RE: Do atheists even need an objective moral system?
December 13, 2012 at 1:16 am
(This post was last modified: December 13, 2012 at 1:19 am by genkaus.)
(December 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: The theists are always asking us "how do you get your moral values?" And then I see a few atheists try to justify some sort of objective moral system as an alternative to a theistic moral system grounded in God.
Is this even necessary?
I don't see an objective moral system as a requirement as an "alternative" to a theistic one. Would you say that we require science as an alternative to theistic explanations or that we require it irrespective of it?
(December 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Why can't morals be as subjective as liking cheese on apple pie?
When the theist asks "If there's no God, what's wrong with rape?" Instead of going through the trouble of positing some godless moral order, why can't we just reply "because I don't like rape"?
If the theist asks "but if the rapist likes rape, how is that wrong in a godless universe?" Instead of trying to argue that we have some universal duty to love our neighbor or other such nonsense I might reply "it isn't actually wrong. I just don't like rape and I want it illegal. Tough luck for rapists" The end.
Taking your idea to its logical conclusion - I like apple pie, but hate cherry and I like Swiss Cheese but hate goat cheese. So I can just say that because I don't like those things I want to make them illegal and if I get enough people on my side, I should succeed in doing so. If you happen to like Cherry Pie or Goat Cheese - tough luck.
(December 12, 2012 at 8:16 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: As atheists we could say things are "right" or "wrong" in so far as they are consistent with certain basic values but these values ultimately seem arbitrary. A value might be "people living in harmony" and then based on that value you could construct certain "rights" and "wrongs" but these values are still purely arbitrary. You could instead have a value of "people living in chaos" and construct "rights" and "wrongs" based on that and it would be just as legitimate of a moral value. And why should that bother us?
Are those values arbitrary? Or are they determined by the nature of morality?
A moral system tells a person how to live his life. Logically, living is a value that is not only consistent with it, but required for it as well. Any additional values may be judged by how well they promote life. For example, a totalitarian, utopian society can be considered as harmonious, but a place where any and all dissidents are killed is not conducive to life. Therefore, we value peace and harmony to the extent it makes life possible and better, but once it starts doing the opposite, like in oppressive regimes, we consider violence and chaos to be the better alternative.
Consider the parallel with science. Science tells you how nature works and technology is the application of scientific principles towards the goals of our choosing. Does the fact that we can choose what to apply those principles towards make science subjective? Are any and all technological goals equally arbitrary irrespective of whether they conform to the scientific concepts? Similarly, the legitimacy of our moral and value systems is determined by the degree of consistency.
(December 12, 2012 at 8:34 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: No, we do not - and I'm not certain we could have one even if we wanted one.
As to the rape question - I'd turn that around on the questioner, and pose this questions (asked in the context of a world without an real or imaginary deity): Are you saying that we would be unjustified as a society in prohibiting and punishing rape?
To me, the answer is a resouding no, we would not be unjustified, because we as an empathetic society value our society free from rape. Why? Because we do.
Except, that is clearly not a universal view. Your justification would be valid if everyone in the society was empathetic and wanted a society free from rape - which, clearly, the rapists don't.
