Do atheists even need an objective moral system?

[Brian37]

Humans are social animals, like wolves and bees and ants...

Given that we need to live together, we have developed some rules that make it better, on the whole; or better for the majority.
Such rules as "do not kill another human being" are for the betterment of the group.... but this tends to be forgotten on human beings of other groups.
Today, with all this interconnected world, some people find it easy to realize that we're just one large group... some people still have a hard time grasping this concept. Genetically, we've evolved in relatively small groups, each trying to survive, even if that meant annihilating a neighboring group.
And then people came up with this morality concept.
Morality as the set of rules which tell right from wrong.
What is right? Whatever makes the group better.
What is wrong? Whatever makes the group worse.

Apply this to the group of "humans on the face of the Earth" and you should arrive at some general notion of morality for the whole of humankind.

Can one individual uphold a set of rules which hold for the whole of humanity?

Where does this idea that morality applies only in a social context comes from? If my actions don't affect anyone other than myself, then are those actions beyond moral judgment? Do you really mean to say that a day I spend binge drinking and watching TV is morally equivalent to learning something new?

Morality is something more basic than our social behavior.

Humans are rational animals, unlike wolves, bees and ants.

Given that our actions are no longer bound by our instincts and immediate perceptions alone, we have the ability to develop concepts regarding how we should live our lives. The concepts or rules regarding how we should act are what constitute morality.

Such rules as "living in a group" are for our betterment and therefore, other rules for the betterment of the group itself can be devised. Morality distinguishes between right and wrong as distinction between actions we should or should not undertake. Apply the individual level principles to the group and you get morality at the social level and apply it to the world and you get morality of the whole humankind.

---

I hate questions like the one posed in the title of the thread. Philosophy is dead and to me is totally meaningless. Atheism is a position, specifically the "off" position on ONE claim. Atheism is not a worldview or a philosophy and our human behaviors as a species, are NOT label dependent.

I hate it when people doggedly commit to a position without examining its philosophical underpinnings. Yes, atheism is a position regarding a singular claim, but it is position taken as a consequence of a particular philosophy or worldview. Human behavior, as an individual and a group, depends upon the the philosophy or worldview one accepts - whether one consciously acknowledges it or not.

There is only one NATURAL reality in "morals" which can only be individual and subjective. That is that which seeks benefit and reduces harm.

If there is only ONE natural reality regarding morals, then it is neither individual nor subjective. By the nature of reality it'd be universal and objective. So, go ahead and justify that that one reality is "seeking benefit and reducing harm".

Reality is fluid and ever changing so to attempt to make it stagnant and never moving by saying we need a "system" is absurd.

On the other hand, the concepts governing reality and those changes have been consistent and logical - therefore, specifying a system of morals without fixing its application sounds like the rational choice to make.

The reality of nature is that it is BOTH good and bad. It is both constructive and destructive. Evolution does not care how you get to the point of reproduction, it merely has to work, moral or not.

On the contrary, reality of nature is NEITHER good or bad - it is amoral. The concept of caring or not cannot be applied to evolution. The constructive and destructive forces of nature are not conscious and therefore not subject ot moral judgment.

Now, having said that, ALL humans can if they seek to CAN lean to the positive side of nature in our ability to be compassionate.

Nature does not have a positive or negative side - it just is. Those concepts are devised by humans and applicable only to them.

But again, neither our ability to be kind or cruel to each other is not, nor has ever been a philosophy or religion or worldview.

No, simply the consequence of one that we consciously or unconsciously accept.

Still not a label, race, political party, or worldview. We are products of evolution, nothing more. We use what we consciously or subconsciously accept as an excuse to justify an attempt to gain status or stability or resources, or a combo thereof.

Life is not a complicated philosophy of any kind. It is nature, our predilections are mere constructs we set up to gain that "safety in numbers" evolution can give an advantage to, it does not matter if the belief that mass of people buys into is true or not.

[genkaus]

You could have copied just the relevant part:

We then need to know what is good and what is bad... that was sadly missing in the long text concerning objective morality... and I didn't read it all

That's the problem. If you had read it all, you would've understood that it was all relevant. As such, you've simply focused on the narrow part and missed the analysis of the definition which went with the rest of the discussion.

Very well, I'll try to lay it out as concisely as possible.

We judge something to be right or wrong based on its consistency with a particular standard or principle, e.g. 2+2=4 is right and 2+2=5 is wrong.

Similarly, something is judged to be good or bad based on its applicability towards a particular purpose, one that may or may not be inherent to the object, e.g. a sharp knife is a good knife.

In context of human actions, morality is the standard and the values we choose are the goals. Values consistent with principles inherent to morality (such as life, freedom etc) are, therefore, right values. Actions consistent with morality and towards those right values are, therefore, right and good. The principles fundamental to any moral code, with which both your actions and your values should be consistent with, are laid out in the rest of the argument.

Let's forget the word "moral" exists, and focus on good and bad.

And how do you intend to judge good and bad without referring to morality?

Is it good to spend a day drinking in front of the tv, instead of learning something new?

Generally, no.

Is it good to kill of all those "who are currently suffering, are not contributing to the world and whose any potential contribution is easily outweighed by the drain on resources they are causing currently"?

No. Because that'd certainly contradict the principles behind morality.

What is good?
- Minimize suffering of all individuals? Even if that means increase the suffering of a few? (as in more taxes to pay for the caring of elderly and sick or wiping out these elderly and sick to decrease taxes on the remaining)
- Minimize suffering of each and every individual?
- Maximize pleasant feelings in each and every individual?
- Other?
- All of the above?

Other, as indicated above.

Intellectually, I have no answer to this.
I just spend my days doing what experience has led me into assuming that the best course of action is to disturb the minimum of people and please as many as possible, where the main recipients of such pleasing are my closest family and friends.

Specific cases of conflict not withstanding, as a norm, your chosen value is consistent with the premises of morality. What I object to is your implicit assumption that this value is inherent to the nature of morality itself.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

...and this is another reason why morality can never be considered "objective". Not only must we exercise what we call "moral judgment" to determine what is good or bad (our very language underscores some acknowledgement that there is subjective evaluation involved in the process), but we do so based on our values of such things as life over death and joy over suffering.

Invoking a deity does nothing to make morality objective because, by definition, you have a being, however wise, knowledgeable or powerful, who is exercising judgment on moral issues. All they've done by saying "GodWillsIt" is move the question back a step.

My other point is to say that just because we say "morality is subjective" this is not to say "anything goes" because some subjective evaluations are stronger (better supported by reason and objective facts) than others.

[pocaracas]

Morality: Code of conduct based on the knowledge of good and bad.

Let's forget the word "moral" exists, and focus on good and bad.

And how do you intend to judge good and bad without referring to morality?

yeah... I sense a circular reasoning in here... and I don't like it.

And then the rest of what you posted here... I tend to agree with you, however there's something nagging my head, but I can't put my finger on what it is...

[genkaus]

Still not a label, race, political party, or worldview. We are products of evolution, nothing more. We use what we consciously or subconsciously accept as an excuse to justify an attempt to gain status or stability or resources, or a combo thereof.

Life is not a complicated philosophy of any kind. It is nature, our predilections are mere constructs we set up to gain that "safety in numbers" evolution can give an advantage to, it does not matter if the belief that mass of people buys into is true or not.

Now you are just blabbering nonsense. We've grown so far beyond what evolution could've made us into. It may have caused us to develop intellect and reasoning skills, but we are the ones who have taken those to a whole new level and grown so far beyond mere cycle of survival and reproduction. Any status, stability and resources we've gained, we've done so on basis of our intellect, which we developed to its current level.

You are not a mindless animal driven simply by instincts and emotions. If you have the capacity to reason, if your actions and choices can be guided by rationality, then the philosophy you consciously or subconsciously choose is what guides your life. Clearly, this community itself is evidence that we can go beyond our instinctual constructs and predilections.

[DeistPaladin]

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

The only important aspect, I should think. We have no moral obligation to rocks or other inanimate objects. We can use terms like "wasteful" or "foolish" but you can't be cruel to rocks or other things that don't think or feel.

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

Usually I invoke The Social Contract. I am honest with others because I wish them to be honest with me. I respect the rights of others because I wish them to respect my rights.

Now, we can have a debate as to what those "rights" are, who's "rights" trump who's, and whether or not lying might be justifiable in certain circumstances and this is where morality gets more "subjective".

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.

What if the data wasn't so clear cut? What if the outcomes were mixed? What if one thing was gained at the price of something else? Here is where it gets subjective, that we value certain things over others.

...and we seem to agree that "GodWillsIt" is still a subjective moral code, just with judgment surrendered to another.

[genkaus]

...and this is another reason why morality can never be considered "objective".

No, its not. Not if the values chosen are objective themselves.

Not only must we exercise what we call "moral judgment" to determine what is good or bad (our very language underscores some acknowledgement that there is subjective evaluation involved in the process), but we do so based on our values of such things as life over death and joy over suffering.

And you assume that here simply cannot be an objective reason to value life over death or joy over suffering?

Invoking a deity does nothing to make morality objective because, by definition, you have a being, however wise, knowledgeable or powerful, who is exercising judgment on moral issues. All they've done by saying "GodWillsIt" is move the question back a step.

Invalid argument. A subjective entity is always required for making any kind of judgment - whether moral, scientific or mathematical. What determines the objectivity is whether the basis of the judgment is reality and facts or the judge's personal will.

My other point is to say that just because we say "morality is subjective" this is not to say "anything goes" because some subjective evaluations are stronger (better supported by reason and objective facts) than others.

If evaluations are supported by reason and based on objective facts then they are no longer subjective.

---

Morality: Code of conduct based on the knowledge of good and bad.

And how do you intend to judge good and bad without referring to morality?

yeah... I sense a circular reasoning in here... and I don't like it.

And then the rest of what you posted here... I tend to agree with you, however there's something nagging my head, but I can't put my finger on what it is...

Which is why I wanted you to read the whole argument. Basically, I took the most comprehensive dictionary definition of morality available while writing the article. And I soon realized that dictionaries often lead to circularity (What is morality? The difference between good and bad. What is good and bad? What corresponds to a moral code and what doesn't).

The issue is resolved when you see morality as a code of conduct or a guide on how to act. Consequently, good and bad are judgments or evaluations of actions based on the code. And thus, another way of describing morality is knowledge of good and bad.

[pocaracas]

Well, in order for people to behave properly, they need some rules from the top brass.
Currently, these come mostly from a country's laws.
Most countries adhere more or less to the same laws so one could argue that this common group of laws could be an "objective moral code".
Objective because it is not the view of one single person or single group of persons, but what diverse and independent groups decided to be their guiding rules.
This "independency" may be challenged, given that, for example, the original US laws were adapted from European laws, which were adapted from roman + christian + jewish + (a bunch of others) laws .. but you get the picture... independent as non-communicating with each other.

That's my view on "objective morality".
Anything else is subjective.

[DeistPaladin]

Invalid argument. A subjective entity is always required for making any kind of judgment - whether moral, scientific or mathematical. What determines the objectivity is whether the basis of the judgment is reality and facts or the judge's personal will.

But if God can determine objectively what is moral, then these facts on which such objective determinations are based, are presumably out there to be discovered potentially by anyone else. God becomes unnecessary to the process and morality exists outside of God's will. Thus, the theist hold no stronger ground.

I'm still unsure of HOW moral judgment could ever be objective but I keep an open mind. Regardless, I don't see how the theist would be standing on stronger grounds for reasons I've already reviewed.

[genkaus]

The only important aspect, I should think. We have no moral obligation to rocks or other inanimate objects. We can use terms like "wasteful" or "foolish" but you can't be cruel to rocks or other things that don't think or feel.

We have a moral obligation to ourselves - the most important aspect that you completely ignore. Our obligations towards other would be derivative to this one.

Usually I invoke The Social Contract. I am honest with others because I wish them to be honest with me. I respect the rights of others because I wish them to respect my rights.

Now, we can have a debate as to what those "rights" are, who's "rights" trump who's, and whether or not lying might be justifiable in certain circumstances and this is where morality gets more "subjective".

This is where your self-contradictions become apparent. You continue to refer to morality as subjective and yet assume the principle of universal moral reciprocity. The obligations created by the social contract would be moral in nature and would require the parties to agree upon the same moral premises. You can't use it to then justify morality. That's using a circular argument.

What if the data wasn't so clear cut? What if the outcomes were mixed?

Oh, you mean like in science where we give the margin of error and our evaluations reflect both positive and negative outcomes, grade their relevance and then indicate whether the overall outcome is positive or not? Yup, still objective.

What if one thing was gained at the price of something else? Here is where it gets subjective, that we value certain things over others.

As long as our valuation is based on reality as well, the evaluation would remain objective.

---

Well, in order for people to behave properly, they need some rules from the top brass.
Currently, these come mostly from a country's laws.
Most countries adhere more or less to the same laws so one could argue that this common group of laws could be an "objective moral code".
Objective because it is not the view of one single person or single group of persons, but what diverse and independent groups decided to be their guiding rules.
This "independency" may be challenged, given that, for example, the original US laws were adapted from European laws, which were adapted from roman + christian + jewish + (a bunch of others) laws .. but you get the picture... independent as non-communicating with each other.

That's my view on "objective morality".
Anything else is subjective.

That's not objective morality - that's objective legality. What about the rest of it?

---

But if God can determine objectively what is moral, then these facts on which such objective determinations are based, are presumably out there to be discovered potentially by anyone else. God becomes unnecessary to the process and morality exists outside of God's will. Thus, the theist hold no stronger ground.

That has been my point all along. Whether or not god exists is irrelevant to the question of objective morality - no matter how loudly and forcefully a theist shouts otherwise.