RE: Can objective morality exist in Atheism?
February 18, 2010 at 3:21 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2010 at 3:22 pm by tavarish.)
(February 18, 2010 at 2:37 pm)objectivitees Wrote:Quote:The Golden rule is NOT a moral in itself,
Yes it is. It says treating others good is right, treating others bad is wrong. That's a "moral" value to live by, just like saying "murder is wrong".
It is a principle on which morality is based, but the morality itself is subjective. The only thing it reinforces is surviving and procreating as a species. The golden rule is instinctive.
Good and bad are purely subjective, and those can be regarded as morals.
I'll give you an example:
In order to gain acceptance to a gang, you need to kill a member of an opposing gang or innocent individual. This not only allows murder, it encourages it as a moral practice within the society. This would greatly differ from the values of good and bad in other regions and parts of the world. What is bad for one, may be seen as good for someone else.
"Murder is wrong" is not objective, as there are plenty of examples where murder is advocated, especially in modern society:
Capital punishment
Suicide bombings
Self-defense
Times of war
It is subjective, morality changes as you change points of view.
(February 18, 2010 at 2:37 pm)objectivitees Wrote:I'll play along.Quote:Morality is subjective.
Great. That's all I was trying to discern from you. On that basis, (that morals are subjective) is there a way to define right and wrong in Atheism?
Societal norms coupled with personal experience dictate an individual's morals. You cannot have an objective right and wrong anywhere. That doesn't mean subjectively, it's not dictated by anything.