Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[polymath257]

No. I'm pointing out that your sentence made absolutely no sense.. Hence I pointed it out.

That’s why I clarified my response!

---

We are a social species. That is objective. Social species need rules to live by to preserve the social order. That is objective. Those rules tend to be preserved under evolution because they work. That is objective. Even other animal have a sense of compassion and fairness. That is objective.

Ultimately, morality boils down to rules for society that are based on compassion and a sense of fairness. Any other standard just leads to more misery and oppression. In this tendency, religion is one of the many forces that pushes away from fairness and compassion. It is far from the only one, but other dogmatic thought systems are also prone to this substitution for compassion for some other ideal.

Part of the issue is a precise definition of 'objective' and 'subjective'. Morality is ultimately about how humans live with other humans. That depends on the conditions under which they live. That makes morality subjective to some extent. On the other hand, there are certain rules that seem to be almost genetic. That points to an objective aspect: certain moral rules simply work and are selected for over time.

Almost every society is against killing members of that society for no reason. But almost every society is in favor of killing in self defense by at least some in the society. Every society encourages looking at motherhood as a positive thing (at least until recently, when overpopulation has become an issue). And every society also encourages responsibility to the young. ALL of these are simply aspects of being a social species. In that sense, those standards are objective: any social species is going to have them to some extent.

On the other hand, societies differ greatly on which aspects of behavior that harm nobody are regarded as immoral. So such rules tend to be subjective and dependent on specific societies and conditions.

From what you have said here.   I don't think that you understand the moral argument.   And I do think that you should learn what is meant when talking about objective morality.   I won't be on much for a couple of days unfortunately.

I understand the moral argument: that all people have certain moral feelings and the claim that this requires a higher power that is identified with God.

My point is that this argument is deeply flawed. We have some common sensitivities because we are a moral species and have evolved to work together to some extent. Those aspects on which we agree are those that tend to evolve in social species; they are the rules that tends to keep social units functional. I point out that even other species have the basics of fairness and compassion. This shows that no 'higher power' is required, just the known aspects of how life evolves.

The objectivity of morality, such as it exists, is simply that some patterns of interaction are more likely to lead to survival in social species. Altruism is, to some extent, purely a matter of such evolution.