Can objective morality exist in Atheism?

[objectivitees]

To say that morality is "objective" is to say that notions of "right" and "wrong" are universal and fixed for all times. What are "right" and "wrong" today will be that way for all times and all cultures.

Objective morality is a problem for evolution because some evolutionary theorists believe that our sense of right and wrong develop historically, and that it is open to change as we evolve throughout the generations. If it is the case that our brain develops over thousands and thousands of years, some evolutionary thinkers might say, then our understanding of right and wrong might change as well.

Accordingly some evolutionary thinkers base their understanding of ethics on genes (See the book "The Selfish Gene"). If it is the case that genes and evolution determine what morality is, then it is difficult to see how it can be universal for all places and times and for all "variations" of the human species. If "reason" is historically conditioned, then even our capacity to reason might change as well.

You should be aware, though, that "evolution" does not mean the same as progress. It might be the case that we will evolve further, but that does not mean what we will evolve into will be "better" than what we are. Evolution is an adaptation to one's environmental changes, not necessarily a self-improvement process though in many cases the way we evolve might indeed benefit us in the long run.

Wow, Darwinian, I think that's the first time I ever agreed with everything an Atheist wrote in a single post!

Objective morality cannot exist in an Atheist/Evolutionist reality. I don't think most atheists would disagree with that. The "problem" (your word not mine) as I see it is that if moral value judgments are subjective, then they are nothing more than my opinion about a particular behavior. My "opinion" in no way relates to reality in that if morality is not universal, in a very real sense it (morality) does not exist. There would be no ultimate (moral) difference between choosing to murder or not to murder. (though there may be societal repercussions)

How then, does the Atheist resolve this dilemma? Any attempt to define terms becomes hopelessly mired in one "definition" being dependent on the "definition" of other value laden words, condemning the whole process to relativity, where no absolute definition can be obtained. In reality, one ends up reasoning in a great big circle, and we all know the logical fallacy of "begging the question", do we not?