There is no objective Morality

[Mendacium Remedium]

Quit often , i have heard theists and atheists arguing and debating about how a deity and evil can simultaneously exist. Many people during their daily lives assert ‘so and so is evil’ or the acts of a certain person is evil. The fact is, across history and across varying cultures on our planet, although murder and other acts are universally evil, there is so much of morality which is entirely subjective. Thus…what actually constitutes morality?

To give you a practical example, take the below cell. You can have two positive electrode potentials, but the least positive one will be the negative terminal, i.e the one donating the electrons overall.




So why can’t we find anything concrete like this in morality?

Why is this relevant? Evil and good are all relative.

As an atheist, you are obliged to accept there is no objective morality. Any kind of moral act has some sort of evolutionary benefit to promote survival. Richard Dawkins agree’s with me on this, in addition of a plethora of atheists.

Let me break it down further:

As an atheist you believe humans are complex organisms made out of trillions of cells, each cell made out of many more atoms ect. You arose through a process of random mutation and natural selection. There is no good or evil: there are only acts which promote survival, and acts against survival. This is the ‘scale’ by which you can compare good and evil.

Thus, there is nothing objectively wrong with rape. However, rape destabilizes society. To an atheist, a stable society grants benefits in terms of survival, so it is in ones interest to not rape. There is nothing objectively disgusting about it, but it is ‘immoral’ because of it’s consequence ultimately on survival.

Furthermore, the scale by which you measure morality is survival. If a deity chooses to give eternal life for the finite one we live here, this nullifies the ground by which anyone can say ‘ x is good’ or ‘x is bad’. Thus, the argument for evil disproving God really is superfluous. If your morality is coming from acts which benefit your survival, eternal life for any suffering in a finite one, even according to atheistic morality is a positive ‘moral’ act because you end up surviving -forever.

This Quote sums it up rather neatly:

The thesis: “conscience, the seat of our moral sense, evolved as a survival mechanism. When…we feel guilt because we have harmed a sibling, it is because we have thereby imperiled the proliferation of our genes. When we feel guilt because we have harmed someone outside the family circle, it is because we have potentially damaged our own (survival enhancing) status.”

The Moral Animal–Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology , by Robert Wright, published by Pantheon Press

[Baalzebutt]

You are essentially arguing Pascal's Wager here.

As an atheist, I believe I have one life to live. There is no eternity for my "soul" and it is therefore a waste of my time in this life to persue anything related to eternity.

Your argument about rape is essentially correct. There is nothing OBJECTIVELY wrong with rape. It occurs constantly in the animal world and, in some cases, creates the bond that maintains structure in a given animal society. However, as humans, we find rape to be reprehensible because we understand the damage it causes both personally and socially. Stating that rape is not objectively wrong does not in any way indicate that we either accept or condone the practice. We still find it "disgusting".

The bottom line is this: Just because a moral code is not objective does not mean it is not still a moral code.

[Ryantology]

Stating that rape is not objectively wrong only proves that the idea of objective right and wrong are utter nonsense.

[The Grand Nudger]

As an atheist, you are obliged to accept there is no objective morality. Any kind of moral act has some sort of evolutionary benefit to promote survival. Richard Dawkins agree’s with me on this, in addition of a plethora of atheists.

Really? Atheism is not a position on the existence of objective morality, and no amount of atheists agreeing with any one position on that subject is going to magically oblige the entirety of atheist-dom to park their camels at a particular tent simply because they are atheists.

[Darkstar]

If by "objective" you mean mathematically provable (or the like) then of course it doesn't exist. If by "objective" you mean something that can be demonstrated to be more valid than mere opinion then by that definition I would say that it does exist, though some moral are indeed almost purely subjective.
EDIT: To clarify, I should note that a "mere opinion" would be something like the a favorite color. You can't back it up with solid evidence.

[Sagasa]

Rape isn't wrong just because it destabilizes society. It's because we, as animals that are capable of empathy, understand just how much it hurts the victim. We are moved to try and do our best to comfort them and prevent someone else from undergoing the same suffering.

Does it really matter if our morality has an objective basis? Studies have shown that humans from different cultures and backgrounds respond very similarly when posed moral dilemmas. Some human traits are simply universal, and can even be seen historically in the laws of civilizations that are similar even though they are isolated from one another.

I'm not really getting what the OP is trying to say here. Is he saying that morality from an atheistic point of view isn't valid because it has no objective basis? That's simply not the case since most atheists are just as law-abiding and moral as any other person you'd care to name.

[Angrboda]

Rape isn't wrong just because it destabilizes society. It's because we, as animals that are capable of empathy, understand just how much it hurts the victim. We are moved to try and do our best to comfort them and prevent someone else from undergoing the same suffering.

Mmmmmm... no. I don't think so.

"In many cultures rape is treated as a crime against the victim's husband."

[Sagasa]

Rape isn't wrong just because it destabilizes society. It's because we, as animals that are capable of empathy, understand just how much it hurts the victim. We are moved to try and do our best to comfort them and prevent someone else from undergoing the same suffering.

Mmmmmm... no. I don't think so.

"In many cultures rape is treated as a crime against the victim's husband."

Right, because some outmoded, misguided priorities in some cultures automatically means we're all heartless assholes.

[Violet]

Stating that rape is not objectively wrong only proves that the idea of objective right and wrong are utter nonsense.

Why would rape be objectively wrong? I think that the only thing your disagreement with it proves is that objectivity is nonsense for you (and you are a subjective being).

I can even see some very suggestive reasons for rape not being 'wrong' in a subjective context... but what does understanding that gain you?

---

Right, because some outmoded, misguided priorities in some cultures automatically means we're all heartless assholes.

What makes their culture 'outmoded' or 'misguided' any more than your own?

You seem to have struck the upon the 'heartless asshole' argument all on your own.

---

Rape isn't wrong just because it destabilizes society. It's because we, as animals that are capable of empathy, understand just how much it hurts the victim. We are moved to try and do our best to comfort them and prevent someone else from undergoing the same suffering.

I wasn't aware rape had the power to 'destabilize' society unless it becomes systematic, at which point the eating of oranges also upsets the 'stability'. Rabid orange fanatics, I swear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-VBwa2FY5M

Some of us are moved, others of us are not. Why do presume you can speak for all of us?

Does it really matter if our morality has an objective basis? Studies have shown that humans from different cultures and backgrounds respond very similarly when posed moral dilemmas. Some human traits are simply universal, and can even be seen historically in the laws of civilizations that are similar even though they are isolated from one another.

Does it really matter if some hooker gets raped? Surely some studies must have shown that only fanatical college kids and your occasional feminazi give two shits what happens to people they don't know, and never will know. Because murdering, raping, theiving bastards aren't human, right? They couldn't be, since nonrapeymonsterness is clearly a universal human trait, as can be seen clearly with your average porn site. And wars never happen, I mean: get real, dawg!

I'm not really getting what the OP is trying to say here. Is he saying that morality from an atheistic point of view isn't valid because it has no objective basis? That's simply not the case since most atheists are just as law-abiding and moral as any other person you'd care to name.

I'm not sure what he's saying either, since I saw sciency bullshit in a philosophical thread, and reasonably decided that if he had any interesting input he'd get to it later, maybe in a smaller post with fewer completely pointless diagrams about concrete, in the same vein of 'why can't religion have anything concrete'

What's an objective basis look like?

* Violet takes a big bite out of everything.

Yup, that tasted purple!

Further, how does being law-abiding matter? And why are you assuming that everyone I might care to name is either 'moral' or 'law-abiding'? Yeah sure, we all follow them thar assassin's credes and the pirate's code!

[Ryantology]

Why would rape be objectively wrong? I think that the only thing your disagreement with it proves is that objectivity is nonsense for you (and you are a subjective being).

Any suggestion of objectivity would, by necessity, be subjective, wouldn't it?