What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

Some atheists who believe that objective moral right and wrong really do exist, a position also called moral realism, say they simply know that these moral truths exist, and that’s good enough for them. For example, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong answers the question, “Why is it wrong to cause harm without a good reason?” by saying, “It just is, don’t you agree?” Erik Wielenberg, in his book Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe, writes, “Of the ethical states of affairs that obtain necessarily, at least some are brute facts.”

Is it fair for atheists merely to assume that moral truths exist as unexplained brute facts? Luke Muehlhausesr, the founder of Common Sense Atheism, writes:

Many atheists see to think moral realism is obvious, and easy to prove. I disagree. Consider the claim we moral realists are making. We generally claim there are invisible properties in the world not detectable y our usual tools of science, properties of an entirely different sort than the usual “is” facts of science. These are mysterious “ought” facts, and there is great disagreement about what they are or how we know them. Now that is a strong claim. An extraordinary claim, we might say. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

Muehlhauser then examines two reasons atheists give to believe in the existence of objective moral truths. The first is that atheists just “know” or “experience” the truth of the wrongness of things such as rape. The second reason is that until objective moral truths are disproven, the atheist is justified in believing them. Muehlhauser continues:

Do those arguments look familiar? They should. They are the exact same arguments atheists reject when they are given for the existence of God. Atheists are skeptical of these arguments when given for the existence of God, but they are credulous and gullible toward these arguments when you replace the word “God” with another mysterious thing called “moral truths.”…It would be hypocritical for me to reject subjective experience and popular consensus as evidence for God while at the same time accepting subjective experience and popular consensus for moral realism.

(Luke Muehlhauser. “Many Atheists are Hypocrites about Morality,” Common Sense Atheism, May 9, 2010. Available online at: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8859)

[Thumpalumpacus]

What if it makes that someone feel good, who's correct. Seems to me both of you can't be correct when one considers it bad and the other considers it good.

GC

Clearly, morality is both relative and subjective.

[Jenny A]

Some atheists who believe that objective moral right and wrong really do exist, a position also called moral realism, say they simply know that these moral truths exist, and that’s good enough for them.

Is that an opinion you've found expressed by anyone on this forum?  Because atheism is not a philosophy, and I really could care less what "some atheists" think unless it's a good thought.

Many atheists see to think moral realism is obvious, and easy to prove. I disagree.

Why bother to attack what isn't being argued?  Because it's easier than what's actually being said here and now?  I see no point in collectively discussing opinions not raised in the thread.  If you are a moral relativist fine.  Otherwise, why waste time shutting down an opinion not even raised.  Talk with the atheists you are talking to, not some atheists you find elsewhere.

[Catholic_Lady]

So how does this help your idea that god has made certain things intrinsically good?

If I were you, I think I would feel a cognitive dissonance.

I did not ask the question to help any of my ideas. Just asked because I wanted to know your views.

[Silver]

I am confused.

Of course it is wrong to do harm. As atheists, we do not want harm done to us.

Simply substitute "atheist" for "human".

No human wants harm done to him.

If a human experiences harm and wishes not on himself, it would only make sense that he not wish it on another.

That is morality.

No god involved.

[Esquilax]

Some atheists who believe that objective moral right and wrong really do exist, a position also called moral realism, say they simply know that these moral truths exist, and that’s good enough for them. For example, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong answers the question, “Why is it wrong to cause harm without a good reason?” by saying, “It just is, don’t you agree?”

I wouldn't say that. I would, however, say that moral systems, by their nature, must privilege the continuation of conscious entities; without conscious beings to act and rationalize within a moral continuum, there can be no morality at all. Inanimate objects cause no actions, and thus can have no actions with moral weight. For morality to be self sustaining in any way, it must concern itself, in some measure, with the survival and flourishing of moral actors. If it doesn't, it dies out, due to a form of natural selection for ideas.

It isn't a coincidence, for example, that moral systems that suggest that suicide is morally optimal do not exist, at least for long.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thank you all for the responses. I see several of you bringing up instances of slavery, murder, etc from the Old Testament and trying to say that if I believe in God and the bible, then I must believe that God, at least at one point, considered those things good.

I just want to make a general statement about that since it keeps being brought up so much:

Remember, I am a Christian, not a Jew.

I cannot speak for Judaism, but Christianity is defined by the New Testament - the Gospels, the teachings of Christ. The OT was not perfect, and neither were the people's view of God back then. That is part of the reason why Jesus came. To show us what God is *really* like and to set the record straight on some things. While the OT talks about an eye for an eye, Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. While the OT justified stoning or killing in some instances, Jesus stopped a whole crowd of people from stoning a woman.

I am not saying any of this to "convert" anyone. I know none of you believe in any of it. I'm just saying it to clear up some misconceptions you may have about my beliefs and my religion. If anything, so that you can be better equipped to debunk Catholicism if you so feel the need to do so. ;-)

[Silver]

Jesus never said to ignore the old laws. He said that he was to fulfill them and expand on them.

Remember that, Catholic.

[Jenny A]

I did not ask the question to help any of my ideas. Just asked because I wanted to know your views.

I tend to distrust people who ONLY want to know what I think, but want neither to express their own views, or to consider altering their own in light of mine.   If nothing anyone else says might alter mine, I might as well talk to myself.

[Jenny A]

Thank you all for the responses. I see several of you bringing up instances of slavery, murder, etc from the Old Testament and trying to say that if I believe in God and the bible, then I must believe that God, at least at one point, considered those things good.

I just want to make a general statement about that since it keeps being brought up so much:

Remember,  I am a Christian, not a Jew.

I cannot speak for Judaism, but Christianity is defined by the New Testament - the Gospels, the teachings of Christ. The OT was not perfect, and neither were the people's view of God back then. That is part of the reason why Jesus came. To show us what God is *really* like and to set the record straight on some things. While the OT talks about an eye for an eye, Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. While the OT justified stoning or killing in some instances, Jesus stopped a whole crowd of people from stoning a woman.

I am not saying any of this to "convert" anyone. I know none of you believe in any of it. I'm just saying it to clear up some misconceptions you may have about my beliefs and my religion. If anything, so that you can be better equipped to debunk Catholicism if you so feel the need to do so.  ;-)

I'm perfectly aware that Christians aren't Jews and that Jesus was rather ambiguous about the law in the Old Testament.  But the God of the New and Old Testaments is supposed to be the same one.  And in the OT god "really" required certain things.   And we really think those things are immoral now.  Do you believe the OT misrepresented god's views?