Atheism and Ethics

[Mister Agenda]

Yes I do. If you define evil as unnecessary suffering, there are definitely social systems that are objectively better at that than others. And though it may not seem like it from the news, we have measurably less violence and poverty per person on average than fifty, a hundred, or two hundred years ago. However we must keep in mind too that as conditions change, what's best to reduce suffering can change too. For instance, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last fifty years, but we don't know yet if that's sustainable. Conceivably it could lead to more suffering in the future than there would otherwise have been.

Would you base the objectivity of this view on it seeming that there are objective moral standards (like I think @The Grand Nudger does) that can be approached or departed from? Is reduction of harm in your view what constitutes goodness, or is goodness somehow a standard outside the reduction of harm but supervenes on it?

Reduction of harm is part of it, it's not the only good, just an easily identifiable one. For example, virtues in moderation are good. Honesty is good, but it shouldn't be to the point you'd tell the Nazis where your Jewish friends are hiding. Generosity is good, but it shouldn't be to the point you go broke.

I feel virtues have been identified and confirmed as such because they contribute to social cohesion and a satisfying life. They go beyond reduction of harm to promotion of well-being.