Where do atheists get their morality from?

[stephenmills1000]

Can you help me understand what you mean by "arbitrary"? Do you mean to say "subjective"?

If so, to answer that question, I first need to understand what is meant by its alternative, "objective morality". To me, "objective" means measurable in ways not subject to personal tastes, values or opinions. How would one measure moral values without invoking values? It seems to me that, by definition, "objective morality", or "objective values", is an oxy-moron.

By "objective morality" can one plug numbers into a spreadsheet and calculate the correct moral course of action? Is there any way one could come up with units of measure for moral worth?

The closest I've ever seen to an answer for these questions came from Jeremy Bentham and his utilitarian principle. He posited that there was a sum total of pleasure and pain in the universe and that which increased the sum total of pleasure or reduced the sum total of pain was morally correct. This would involve the hypothetical units of measure by which morality could be objectively evaluated. There are, of course, problems with Bentham's model. To use a movie as a hypothetical example: If Sarah Conner murdered Miles Dyson, an innocent scientist who would unwittingly create killer robots that would later cause a nuclear war, one murder would potentially save 3 billion lives. This might seem a bargain mathematically but could it really justify an act of murder? Overall, I liked Bentham's ideas but, as with other moral philosophies I've read about, it doesn't cover all the bases.

Additionally, the very use of words we employ in our discussion of morality reveal that, on some level, we all realize that morality is a subjective matter. For example, we speak of "moral judgment". If morality were objective, it would require no judgment. It could be measured and understood in empirical terms. Subjectivity involves personal "judgment" by definition.

Invoking a god does nothing to make morality any more objective. Your god makes the rules, does he? What makes his judgment the right one?

The fact that he's big and powerful? Does might make right?

The fact that he's wise and understand all things? If morality exists outside of God to be evaluated and potentially understood by God's wisdom, can it not be discovered without God's wisdom? And if morality exists independent of God, than that which is good would still be good even if God went away or turned out never to have existed.

Or do you mean that goodness is "grounded into his very nature" (whatever that means)? How is this not circular reasoning, that you've defined "good" as "consistent with God's will" and so we say "God is good" meaning "God wills what God wills" and we know "God's will is good because good is what God wills"?

This is why GodWillsit is no more satisfying to our understanding of morality than GodDidIt is satisfying to our understanding of science.

Many atheists when they discuss this issue, even notables like Sam Harris, fall into the trap of Christian "either-or" thinking. Either morality is objective or "anything goes". This is one of many examples where Christians are seemingly programmed to look at reality in stark black-and-white where there are more options than their false dichotomies allow.

Secularists recognize that morality is a function of how we treat our fellow beings. It is our sense of empathy for the pain others feel as well as for our sense of connection with one another in a community that should guide or moral compass. I say "should" because religion by its nature tends to muddy the waters by prioritizing admonishments against victimless crimes like blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy over more legitimate concerns.

Morality is, as far as I can tell (and I'm open to arguments on this point), subjective. I do not take this to mean "anything goes" but rather that it can be a complex matter that requires our empathy, sense of compassion and other forms of judgment. Religion is neither necessary nor helpful in forming good moral judgment.

I mean 'arbitrary' as subject to the individual without restriction, contingent solely upon one's own discretion. For example, if I claim "chocolate is better than vanilla," that does nothing to make that an objective truth, thus it is arbitrary.

Objective morality would mean right or wrong independent of whether anyone thinks so or not. I don't see how measurement applies here: this discussion is about moral ontology, that is the basis of our moral values, not applied ethics.

Yes, morality has a subjective nature- in its ontology. The question is asking what determines our moral values, what is the basis for those values and duties. I would reject the notion that morality, upon being objective (or even subjective for that matter), can be empirically measured or understood statistically. Just because we can statisically measure how many people get their beliefs from some place, does absolutely nothing to undermine the truth of those beliefs. This would commit the Genetic Fallacy. I may have gotten my morals from fortune cookies, but that doesn't do anything to say my moral beliefs are therefore untrue.

Wouldn't you agree, if God exists, that by definition he would be an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal being? Bear in mind, this is not asking what your opinion is on what his track record is, or what execution of said attributes should look like. The question is: if God exists, do you agree that God must possess those attributes listed in order to be so defined as God?

In examining those attributes then, wouldn't it be altogether rational to deem such an independent being as a viable authority in our lives? Again, this is not an argument over God's character, for yes, if you believed the God someone else believed in did not measure up to those attributes (all-loving, for instance), then you would be rational in believing God didn't exist.

To your last 2 points:
What basis do you have to trust your empathy, or is it just arbitrary (see above definition)? If it's arbitrary, why 'should' everyone else adhere to your views on how to be moral?

Your utilitarianism/ Sarah Connor analogy concern in a way relates to your point about the admonishments of those so called "victimless" crimes- how could anyone possibly know how any of those things will affect someone else? Think chaos theory/butterfly effect (and your analogy for that matter). Just because you do not see the immediate effects of an action, doesn't mean there aren't any. And unless one can travel to the future (one would have to at every point in the future), we have no way of knowing how what we do now will affect everyone else, thus no rational way to determine with absolution, how to reduce pain & suffering.

Your next point does in fact answer: "Morality is, as far as I can tell..., subjective." In which case, this does not obligate anyone to adhere to your proposal about empathy & sense of connection.

If morality is in fact subjective in this socio-relational sense (like you, I am open to arguments on this point [though what I've heard seems grim]), then it would follow that no one has any basis to condemn or criticize another person for their actions. They would merely be "different from what you would do." Thus, on this view, Catholic priests molesting those boys were not objectively wrong per se, just acting different to how you would conduct yourself. Is this what you're willing to subscribe to?