Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[polymath257]

The question 'what in the subject is the basis of morality' just seems like a poorly constructed question with no real meaning to it.

What 'subject' do you mean? The subject of morality? The person doing the moral reasoning?

Why would you think there is something 'in' the subject that is the 'basis' of morality? What could that even mean?

For me, the question of subjectivity is whether there is something in the nature of the universe that determines morality independent of people. So, the sun is something that exists whether or not there is anyone looking at it. But morality is something that only exists because there are humans. That is what makes it subjective as opposed to objective.

When you say that something is 'obviously immoral', that is a matter of your training and education and partly determined by the society you grew up in, not to mention the fact that you are human and not, say, bonobo. If you go back 2000 years, *every* society had slavery and thought it was perfectly natural and moral. That alone shows that it isn't 'obviously immoral'. In almost every society is was OK for an elite to kill an underling if they were insulted. That shows that such killing isn't 'obviously immoral'.

The point is that what you and I consider to be 'obviously immoral' is a matter of the society that educated us. It is very far from being 'obviously immoral' for all societies and for all people throughout time.

That said, I do think we are advancing morally: we are learning how to generalize from tribal notions to humanity in general, we are learning that compassion extends not just to our families and friends but to people in general. This is, in my mind, an advancement. And I think our societies will be better and more able to provide for human well being because of these changes. Our values have changed over the past 2000 years and I think they have changed in a good direction.

But then, I would.

Ok.... so you make it sounds here, like it is a matter of personal preference.   One person thinks that they ought to beat and abuse the slave; another thinks that they should care for and help the them.   These are no better or worse outside of a persons personal preference and their own abstract definition and rules?  One isn't any more moral than the other?  If one think that by brutally enslaving a group of people, it is the most pragmatic way to advance the well being of society, then is that moral?

Well, humans are rule makers and tend to prefer general rules as opposed to lots of special cases. That implies we will prefer those systems, in the long run, based on fairness. We are also a social species, so we tend to prefer systems tending to compassion.

But yes, if you could get everyone to agree on a position, that position becomes moral. Since most people are basically decent, you won't get wife beaters or murderers being moral based on this.

This is also why morality changes over time.