Morality

[vulcanlogician]

So let's consider it as a testable hypothesis. We take a group of philosophy majors, a group of RNs, or a group of mechanics, a group of factory workers, a group of finance majors (groups without a college education, or at best a technical degree)
...
In your view the philosophy majors would come out on top? This group contains better moral role models than the other groups?

I would disagree, that at best there’s no real difference between their actual moral lives.

Without the data, neither you nor I could make such a judgment. And it isn't really a testable hypothesis. I suppose it could be tested, in principle, but in reality: we will never know. But this is of no consequence to me. I never said that being earning a degree is always accompanied by moral growth. See the bold in the quote below:

Philosophy would be my best guess. Psychology or a humanities degree could contribute to moral growth as well. Mathematics could even help. It's not going to improve everyone's moral perspective. But if one wants to improve their moral character to begin with, philosophy, sociology, mathematics, history and studies language can help. If you are puzzled by this, I'd be happy to explain myself.

If someone approaches psychology, sociology, or philosophy with the intent to use such knowledge to inform their moral decisions, they will (typically!) get a lot more from it than one can from study of the Bible.

That rightness and wrongness of things exist independently of our own minds, that moral facts exists, like the chair in front of me does. That there’s a Good, that we’re all at some level oriented to...

I am a moral realist. I agree with you here. It's just that you think the Good is some kind of cosmic person. I think the Good is an abstract idea that can be understood through reasoning. In my view, the Good is something very real. And it exists independently of our opinions and subjective notions. It is like logic. Something isn't logical or illogical based on someone's opinion. There are objective criteria by which we categorize a statement logical or illogical. In that way, you could say that logic exists "independently of a mind." But (in the same way) there is no logic without minds. Likewise, there is no moral judgment without some kind of mind. (In a universe without minds, morality becomes quite meaningless, doesn't it?

...that obligates us to do what’s right, that is it’s own moral authority, etc..

This is where you and I disagree concerning morality. But I don't know if most Christians have an urge to TRULY fulfill their moral obligations. Some do, to be sure. But most are just following the herd. In truth, Christian morality is nothing more than conformity (in most cases). And you are right about one thing: they have dictated to the masses what morality is for centuries. That's why (I think) so many atheists assume cultural relativism. That's all morality is to Christians: herd instinct. Simple conformity and obedience. And, as you point out, they've had a lasting influence on Western society. That's just my own personal theory though...

---

So when I say something is wrong, whether to christians, or other religious folks, or make any moral statements, it’s appeal an appeal to this reality. A external reality that isn’t purely physical, but posses in some sense mental properties as well, such a meaning and purpose.

It’s not an appeal to what society wants of them, or my subjective wishes. At worst in can be an appeal to a false belief.

I would also say that beliefs such as this, have been taken as a given for thousands of years, saturated into our moral language and beliefs, and have proven quite difficult to escape or abandon. In fact as Alsdair McIntyre argued in After Virtue, our moral philosophies that attempt to proceed with out these elements in tact, are incoherent.  

Outside of such a reality, it makes little sense to speak of objective morality, or intrinsic values, you’re primarily left with subjective moral views, moral nihilism, and extrinsic values.
...
No I think plenty of atheists try to be compassionate.

But the difference between uncompassionate or an immoral atheist, and immoral christian, is that immoral atheist can deny that they have any obligations to be moral, or to be good person, where as the uncompassionate or immoral christian can’t deny it. He may try to justify that he’s not living immorally, or uncompassionately, but he has to acknowledge his obligations to live as such. And from that it becomes a task of revealing to them, that they are lying to themselves, that they’re not living compassionately, or morally.


The difference between many atheist and believers is, that atheists fail to be able to hold moral nihilism as false, even if they don’t see themselves as moral nihilist, where as for believers the moral nihilist, is like a person who believes the earth is flat.

---

There's plenty here for us to discuss. I agree with some of it, disagree with other parts. I would like to make sure we are on the same page first. Morality (or conception of the Good) can be rooted in reason. No God is necessary. This was demonstrated by Plato. Here is a modified version of his Euthyphro argument that shows that even morality commanded by God must actually be rooted in reason:

1. Either God has reasons that support His commands, or God lacks reasons for His commands.
2. If God lacks reasons for his commands, then God’s commands are arbitrary-- and that renders God imperfect, undermining His moral authority.
3. If God has reasons that support His commands, then those reasons, rather than the divine commands, are what make actions right or wrong–thereby refuting Divine Command Theory.
4. Therefore, either God is imperfect or Divine Command Theory is false.
5. God is not imperfect.
6. Therefore Divine Command Theory is false.