values ultimately seem arbitrary. A value might be "people living in harmony" and then based on that value you could construct certain "rights" and "wrongs" but these values are still purely arbitrary. You could instead have a value of "people living in chaos" and construct "rights" and "wrongs" based on that and it would be just as legitimate of a moral value. And why should that bother us?

Are those values arbitrary? Or are they determined by the nature of morality?

A moral system tells a person how to live his life. Logically, living is a value that is not only consistent with it, but required for it as well. Any additional values may be judged by how well they promote life. For example, a totalitarian, utopian society can be considered as harmonious, but a place where any and all dissidents are killed is not conducive to life. Therefore, we value peace and harmony to the extent it makes life possible and better, but once it starts doing the opposite, like in oppressive regimes, we consider violence and chaos to be the better alternative.

Consider the parallel with science. Science tells you how nature works and technology is the application of scientific principles towards the goals of our choosing. Does the fact that we can choose what to apply those principles towards make science subjective? Are any and all technological goals equally arbitrary irrespective of whether they conform to the scientific concepts? Similarly, the legitimacy of our moral and value systems is determined by the degree of consistency.

---

No, we do not - and I'm not certain we could have one even if we wanted one.

As to the rape question - I'd turn that around on the questioner, and pose this questions (asked in the context of a world without an real or imaginary deity): Are you saying that we would be unjustified as a society in prohibiting and punishing rape?

To me, the answer is a resouding no, we would not be unjustified, because we as an empathetic society value our society free from rape. Why? Because we do.

Except, that is clearly not a universal view. Your justification would be valid if everyone in the society was empathetic and wanted a society free from rape - which, clearly, the rapists don't.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

And there really isn't a reason I can see based on non-arbitrary values to be concerned with such things as hypocrisy or credibility. It seems that for all the "good" moral values that most people hold, a person could just as easily hold the exact opposite set of values.

See my previous argument about how not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some can be better supported by logical argument and objective data than others.

To use another example, let's say two people are running for political office, an incumbent for re-election and a challenger. The incumbent will obviously claim to have done a "good job" while the challenger will say the opposite. The public doesn't just call this a wash, that both subjective opinions are equally valid and reality is up for grabs anyway. No, both candidates are then expected to support their case with objective data and reasoned arguments. The one who can support their subjective evaluation with objective data and logic has a stronger case.

The same is true for moral issues. Admitting that morality is a subjective matter doesn't mean all moral codes are equal.

It's still ultimately subjective. Let's say the incumbent did a "good" job at balancing the budget. What if we lived in a society that valued unbalanced budgets (as strange as that sounds)? Then he would have done a "bad" job because he balanced the budget.

That you can use objective data and reasoned arguments to make yourself seem like the "better" candidate is irrelevant because "better" is in the context of how well the candidate follows the desires of the voters, desires which are arbitrary.

[genkaus]

Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.

No, actually, its a function of how we live. Treatment of our fellow sentient beings is just one aspect of it.

To say something is morally wrong is to say there is a victim who has been wronged. The reason rape is wrong and homosexuality is not is because with the former there is a victim and with the latter there isn't. Simple enough.

It'd get complicated again when I ask you to define "wronged" without the context of morality or risk being circular in your argument.

I don't know what is even meant by "objective morality"? If we say something is objective, that should mean we can measure it. Can we plug numbers into a spreadsheet and determine what is the moral course of action?

Objective simply means independent of an individual(s) will or consciousness. Measurement would require standardization.

Similarly "subjective" doesn't mean all opinions are equal. Some subjective evaluations are better supported by logic and facts better then others. If a CEO tells shareholders "we had a good year" and the facts show they lost a lot of money, how is the CEO's subjective opinion, even if sincere, superior to the evaluation of the shareholder, "no, it was a bad year you buffoon"?

That's the distinction you are missing. If the evaluation is based on objective facts and supported by logic - then the judgment of good or bad is no longer a subjective opinion.

Finally, "GodWilsIt" doesn't answer anything. What makes the will of a deity any less subjective? All the theist is doing is moving the question of morality one step further away.

It doesn't. Even if there was a true theistic morality, i.e., based on the will of an actual deity, then it would be subjective as well.

---

When theists throw the term "objective morality" around they mean that certain actions or states are right and wrong independent of anybody's opinion.

Except for god's. Which is what makes their objective morality subjective.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
Taking your idea to its logical conclusion - I like apple pie, but hate cherry and I like Swiss Cheese but hate goat cheese. So I can just say that because I don't like those things I want to make them illegal and if I get enough people on my side, I should succeed in doing so. If you happen to like Cherry Pie or Goat Cheese - tough luck.

Yes. Nothing really stopping you from trying. Though I don't like being told how the eat so I will try to stop your efforts just like the rapist will keep on trying to rape.

(I know that sounded terrible. )

Are those values arbitrary? Or are they determined by the nature of morality?

A moral system tells a person how to live his life. Logically, living is a value that is not only consistent with it, but required for it as well. Any additional values may be judged by how well they promote life. For example, a totalitarian, utopian society can be considered as harmonious, but a place where any and all dissidents are killed is not conducive to life. Therefore, we value peace and harmony to the extent it makes life possible and better, but once it starts doing the opposite, like in oppressive regimes, we consider violence and chaos to be the better alternative.

Perhaps for some people, a life where dissidents are not killed is a life not worth living? Or perhaps a person only values their life and hates every one else's. If said person had the magic ability to kill everyone to leave the world for himself, is that truly bad? He's merely making life "better" for himself.

Consider the parallel with science. Science tells you how nature works and technology is the application of scientific principles towards the goals of our choosing. Does the fact that we can choose what to apply those principles towards make science subjective? Are any and all technological goals equally arbitrary irrespective of whether they conform to the scientific concepts? ...

Science is the study of reality. People do science because they value better understanding reality. If one did not value the pursuit of understanding nature, then they would not be into science. We can call somebody a "good" or "bad" scientist based on how well they investigate reality in way that is conducive to better understanding the way reality really is.

Technological goals are ultimately arbitrary. Stopping global warming is an arbitrary goal because it's based on the value that places importance on the continued existence of mankind. But I can't see why we should ultimately care about human existence. We could just as easily say "fuck it all" and let the Earth turn into Venus.

Similarly, the legitimacy of our moral and value systems is determined by the degree of consistency.

And if somebody does not value consistency? Perhaps for some, inconsistency (or the seeming appearence of inconsistency) is what makes a morality "legitimate"?

[genkaus]

Yes. Nothing really stopping you from trying. Though I don't like being told how the eat so I will try to stop your efforts just like the rapist will keep on trying to rape.

(I know that sounded terrible. )

So, your position is "might makes right", then? Those in power get to dictate morality? Then that would make "power" a non-arbitrary moral value.

Perhaps for some people, a life where dissidents are not killed is a life not worth living? Or perhaps a person only values their life and hates every one else's. If said person had the magic ability to kill everyone to leave the world for himself, is that truly bad? He's merely making life "better" for himself.

Is his life better? Really? Better or worse here are not just subjective opinions - they are judgments grounded in the reality of human nature. It is not an "opinion" that a rich man with a secure future and material comforts is living a better life than a poor man living hand-to-mouth. It does not matter if one stops valuing things that make life better - their significance to life does not decrease. It doesn't matter if you don't value food - you still have to eat or your life won't be "better".

You don't choose your values in a vacuum. You don't wake up one day and arbitrarily decide on a list of things you are going to value from this point onwards. And the values you choose also have to pass the muster of objective morality. For example, you can choose to believe that a life where dissidents survive or where anyone else survives is not worth living - but those chosen values would be immoral themselves.

Science is the study of reality. People do science because they value better understanding reality. If one did not value the pursuit of understanding nature, then they would not be into science. We can call somebody a "good" or "bad" scientist based on how well they investigate reality in way that is conducive to better understanding the way reality really is.

Technological goals are ultimately arbitrary. Stopping global warming is an arbitrary goal because it's based on the value that places importance on the continued existence of mankind. But I can't see why we should ultimately care about human existence. We could just as easily say "fuck it all" and let the Earth turn into Venus.

You are missing the point entirely. I'm not talking about the moral aspects of science and technology, but using it as an analogy to it.

In this analogy, I'm equating science to morality - a certain set of concepts and principles. Technology, then, is similar to our value system - goals to be achieved by the application of those principles.

First of all, those goals cannot be chosen arbitrarily. The first test they need to pass is conformity to the principles in question. Which is why, my technological goal of turning water into wine is unscientific and my value of killing all dissidents is immoral. Secondly, even if we chose the goals arbitrarily form a set of goals that to conform, that does not make the principles to be applied subjective or arbitrary.

And if somebody does not value consistency? Perhaps for some, inconsistency (or the seeming appearence of inconsistency) is what makes a morality "legitimate"?

Irrelevant. Objective morality does not depend upon any individual's personal wishes or values. It is his values that are to judged and changed accordingly.

[TarShoduze]

Morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings. To say something is morally wrong is to say there is a victim who has been wronged. The reason rape is wrong and homosexuality is not is because with the former there is a victim and with the latter there isn't. Simple enough.

I don't know what is even meant by "objective morality"? If we say something is objective, that should mean we can measure it. Can we plug numbers into a spreadsheet and determine what is the moral course of action?

Similarly "subjective" doesn't mean all opinions are equal. Some subjective evaluations are better supported by logic and facts better then others. If a CEO tells shareholders "we had a good year" and the facts show they lost a lot of money, how is the CEO's subjective opinion, even if sincere, superior to the evaluation of the shareholder, "no, it was a bad year you buffoon"?

Finally, "GodWilsIt" doesn't answer anything. What makes the will of a deity any less subjective? All the theist is doing is moving the question of morality one step further away.

I definitely agree.

[Cinjin]

I can simplify your moral compass for yu ....

Don't be a dick.




Seems to work for me just fine.

[genkaus]

I can simplify your moral compass for yu ....

Don't be a dick.

Seems to work for me just fine.

Yeah, that doesn't work for me. Not being a dick in the company of lower life-forms is emotionally unsatisfying.

[Creed of Heresy]

The theists are always asking us "how do you get your moral values?" And then I see a few atheists try to justify some sort of objective moral system as an alternative to a theistic moral system grounded in God.

Is this even necessary?

Why can't morals be as subjective as liking cheese on apple pie?

When the theist asks "If there's no God, what's wrong with rape?" Instead of going through the trouble of positing some godless moral order, why can't we just reply "because I don't like rape"?

If the theist asks "but if the rapist likes rape, how is that wrong in a godless universe?" Instead of trying to argue that we have some universal duty to love our neighbor or other such nonsense I might reply "it isn't actually wrong. I just don't like rape and I want it illegal. Tough luck for rapists" The end.

As atheists we could say things are "right" or "wrong" in so far as they are consistent with certain basic values but these values ultimately seem arbitrary. A value might be "people living in harmony" and then based on that value you could construct certain "rights" and "wrongs" but these values are still purely arbitrary. You could instead have a value of "people living in chaos" and construct "rights" and "wrongs" based on that and it would be just as legitimate of a moral value. And why should that bother us?

Hence, golden rule, silver rule. Subjective morality, even if it seems objective.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Yes. Nothing really stopping you from trying. Though I don't like being told how the eat so I will try to stop your efforts just like the rapist will keep on trying to rape.

(I know that sounded terrible. )

So, your position is "might makes right", then? Those in power get to dictate morality? Then that would make "power" a non-arbitrary moral value.

No, not at all. Might is just might. Weak is just weak. Rightness or wrongness is not connected to the amount of power of an individual.

A despot ruler is "right" to murder his subjects but his subjects who hate his rule are also "right" to try to overthrow the despot.

Perhaps for some people, a life where dissidents are not killed is a life not worth living? Or perhaps a person only values their life and hates every one else's. If said person had the magic ability to kill everyone to leave the world for himself, is that truly bad? He's merely making life "better" for himself.

Is his life better? Really? Better or worse here are not just subjective opinions - they are judgments grounded in the reality of human nature. It is not an "opinion" that a rich man with a secure future and material comforts is living a better life than a poor man living hand-to-mouth. It does not matter if one stops valuing things that make life better - their significance to life does not decrease. It doesn't matter if you don't value food - you still have to eat or your life won't be "better".

Perhaps some people like living as a bum? You're conflating common ideas of better or worse with real better and worse. The two are not the same.

If I don't eat, I starve. But who's to say that's worse? It's worse for me because like to live and I like to eat, and I don't like pain and suffering. But if I were some suicidal masochist, that might be a fun time.

You don't choose your values in a vacuum. You don't wake up one day and arbitrarily decide on a list of things you are going to value from this point onwards.

True. But the values I end up with are not identical to anyone else's. My core values are rather normal but you can easily find people throughout history with apparently sadistic and selfish values.

And the values you choose also have to pass the muster of objective morality. For example, you can choose to believe that a life where dissidents survive or where anyone else survives is not worth living - but those chosen values would be immoral themselves.

Well this just came out of nowhere. Looks like we're back at square one.

Let's just set up an example: I have enormously powerful nuke that could destroy the world killing everyone. Why would it be wrong for me to use it?

In this analogy, I'm equating science to morality - a certain set of concepts and principles. Technology, then, is similar to our value system - goals to be achieved by the application of those principles.

First of all, those goals cannot be chosen arbitrarily. The first test they need to pass is conformity to the principles in question. Which is why, my technological goal of turning water into wine is unscientific and my value of killing all dissidents is immoral. Secondly, even if we chose the goals arbitrarily form a set of goals that to conform, that does not make the principles to be applied subjective or arbitrary.

Give me some examples of these principles.

And if somebody does not value consistency? Perhaps for some, inconsistency (or the seeming appearence of inconsistency) is what makes a morality "legitimate"?

Irrelevant. Objective morality does not depend upon any individual's personal wishes or values. It is his values that are to judged and changed accordingly.

This is just an assertion. It's not clear to me how nuclear annihilation is any more "wrong" than mixing plaid and stripes.