RE: Where do atheists get their morality from?
September 1, 2012 at 1:03 am
(This post was last modified: September 1, 2012 at 1:04 am by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
(September 1, 2012 at 12:55 am)Red Celt Wrote:(September 1, 2012 at 12:36 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: If you're a moral relativist than you AGREE with me. I'm saying moral relativism IS the atheistic position.
The problem with moral relativism is self-evident: That baby-punching is morally good in some possible world on moral relativism. And that's not a moral theory that babies want to be in. Or anybody if they happen to find themselves on the less favorable side.
The morality of social animals is based upon reciprocity. Actions have consequences. I'm not interested in possible worlds; they are a construct of metaphysics. In this world, punching babies has consequences... and those consequences aren't devolved between theism and atheism.
![[Image: Dwight-Schrute-False.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=freethoughtblogs.com%2Frockbeyondbelief%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F02%2FDwight-Schrute-False.jpg)
Reciprocity is only one factor guiding the formation of ethical norms in a society. Certain moral duties have decidedly non-reciprocal origins and non-reciprocal expressions, such as "It is morally wrong to rape somebody, even if they raped you first and you are reciprocating." Reciprocity in this capacity does nothing to inform the problem of subjective morality that we as atheists need to grapple with: The problem that a relativistic, atheistic moral worldview RATIONALLY NECESSITATES the possibility that the raping of babies could be considered morally good.
It's not appealing, but it's true and we as atheists need to find a solution to this problem. Not by appealing to ad hoc evo-psych, but by finding ways to mitigate the subjectivity of our morality when it comes to behavior that we think ought to be wrong in all circumstances.