Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[polymath257]

Consider compassion and fairness as being moral axioms. They are the basic assumptions for morality. Furthermore, they are basic assumptions that most people agree to.

Take it as moral *axioms* that one should be fair and compassionate. Those axioms are common sense and clear. Whether they are 'objective' or 'subjective' is beside the point. People agree to them (probably because of genetics and evolution) and so they are part of the *definition* or morality.

In a very different, non-social species, they may NOT be axioms for behavior or for a definition of morality. For us, they are.

I came to the conclusion that our moral sensitivities are *derived* from evolution because it seems to exist in other primates and because such compassion and fairness are clearly helpful for the survival of social species. What makes it a stable equilibrium is an interesting idea, but clearly it is.

Let me give a couple other examples that may clarify the issues.

When people look at clouds, we see faces. This is something that happens to pretty much everyone. It is almost certainly a genetic thing to see faces whenever possible, even when they aren't appropriate.

Are faces in clouds objective or subjective? Well, everyone sees faces in clouds. People can even agree that certain clouds look like certain types of faces. it is an objective fact that people see faces in clouds. But clouds do not, objectively, have faces. They are masses of water vapor and simply don't actually have faces.

As another example, people generally agree that certain pieces of art are beautiful. Every culture has art and different cultures can appreciate the art of other cultures. Does that make the beauty of art objective? Even if people agree that a certain piece is beautiful, does that make it *objectively* beautiful? Is artistic beauty an objective or a subjective thing?

In both cases, everyone experiences a phenomenon. The phenomenon of art is even valued by most people. But that *doesn't* make either faces in clouds or artistic beauty an objective thing. Both are subjective. But that doesn't make art,, for example, less important. If anything, it is its very subjectivity that makes it so important.

In the same way, almost everyone has a moral sense. Fairness and compassion are aspects of this common moral sense. But the fact that it is common to all does NOT mean it is objective. It just means we have common subjective experiences. Further, the subjectivity does NOT make it less important or valuable to us or our societies. If anything, it makes it more important.

But, just like faces in clouds or artistic beauty, there is NOTHING inherent in the real world that dictates the subjective experiences we have no matter how important or meaningful. These are not objective things, but are very much subjective things, although common to almost all people.

And, in the case of art, the richness of our lives is enhanced by this. And, for morality, the structures of our societies and our lives benefit from having the twin moral guides of fairness and compassion.

It's interesting that you bring up seeing faces in clouds after you give your reasons to claim "evolution done it" with similar reasoning.  Have you considered that the vague similarities you see are just faces in clouds in this case?

However seeing a face in the cloud or your taste in art are subjective (The cloud and it's inherent shape are objective).   They are based on the individual, and another may not share and is not required to have the same experience, because that feeling is based on them.   I still don't think that you understand objective and subjective in this sense in regards to the nature of  morality, and what it entails if the it is subjective.   Anyways, that doesn't seem to be what you are discussing.  You seem to be equating morality to something like mere tastes or feelings.   I've asked a number of times (not necessarily to you) and never received an answer.   What is it in a subject (person), that you are claiming is the basis for morality?   Is it just feelings or personal preference as I suggested here? Or something else?   Do you think that morality is unique to the individual perhaps with some commonalty as in your art example?  Or do you think that the example of beating one's wife is actually wrong in spite of ones personal affinity or tastes regarding it?  Ought one not be a bigot, or a racist, or is it just a matter of cultural acceptance and upsetting others?    Is it only immoral, if you don't get caught, and there are no consequences to you?  It's not just that there is a set of common traits, but that most sane people cannot act as if morality is subjective. I can't, and I don't think that you do either.

Your question seems strange and ill-posed to me. You ask for a subject or person that is the basis of morality. The closest I can answer this strange question is that morality is the common feeling we have because we are a social species saying that certain behaviors are to be done or not to be done. It is common because of our ancestry. In that sense, it is part of being human.

But I don't think there is anything *objective* about the structure of the universe that makes certain behaviors wrong or right.  It isn't a matter of the structure of the universe, but the structure of humans and what it takes to make human societies. An act isn't immoral only if it is not caught (although there may not be consequences if it isn't). It is immoral because of the way behaviors need to be for societies of humans to function towards human (the relevant species) well being.

A different species would have different moral rules. In that sense, morality is NOT objective. But, since this is a human society and because humans are the way they are, there are certain types of behavior that promote well being and certain types that do not. This includes both physical and mental well being (both of which are objective). 

I don't think that morality in general is objective. In fact, I think it is quite society dependent. There is no objective reason to consider shaking hands to be polite. Yet that is one of the common behavioral rules for our society. On the other hand, it is universal that killing another without proper cause is condemned. Again, I think the reason, from a survival viewpoint, is clear. Pretty universally, beating one's wife until she dies has been condemned (although way too much violence has been approved).

I also think that we are getting better at morality. The basic principles of fairness and compassion are more widely applied, no longer to just a tribe, but to all people. Because we have moved away from religious superstitions, we are far more likely to condemn the sorts of torture that were common only 500 years ago. We have grown to see religious differences with compassion instead of hatred. We no longer support slavery, another form of stifling human well being that was common not so long ago and accepted by almost all religious scholars as normal. But compassion and a sense of fairness have shown such behaviors to be wrong.

For me, morality is axiomatic: it is defined by fairness and compassion (and also consideration--thought is crucial also). It consists of rules of behavior that produce societies that are more fulfilling of their members and survive.