Atheism and Ethics

[The Grand Nudger]

So this mind independent thing is a sticking point for me and I seem to be misunderstanding something. If something is mind independent it exists even if no one is aware of it, it doesn’t require a mind for it to be real, such as the colour red does. So the way I have employed it almost everything in the universe is mind-independent. I am however denying that there is anything that can be called a moral standard that is such as that. A belief in such a thing does seem to run through most moral realist stuff I have seen so far, eg. It doesn’t matter whether anyone things torture for the shits and giggles is wrong;it just is regardless of what people believe. 

Well, I thought we'd agreed on at least one objective standard?  You and I both accept that a thing can be objectively harmful regardless of whether or not someone get's a kick out of it - that a thing can be objectively harmful regardless of personal or public ignorance.  No?

Also, I totally get that metaethics isn’t giving an answer to any one question, and I don’t think I am trying to make it do that. Whether it can be grounded in some natural phenomenon, such as harm, is relevant to a discussion of metaethics as not all positions argue for that, and the issues and argument differ depending on whether that is being argued for

When I talk about harm I often refer to natural harm.  I do this because I think it's the simplest (and easiest) to establish..particularly here at af.  Lotta naturalists.  I'm a naturalist too.  It doesn't have to be.  A harm basis (like moral realism) can be natural or non natural or a mix.  A harm basis can also fail to be objective.  Can be a misreported fact - wrong about what it claims - correct about something else.  They can be relative, they can be subjective.  

I don't want to pigeonhole harm basis to just my preferred set of harm bases.

Re the immorality point. I was trying to get at the fact that an explanation of moral actions that do not function as a reduction of harm do need discussion. If everything resolves down to a question of harm grounding morality then it seems something important has been missed off.

Value monism vs value pluralism.  Pluralist myself (descriptive and normative) - harm and help..at least.  There are lots of other options - the majority of which have content "missing" from my preferred system, for sure.  There's not much to do in general but acknowledge that this is true...and also kind of the point of metaethical objectivity.  If and insomuch as my preferred system has  "moral" content - as opposed to the "immoral" content of morality - that'd be in the help column.

So, if we were to look at the idea that we should add a third, and a specific third - loyalty, and to a transactional god, I would (descriptively) say that loyalty helps your situation, your people, your world, your god and disloyalty harms it. This is the basic truth claim, however expressed or reported in moral assertions to this effect, rightly or wrongly. Normatively - I'd have to reject loyalty to a transactional god as good or bad in and of itself even before we get to the nagging bit about there being no gods...because I don't have enough facts to make that determination. Loyalty to what - what does this loyalty entail, what's it have in mind...right? Do I have to march over to the neighbors house and rape his wife, or just tickle his kids?

-just an example, not a question I expect you to answer.