Can objective morality exist in Atheism?

[Tiberius]

If Atheism obtains (God does not exist) is there a source for morality other than oneself that is objective?

Yes. If it was hard-coded into our genes. It doesn't look like this happens though, and I believe morality is a purely social issue, brought on by group intuition.

[Meatball]

Great. That's all I was trying to discern from you. On that basis, (that morals are subjective) is there a way to define right and wrong in Atheism?

In Captial-A Atheism? You're treating it as if there was a consensus among atheists, and there isn't. Is there a way to define right and wrong for people born in July? For people who dislike mustard?

My position is that morals are entirely subjective. This is no universal right and wrong. Morals are concept we use to describe societal norms about how we treat each other.

That said, humans evolved mechanisms to deter intra-tribe turmoil. A tribe in which murdering your peers is considered "right" is a less successful tribe than one that considers it "wrong", and so on for theft, dishonesty, etc.

[tavarish]

I think the only consensus that can be reached in an atheist group is that we all think for ourselves and are vastly different in form, function, and presentation.

[fr0d0]

I disagree that you all think for yourselves. That's a bit of a leap. I'll give you the other 3.

I disagree that morality necessarily reinforces survival and procreating as a species. I think it is the opposite of that sometimes. The basic model of strongest wins is the strongest model for survival and transferring dominant traits. It (morality) may have evolved, It may have grown from another influence.

[objectivitees]

You cannot have an objective right and wrong anywhere.

Then how do you (Atheism) rationally justify making a moral claim?

It is a principle on which morality is based,...

Ok, buy why is that "principle" valued as opposed to one that says, "do unto others before they do unto you?" (the selfish rule)

but the morality itself is subjective. The only thing it reinforces is surviving and procreating as a species. The golden rule is instinctive.

This is an equivocation making "survival" and "golden rule" the same thing, and serves only to muddy the issue you are trying to explain. If 'survival' is the goal, again I ask why? Why not adopt a value that says kill them and take their food? Why is the 'golden rule' chosen as opposed to the selfish rule?

[Darwinian]

To say that morality is "objective" is to say that notions of "right" and "wrong" are universal and fixed for all times. What are "right" and "wrong" today will be that way for all times and all cultures.

Objective morality is a problem for evolution because some evolutionary theorists believe that our sense of right and wrong develop historically, and that it is open to change as we evolve throughout the generations. If it is the case that our brain develops over thousands and thousands of years, some evolutionary thinkers might say, then our understanding of right and wrong might change as well.

Accordingly some evolutionary thinkers base their understanding of ethics on genes (See the book "The Selfish Gene"). If it is the case that genes and evolution determine what morality is, then it is difficult to see how it can be universal for all places and times and for all "variations" of the human species. If "reason" is historically conditioned, then even our capacity to reason might change as well.

You should be aware, though, that "evolution" does not mean the same as progress. It might be the case that we will evolve further, but that does not mean what we will evolve into will be "better" than what we are. Evolution is an adaptation to one's environmental changes, not necessarily a self-improvement process though in many cases the way we evolve might indeed benefit us in the long run.

[objectivitees]

To say that morality is "objective" is to say that notions of "right" and "wrong" are universal and fixed for all times. What are "right" and "wrong" today will be that way for all times and all cultures.

Objective morality is a problem for evolution because some evolutionary theorists believe that our sense of right and wrong develop historically, and that it is open to change as we evolve throughout the generations. If it is the case that our brain develops over thousands and thousands of years, some evolutionary thinkers might say, then our understanding of right and wrong might change as well.

Accordingly some evolutionary thinkers base their understanding of ethics on genes (See the book "The Selfish Gene"). If it is the case that genes and evolution determine what morality is, then it is difficult to see how it can be universal for all places and times and for all "variations" of the human species. If "reason" is historically conditioned, then even our capacity to reason might change as well.

You should be aware, though, that "evolution" does not mean the same as progress. It might be the case that we will evolve further, but that does not mean what we will evolve into will be "better" than what we are. Evolution is an adaptation to one's environmental changes, not necessarily a self-improvement process though in many cases the way we evolve might indeed benefit us in the long run.

Wow, Darwinian, I think that's the first time I ever agreed with everything an Atheist wrote in a single post!

Objective morality cannot exist in an Atheist/Evolutionist reality. I don't think most atheists would disagree with that. The "problem" (your word not mine) as I see it is that if moral value judgments are subjective, then they are nothing more than my opinion about a particular behavior. My "opinion" in no way relates to reality in that if morality is not universal, in a very real sense it (morality) does not exist. There would be no ultimate (moral) difference between choosing to murder or not to murder. (though there may be societal repercussions)

How then, does the Atheist resolve this dilemma? Any attempt to define terms becomes hopelessly mired in one "definition" being dependent on the "definition" of other value laden words, condemning the whole process to relativity, where no absolute definition can be obtained. In reality, one ends up reasoning in a great big circle, and we all know the logical fallacy of "begging the question", do we not?

[Darwinian]

Glad to be of service

[tavarish]

Then how do you (Atheism) rationally justify making a moral claim?

I'll go out on a limb and say you don't believe in the fairies in my underpants drawer. How does a non-believer of fairies justify making a moral claim?

All of us are subject to the morality of our respective societies coupled with our own personal experiences. We build up tolerances and preferences as to what we'd like to do and what we'd like done to us.

Ok, buy why is that "principle" valued as opposed to one that says, "do unto others before they do unto you?" (the selfish rule)

The reason it's valued is because it actively promotes the proliferation of the species. It is a mechanism that has developed through evolution. It is very possible some did not have this instinct, and thus did not procreate as abundantly as those who did.

We have people like that today. They actively want to inflict harm on others. This is masochism and sadomasochism.

The process of natural selection has all but taken care of those who live life by the selfish rule, and the fact that we exist and continue to procreate in large numbers shows that it is a favorable trait to possess.

This is an equivocation making "survival" and "golden rule" the same thing, and serves only to muddy the issue you are trying to explain. If 'survival' is the goal, again I ask why? Why not adopt a value that says kill them and take their food? Why is the 'golden rule' chosen as opposed to the selfish rule?

Not ONLY survival. Survival and procreation - I'm pretty sure I wrote that. If you killed everyone the species would go nowhere and there would be no one with which to mate. Indeed we do still see people who react selfishly, which means that those individuals most likely lack proper psychological development or suffer from a chemical imbalance.

The golden rule is absolutely paramount to the continued survival of the species, not just to certain individuals.

[objectivitees]

Glad to be of service

Sorry... I updated my response above, though not in a way that changes the fact I agreed with your post.

---

Not ONLY survival. Survival and procreation - I'm pretty sure I wrote that. If you killed everyone the species would go nowhere and there would be no one with which to mate.

So what? It ultimately doesn't matter where values are subjective.

The reason it's valued is because it actively promotes the proliferation of the species.

Again, so what? Why choose procreation over death?

---

We build up tolerances and preferences as to what we'd like to do and what we'd like done to us.

Sir, respectfully, that's not the concept of morality, that's Evolutionary theory of survival, the two are not the same, despite your equivocation. Morality involves the concept of "rightness" and wrongness" the theory of Evolution only involves surviving to procreate, regardless of right and wrong.

---

Is there a way to define right and wrong for people born in July? For people who dislike mustard?

How do I say this gently... your "analogy" is flawed because "people born in July" and people who like mustard" are not philosophical worldviews, the same way Atheism and Theism are. Therefore, your "critique" is irrelevant, Meatball.

---

Ok, can someone explain to me why my responses keep ending up in the same post?