Where do atheists get their morality from?

[Minimalist]

I didn't have anything specific in mind for the meanings of these words, but here is something to work with:
absolute = the same for all people all the time.
external = originating from outside the person.

I'm curious. Is there a single human activity which you assert meets those criteria?

[idunno]

How does a Christian encourage someone to blaspheme God? O.o

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

How does a Christian encourage someone to blaspheme God? O.o

Simply by turning up here and spewing forth the same tedious,repetitious drivel ad nauseum et ad infinitum.

[idunno]

equivocation of the word "how", I'm calling foul. :p

[Cyberman]

I think most of the people here have argued that morality is subjective and has its origins with individual thinking and evolutionary predispositions. This isn't the result I expected with my OP. I believed most atheists felt that there are overriding moral principles that could be called objective.

I could grant that there are sets of moral principles which, by virtue of being external to myself, can be considered objective. They're called the law and society as a whole. All your questions seem to be missing this "social" element. Would you like someone to smack you in the mouth for no reason other than they felt like it? I'm guessing not, because you know it would hurt, cause you distress and harm, and would generally be not a very pleasant experience. Thus, you don't want to do the same to someone else. You know they wouldn't like it. I'm not saying a smack in the mouth isn't justified occasionally, just that people don't go around doing harm to each other just because they can. That's where the mores of society come in, a desire to belong. Conversely, we tend to lock up people who do cause us harm, either on a personal level or a societal one. That's where laws come in, if you hadn't already guessed.

It's not just a case of "if it feels good, do it" simply because you can. Neither do you need an incredibly morally-questionable rulebook to tell you what not to do. I've said it before, but even as an atheist, I don't tend to wake up each morning and have to be told not to go out robbing and killing and raping, however much enjoyment I may get from those things (if I was an anti-social jerk or a priest or something).

If our morality is in a large part defined by evolution, how can we trust ourselves to make a subjective moral judgement. Isn't moral judgement then just the reflexive neural response of an electromechanical ape-like meat machine?

No more than a violin concerto is the sound of horse hair scraping across 'cat gut'*. In the end, every animal function comes down to neurological responses, just as everything in the Universe, from sunsets to supernovae, come down to interactions between sub-sub-atomic particles and whatever lies beyond. Merely reducing something to its fundamental elements takes nothing away from what it actually is.

Besides which, and I feel I'm leaving myself open to a kicking for this by someone who actually knows what the hell they're talking about, morality isn't in a large part defined by evolution; except insofar as we've evolved to be a species of social animal.

How can anyone claim the right to pass judgement on anyone else, since all morality would seem to have an equal footing?

Are you aware that in some societies, it is considered morally acceptable to eat dead relatives as a way of honouring them and their memory? That in some societies, it is considered morally acceptable for children to marry and start producing children as soon as they are physically capable of doing so, meaning that, in many cases, children as young as ten are having sex and getting pregnant? That in some societies it is considered morally acceptable to mutilate the genitals of babies, not only slicing off boys' foreskins but also girls' clitorises and labia as well, often resulting in severe trauma and even death? Those are just the tip (if you'll pardon the unintentional pun) of a very large moral relativity iceberg.

Clearly not many of those things would be acceptable in our 'enlightened' society; so, equally clearly, all morality does not seem to have an equal footing.

---

(* Yes, I know that the 'catgut violin strings' thing is an urban myth. I just didn't want to pedant a pithy phrase to death.)

[Atom]

I didn't have anything specific in mind for the meanings of these words, but here is something to work with:
absolute = the same for all people all the time.
external = originating from outside the person.

I think you're trying to re-work the definition of "objective" in order to rig the discussion.

Because I am a Christian I assume you know I believe in an external source for objective morality. I believe that an objective standard exists, is based on love and truth and follows from God's intrinsic nature. That isn't what I was interested in discussing, and trying to foist this idea on the people who frequent this forum would probably just get people mad.

I suspect you also know that apologists often use an argument for Christianity based on the existence of objective moral standards, but the prevailing opinion here is that no such objective moral values exist, so that argument wouldn't be the least bit convincing.

I just looked up the word "objective" and the word "external standard" isn't part of the definition. There are references of "external to the mind" (or of a beings opinions) but not "external standard".

I'm perfectly happy with that definition. External to the mind works fine.

...
But you want to sneak in "external standard" to the definition so you can say "God is external, ergo any rules he makes up are objective rules for us".

You are correct in saying that this is what I believe, but it wouldn't be constructive for me to argue my POV in this discussion.

Sorry, but that's not what we're discussing. "Objective morals" need to be independent of ANY being's feelings, thoughts, opinions, values, etc. That's one reason why theistic morality fails to gain any advantage over secular morality.

I agree, that isn't what we're discussing. I disagree with the conclusion that objective moral values cannot come from God, but that is because your conclusion comes from your deist worldview vs. my Christian worldview. Discussing this difference would be an interesting topic, but is rather out of scope for my OP.

And I maintain that "objective morals" is an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp", "unnecessary essentials" or "honest politician". Morals are based on values. Values are, by definition, subjective. So "objective morals" translates to "values not based on values".

I understand what you are saying, and think you are wrong. If it is ok with you perhaps we could discuss this some other time. I'm interested, just not right now.

---

(* Yes, I know that the 'catgut violin strings' thing is an urban myth. I just didn't want to pedant a pithy phrase to death.)

It's a good metaphor, and I liked it.

Most of your post seemed well reasoned, I don't disagree with most of what you said. I do have a problem with evolutionary explanations for morality, in part because they are ad hoc, but also because watching the complete indifference of animals to pain and suffering in each other seems to contradict the idea that humans being social animals, explains why humans value caring for each other. A lot of social animals get along fine with very little indications of benevolence toward each other so why should we think such benevolence is evolved in humans?

---

I didn't have anything specific in mind for the meanings of these words, but here is something to work with:
absolute = the same for all people all the time.
external = originating from outside the person.

I'm curious. Is there a single human activity which you assert meets those criteria?

Oxygen, food, and water, the genetic information that makes us human. I'm not sure I'd call morality a human activity, but I'm not sure this is what you're saying either.

[Boccaccio]

Well, I have discovered who looks after straw supply and constructions around here. In principle I have responses I should make to Vinny but the posts are seven pages back and other people seem to have covered off his obtuseness fairly well.

---

It appears that stephenmills1000 has disappeared, perhaps not wanting to answer the questions I raised in the last few paragraphs here.

Are you now the person with whom to speak, Atom? If so, would you mind taking up those questions on stephenmills behalf?

[Minimalist]

Oxygen, food, and water, the genetic information that makes us human. I'm not sure I'd call morality a human activity, but I'm not sure this is what you're saying either.

Okay. I'll re-phrase.

Xtians assert that their god tells them not to kill. Yet they do.

Xtians assert that their god tells them not to steal. Yet they do.

Xtians asssert that their god tells the not to lie. They do it all the time.

Cannibalism. Incest. Infanticide. Torture. Sex. Murder. All have at one time or another been practiced by entire human cultures.

What are you proposing as the exception?

[Boccaccio]

I think most of the people here have argued that morality is subjective and has its origins with individual thinking and evolutionary predispositions. This isn't the result I expected with my OP. I believed most atheists felt that there are overriding moral principles that could be called objective.

As discussed, I think that equivocation over objective is unhelpful. Ordinarily, and you are doing it here, theists set up a false dichotomy where if you are not taking it from god (and theists usually avoid that part of the question, see stephenmills1000) then the world is incapable of being ordered in any fashion. One might assume you think god is necessary to push tennis balls back to earth or for birds to flock in flight or fish to shoal, yet all of these are explicable by relatively simple behaviour rules without the fish checking up with god on which way to turn.

I have trouble even writing this first question in a coherent way because the term "better" calls for a subjective judgement, but here it is. If morality is subjective how can one person's view or one group's views be better than another?

By better fulfilling species moral objectives. Have you read Sam Harris on that? I personally think he pays insufficient attention to moral objectives themselves but his discussion of measurable and predictable strategies for achievement of them is sound.

If our morality is in a large part defined by evolution, how can we trust ourselves to make a subjective moral judgement. Isn't moral judgement then just the reflexive neural response of an electromechanical ape-like meat machine?

See above. Other than your god-belief, what makes you think you are not a deterministic ape-like meat machine?

How can anyone claim the right to pass judgement on anyone else, since all morality would seem to have an equal footing?

You may argue the relative value of moral objectives but for given objectives we can in many cases measure the success of strategies toward them, so the "equal footing" comment is no more pertinent than saying that if a god does not tell us to drink fresh water why would we not drink sea water? Because it does not work so well for our longer term survival.

---

Because I am a Christian I assume you know I believe in an external source for objective morality.

As I intimated earlier, I can readily provide you with an objective moral system not dependent on god. You will not like it, but it is objective as you define it, not relying on a human mind other than to accept that the moral rules. That is but one reason Craig's moral argument fails but that is not the topic here.

I do have a problem with evolutionary explanations for morality, ... because watching the complete indifference of animals to pain and suffering in each other seems to contradict the idea that humans being social animals, explains why humans value caring for each other.

Perhaps you would like to check your animal research before making claims like that. At least as far back as the mid-sixties, there was experimental rather than anecdotal evidence for one animal caring for another to its own detriment. This may interest you. There are studies on rats and I think rabbits which should also be available, if I recall correctly. Your presumption fails and you may need to reconsider the feasibility of moral objectives and rational behaviours toward their achievement.

[Cyberman]

@Atom: I'm not sure what you mean about "watching the complete indifference of animals to pain and suffering in each other seems to contradict the idea that humans being social animals, explains why humans value caring for each other." If this means what I think it does, have you ever seen the behaviour of, say, a pack of dogs fighting another? Or a band (not flange!) of gorillas defending their territory? Social animals, those who form and act together in groups for mutual protection and other benefits, certainly don't just watch pain and suffering in each other with complete indifference. I have seen footage of chimpanzees mourning their dead, or at least behaving in a way which we would recognise as mourning, or comforting an injured comrade.

At one point our family had three dogs of varying ages: Elly (rough collie cross) the new kid on the block; William (Welsh Springer spaniel) the cocky teen; and Ben (???) the Min of the bunch. When Ben died, both William and Elly behaved in a manner consistent with mourning; they kept very quiet, were very reserved and even 'respectfully' avoided using Ben's food bowl. Much the same sort of thing happened with Elly on her own when William died years later. Now of course much of this they could have picked up from the way we were behaving, and it's all too easy to anthropomorphise non-human reactions. Also they were missing a playmate. Still, their behaviour and similar ones I have observed in other animals, particularly footage of those in the wild with no human interaction, cannot in all honesty be dismissed so quickly.

On a final note, I have to say that I do wish you would refrain from this notion of "evolutionary explanations for morality". Evolution may, in fact almost certainly must, play a part in developing systems of morality, but a part is not the whole picture. Put it this way. One human child growing up in the jungle all by itself, assuming it knew enough to find food and water, shelter and so on, probably won't develop much of a moral code beyond "must kill or else be killed". Put a whole group of children in the jungle to fend for themselves and suddenly the picture has changed; now you've got a species-related tribe all looking out for each other. If they hunt as a group, the reward is more food to go around, better animal skins to fashion into clothing to keep warm. If an individual acts against the interests of the group, say steals more food than s/he needs such that others go hungry, that individual may be better off for their selfish actions but the tribe as a whole suffers; now everyone goes hungry until the next dangerous hunt, which some of them might not survive. It's not too much of a stretch to picture that individual being banished from the group for their transgression - or worse, being killed and perhaps eaten.

In other words, yes evolution may be at play. However, species that evolve to be social animals, unless they have some special gift such as venom or pointy teeth and the nous to use them efficiently, are always going to have the edge over their environment. It follows that what we like to call morality develops from that group instinct as an emergent property. I don't know as I can put it any more plainly without repeating myself or treating my audience (is there anybody there..?) as total morons.