Do atheists even need an objective moral system?

[Mister Agenda]

... Intuitively I think some aspects of morality ARE objective, we seem to be able to agree that using a live human baby as a hockey puck for the fun of it would be wrong, and I think agreement on extreme cases points to something, but I don't see that as proof....

Yet for some, "intuition" says otherwise.

Which is one reason why I don't see it as proof.

[genkaus]

No, what should be the goal of the system of morality is subjective. But once the goals are defined, the rest of the system is in principle capable of being objective in its pursuit.

Unless those goals are determined by the nature of morality or of the being practicing it - then it'd be objective.

---

@Genkaus:

I just want to compliment you on the quality of your analysis and the clarity of your exposition. You've done a really good job of summing up many of the major issues in the last few pages, imho. Though we come to radically different conclusions, I think your perception of the question and your assessments of it share many points in common with mine. Good work.

Thanks. Coming from someone with your capacity for detailed analysis, that's high praise indeed.

[yardmeat]

I guess I come from the point of view that, if you want to use force/violence to violate someone’s will, it is your burden of proof to justify your action. Rape and slavery should be considered unjustified by default just as God should not be assumed to exist by default. The person claiming that God exists has a burden of proof to fulfill and so does the moron who claims that rape or slavery are justified. All that is required for a rudimentary objective morality are empathy and reason.

I think an important distinction to make here is objective vs subjective and relative vs absolute. Morality can be both objective an relative. For example, it could depend on the circumstances involved but be independent of personal tastes.

But how are moral nihilists any more justified in their position than theists are? I mean, even a theist that acknowledges that God does not exist could just say that they just personally prefer fiction over truth the same way someone might prefer cheddar over Swiss or rape over consent.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I guess I come from the point of view that, if you want to use force/violence to violate someone’s will, it is your burden of proof to justify your action.

That's just your opinion. I could be of the view that you need no proof at all to justify action. See, it's easy:

I guess I come from the point of view that, if you want to use force/violence to violate someone’s will, you don't need a burden of proof to justify your action.

Rape and slavery should be considered unjustified by default just as God should not be assumed to exist by default. The person claiming that God exists has a burden of proof to fulfill and so does the moron who claims that rape or slavery are justified. ...

The above is just assertions. You need a 'why' to all those 'shoulds' and 'burden of proofs.'

All that is required for a rudimentary objective morality are empathy and reason.

Or maybe it's malice and primal carnality? Or maybe it's a love of polka dot underwear and bunny slippers?

I think an important distinction to make here is objective vs subjective and relative vs absolute. Morality can be both objective an relative. For example, it could depend on the circumstances involved but be independent of personal tastes.

Yes, but what I'm talking about are the fundamental values upon which you build your moral system. To me it all seems completely arbitrary.

But how are moral nihilists any more justified in their position than theists are? I mean, even a theist that acknowledges that God does not exist could just say that they just personally prefer fiction over truth the same way someone might prefer cheddar over Swiss or rape over consent.

Yes. You can say you prefer fiction over truth if you want. I'm not stopping anyone who wants that. But I'm pretty sure that a good number of us prefer truth over fiction so under that preference for truth we can get to the bottom of whether morality is like truth.

[Whateverist]

TO THE OP: No, no thank you. We will hash out the rules we'll live by and then hold each other accountable based on our own sense of fairness. That'll get it done. Feeling smug and superior in an ultimate way isn't necessary. We can negotiate the degree to which we will supress our impulses out of consideration of others, codify what we find necessary and leave the rest to good manners.

[Mark 13:13]

wow what a long thread and will take me time to read it; and yes teaearlgreyhot your point of view seems to me the ultimate logical outcome of the good/evil question if we take God out of the question. But i will need to read the full tread before i can comment further. The question would of course arise of what sort of society do we become if we all follow this code. ( or maybe are as although many profess religion myself included how many really live up to it)

Having God in the equation still doesn't make morality objective. Intuitively I think some aspects of morality ARE objective, we seem to be able to agree that using a live human baby as a hockey puck for the fun of it would be wrong, and I think agreement on extreme cases points to something, but I don't see that as proof. So I'm not someone who denies there's such a thing as objective morality, but recognizes that God (it's good because God says it's good) doesn't provide a solution to the problem. It being subjective to someone else doesn't make it objective to you, God doesn't solve that problem any more than basing your morality off of what Jeb Bush says would.

I suppose it doesn't from a practical point of view when we then would need to have a clear consensus on what Gods opinion was and even then we would have to technically prove was God moral. But as someone else suggested you don't need proof for action and if God exists as I believe Him ( convention and from here in I wont keep qualifying it)
then God would be free to act as He wished and stop the action of others as He wished and because there would be no one more powerful then the Subjective morality of God would become the only morality permitted a place in the Universe any other would only be on licence from God.

But I think the best response to the Morality question for Atheist would be to debate the issue around is there any such thing as an objective morality and is it seperate from GOD. I won't take that line further so as to allow you guys to do some of the work on it

[FallentoReason]

But I think the best response to the Morality question for Atheist would be to debate the issue around is there any such thing as an objective morality and is it seperate from GOD. I won't take that line further so as to allow you guys to do some of the work on it

If there was objective morality and it was apart from God (i.e. God commands something because it is good) then why do we need God? Would you be able to live with that thought crawling in the back of your head?

[Zen Badger]

But I think the best response to the Morality question for Atheist would be to debate the issue around is there any such thing as an objective morality and is it seperate from GOD. I won't take that line further so as to allow you guys to do some of the work on it

Morality is not objective, if it was then all people all through history would have the same moral code.

Since they clearly don't, it is merely the subjective outcome of how people in different times and localities decide to treat each.

[FallentoReason]

But I think the best response to the Morality question for Atheist would be to debate the issue around is there any such thing as an objective morality and is it seperate from GOD. I won't take that line further so as to allow you guys to do some of the work on it

Morality is not objective, if it was then all people all through history would have the same moral code.

Since they clearly don't, it is merely the subjective outcome of how people in different times and localities decide to treat each.

Hence why having slaves was morally accepted according to the Bible.

[Mark 13:13]

But I think the best response to the Morality question for Atheist would be to debate the issue around is there any such thing as an objective morality and is it seperate from GOD. I won't take that line further so as to allow you guys to do some of the work on it

If there was objective morality and it was apart from God (i.e. God commands something because it is good) then why do we need God? Would you be able to live with that thought crawling in the back of your head?

That's why the arguement although interesting from the point of where philosophicaly of how right or wrong (in my opinion but then i'm late into this field os maybe its already been thrashed out to a conclusion before )exists within an Athiest framework its never any real use in a God/no God debate.