Where do atheists get their morality from?

[genkaus]

This does not make any sense to me, for a moral value serves the purpose of the prescriber of said moral value. How would that value have any purpose independently of its prescriber? Is it to say these ideas, like 'good,' just exists on its own?

Allow me to demonstrate by example. The purpose of a knife is to cut. A prescriber is not required if the objective is inherent to the object itself. Another example would be - one of the purposes of science is to discover and explain truths about nature. While there may have been a prescriber originally who developed the philosophical basis for this very purpose, he is no longer required and the purpose has become inherent to the object itself.

Correct, as it does apply to God, for he is in fact independent of all entities, thus would be objective as you define.

Your hypothetical god may exist independently from all entities, but his morality is still dependent on him and is therefore subjective. We are not talking about the objectivity of god but that of his morality.

[stephenmills1000]

Allow me to demonstrate by example. The purpose of a knife is to cut. A prescriber is not required if the objective is inherent to the object itself. Another example would be - one of the purposes of science is to discover and explain truths about nature. While there may have been a prescriber originally who developed the philosophical basis for this very purpose, he is no longer required and the purpose has become inherent to the object itself.

Correct, as it does apply to God, for he is in fact independent of all entities, thus would be objective as you define.

Your hypothetical god may exist independently from all entities, but his morality is still dependent on him and is therefore subjective. We are not talking about the objectivity of god but that of his morality.

I have used many a knife as an impromptu screwdriver or pry bar before! Assigning this sort of purpose, this intrinsic value, makes it some sort of agent. What are the consequences to the object when it violates its purpose? Further, what is the purpose of water? I think you will find that one cannot escape that prescription of value to objects are repsective to the purpose of the agent utilizing the object.

The second point is incorrect, for this discussion is about moral ontology, not moral epistemology, specifically that which is God's. Do you not agree, that it is better to base values on an authority (maybe it doesn't have to be God, for argument's sake) that is independent of those which are agents responsible for carrying out the values themselves?

[Simon Moon]

At any rate, my morals are based on God’s revelation in Scripture. I have good reason to believe that Scripture is a revelation from God, that God’s commands to us supply our moral duties. Moral duties are rooted in the divine commands; values are rooted in God’s nature, therefore objective because they are rooted in God’s commands and nature.

So, in the spirit of the OP, where do you get your morals from?

Are you saying that without the above belief, you'd be an immoral s**hole?

If so, then I'm glad you have your beliefs.

[genkaus]

I have used many a knife as an impromptu screwdriver or pry bar before!

That doesn't negate its intrinsic purpose. An object can have more than one purpose.

Assigning this sort of purpose, this intrinsic value, makes it some sort of agent.

No it doesn't, since it still cannot act on its own.

What are the consequences to the object when it violates its purpose?

How would it violate its purpose?

Further, what is the purpose of water?

Not everything has an intrinsic purpose.

I think you will find that one cannot escape that prescription of value to objects are repsective to the purpose of the agent utilizing the object.

Unless the purpose is ineherent to the object itself.

The second point is incorrect, for this discussion is about moral ontology, not moral epistemology, specifically that which is God's. Do you not agree, that it is better to base values on an authority (maybe it doesn't have to be God, for argument's sake) that is independent of those which are agents responsible for carrying out the values themselves?

Most certainly not. Ontologically speaking, morality cannot exist without a consciousness defining it - thus no morality would be objective. If it depends upon a conscious entity, it is subjective. It wouldn't matter if that conscious entity itself exists independently or what it is.

As for the second point - basing one's values on an authority is the most demeaning thing one can do to oneself. A rational person would try to understand his own nature and that of his environment and base his values on that. An irrational person may choose to act on range of the moment whims and desires, but atleast he is basing his values on himself. What you ask here is for a person to subvert his own nature and desires - without so much as a reason given, but on authority - and to substitute one's own rationality and judgment for someone else's. What could be more demeaning?

[stephenmills1000]

Can you help me understand what you mean by "arbitrary"? Do you mean to say "subjective"?

If so, to answer that question, I first need to understand what is meant by its alternative, "objective morality". To me, "objective" means measurable in ways not subject to personal tastes, values or opinions. How would one measure moral values without invoking values? It seems to me that, by definition, "objective morality", or "objective values", is an oxy-moron.

By "objective morality" can one plug numbers into a spreadsheet and calculate the correct moral course of action? Is there any way one could come up with units of measure for moral worth?

The closest I've ever seen to an answer for these questions came from Jeremy Bentham and his utilitarian principle. He posited that there was a sum total of pleasure and pain in the universe and that which increased the sum total of pleasure or reduced the sum total of pain was morally correct. This would involve the hypothetical units of measure by which morality could be objectively evaluated. There are, of course, problems with Bentham's model. To use a movie as a hypothetical example: If Sarah Conner murdered Miles Dyson, an innocent scientist who would unwittingly create killer robots that would later cause a nuclear war, one murder would potentially save 3 billion lives. This might seem a bargain mathematically but could it really justify an act of murder? Overall, I liked Bentham's ideas but, as with other moral philosophies I've read about, it doesn't cover all the bases.

Additionally, the very use of words we employ in our discussion of morality reveal that, on some level, we all realize that morality is a subjective matter. For example, we speak of "moral judgment". If morality were objective, it would require no judgment. It could be measured and understood in empirical terms. Subjectivity involves personal "judgment" by definition.

Invoking a god does nothing to make morality any more objective. Your god makes the rules, does he? What makes his judgment the right one?

The fact that he's big and powerful? Does might make right?

The fact that he's wise and understand all things? If morality exists outside of God to be evaluated and potentially understood by God's wisdom, can it not be discovered without God's wisdom? And if morality exists independent of God, than that which is good would still be good even if God went away or turned out never to have existed.

Or do you mean that goodness is "grounded into his very nature" (whatever that means)? How is this not circular reasoning, that you've defined "good" as "consistent with God's will" and so we say "God is good" meaning "God wills what God wills" and we know "God's will is good because good is what God wills"?

This is why GodWillsit is no more satisfying to our understanding of morality than GodDidIt is satisfying to our understanding of science.

Many atheists when they discuss this issue, even notables like Sam Harris, fall into the trap of Christian "either-or" thinking. Either morality is objective or "anything goes". This is one of many examples where Christians are seemingly programmed to look at reality in stark black-and-white where there are more options than their false dichotomies allow.

Secularists recognize that morality is a function of how we treat our fellow beings. It is our sense of empathy for the pain others feel as well as for our sense of connection with one another in a community that should guide or moral compass. I say "should" because religion by its nature tends to muddy the waters by prioritizing admonishments against victimless crimes like blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy over more legitimate concerns.

Morality is, as far as I can tell (and I'm open to arguments on this point), subjective. I do not take this to mean "anything goes" but rather that it can be a complex matter that requires our empathy, sense of compassion and other forms of judgment. Religion is neither necessary nor helpful in forming good moral judgment.

I mean 'arbitrary' as subject to the individual without restriction, contingent solely upon one's own discretion. For example, if I claim "chocolate is better than vanilla," that does nothing to make that an objective truth, thus it is arbitrary.

Objective morality would mean right or wrong independent of whether anyone thinks so or not. I don't see how measurement applies here: this discussion is about moral ontology, that is the basis of our moral values, not applied ethics.

Yes, morality has a subjective nature- in its ontology. The question is asking what determines our moral values, what is the basis for those values and duties. I would reject the notion that morality, upon being objective (or even subjective for that matter), can be empirically measured or understood statistically. Just because we can statisically measure how many people get their beliefs from some place, does absolutely nothing to undermine the truth of those beliefs. This would commit the Genetic Fallacy. I may have gotten my morals from fortune cookies, but that doesn't do anything to say my moral beliefs are therefore untrue.

Wouldn't you agree, if God exists, that by definition he would be an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal being? Bear in mind, this is not asking what your opinion is on what his track record is, or what execution of said attributes should look like. The question is: if God exists, do you agree that God must possess those attributes listed in order to be so defined as God?

In examining those attributes then, wouldn't it be altogether rational to deem such an independent being as a viable authority in our lives? Again, this is not an argument over God's character, for yes, if you believed the God someone else believed in did not measure up to those attributes (all-loving, for instance), then you would be rational in believing God didn't exist.

To your last 2 points:
What basis do you have to trust your empathy, or is it just arbitrary (see above definition)? If it's arbitrary, why 'should' everyone else adhere to your views on how to be moral?

Your utilitarianism/ Sarah Connor analogy concern in a way relates to your point about the admonishments of those so called "victimless" crimes- how could anyone possibly know how any of those things will affect someone else? Think chaos theory/butterfly effect (and your analogy for that matter). Just because you do not see the immediate effects of an action, doesn't mean there aren't any. And unless one can travel to the future (one would have to at every point in the future), we have no way of knowing how what we do now will affect everyone else, thus no rational way to determine with absolution, how to reduce pain & suffering.

Your next point does in fact answer: "Morality is, as far as I can tell..., subjective." In which case, this does not obligate anyone to adhere to your proposal about empathy & sense of connection.

If morality is in fact subjective in this socio-relational sense (like you, I am open to arguments on this point [though what I've heard seems grim]), then it would follow that no one has any basis to condemn or criticize another person for their actions. They would merely be "different from what you would do." Thus, on this view, Catholic priests molesting those boys were not objectively wrong per se, just acting different to how you would conduct yourself. Is this what you're willing to subscribe to?

[thesummerqueen]

That's because I'm an honest Christians. Many Christians, I believe, are dishonest with themselves.

Pleased to meet you, peach.

[genkaus]

Wouldn't you agree, if God exists, that by definition he would be an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal being? Bear in mind, this is not asking what your opinion is on what his track record is, or what execution of said attributes should look like. The question is: if God exists, do you agree that God must possess those attributes listed in order to be so defined as God?

No. The listed attributes are not only incompatible with reality, they are incompatible with each-other. If you are listing these attributes as tautological, then by definition god would not exist.

In examining those attributes then, wouldn't it be altogether rational to deem such an independent being as a viable authority in our lives?

No. Why would it be rational?

[stephenmills1000]

No. The listed attributes are not only incompatible with reality, they are incompatible with each-other. If you are listing these attributes as tautological, then by definition god would not exist.

Can you expound for me a bit? Can you define what you mean or view "reality" to be?

[downbeatplumb]

Morality rooted in ancient texts has the unfortunate inability to move with the times.
As a result the morality of the bible and koran are full of outrageous things that should not be tolerated in modern societies.
I am talking of the shamefull treatment of homosexuals and the subdugation of women, which seem to be a common themes for these mysogynistic sects of old.

I am also sure that people pick and choose which parts of the bible to 'base their morals' on.

Look at Leviticus its hilarious.

[DeistPaladin]

Good discussion so far. To save space, I like to quote just the portion of the post I'm responding to. Quoting an entire post, especially one as lengthy as ours in this discussion, seems cumbersome especially since everyone can read it for themselves just a few posts back.

Just a suggestion.

Objective morality would mean right or wrong independent of whether anyone thinks so or not. I don't see how measurement applies here: this discussion is about moral ontology, that is the basis of our moral values, not applied ethics.

I suppose my background as a businessman is influencing my discussion of morality. I typically think of "objective" as measurable. "Sales were $XYZ last month" is an objective statement. "Our salesperson is doing a good job" is a subjective evaluation, one hopefully backed up by objective or empirical evidence.

I tend to see any evaluation of anything as "good" or "bad" as being subjective in nature. This doesn't mean it's whatever anyone says it is. You can make a subjective evaluation and have objective or statistical evidence to back up your claim so that you can make your case that your subjective judgment is rational. For example, if I make the statement, "we have a good salesperson working for us" and the objective data shows sales are down, I have a harder time making a rational case for my subjective evaluation. If, however, the data shows that sales are up, the evaluation is easier to defend.

Wouldn't you agree, if God exists, that by definition he would be an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal being?

As a deist myself, I would say "no", "no", "no", "no" and "not necessarily" respectively. That may be hard for you to understand but I can explain.

The term "God" only means "First Cause" or the mysterious mind behind the Big Bang, one that may have tweaked our evolution so that we would form these advanced brains, opposible thumbs and our sense of community and fair play, the combination of which have enabled us to create this civilization which we now enjoy. As impressive as the universe is to me, the only qualities one must attribute to "God" are "conscious" and "powerful enough to get the ball rolling".

Further, I might add that the "omni" words are prone to paradox. I'm sure you've heard the "God and the rock" problem.

Finally, the god you describe clearly does not exist. If God is omnipotent, why evolution? God could have simply poofed us into existence in our current form. If God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omni-benevolent, whence commeth evil?

There are, of course, different theoddicies you can invoke to answer this question but the simpler explanation is that clearly God is not perfect. That's fine with me but you may feel differently.

In examining those attributes then, wouldn't it be altogether rational to deem such an independent being as a viable authority in our lives?

I'm not sure I follow your argument. It might help me if you would clarify which of the three scenarios you believe:

1. God decides what is moral and sets the rules for what is good.
   
2. God evaluates what is moral and wills things because they are good
   
3. God's will is how we define what is good and so God is good because God wills what God wills
   

Pick one and we'll discuss further. If you wish to save time, none of these answers will put theistic morality on a more solid footing than secular morality.

What basis do you have to trust your empathy, or is it just arbitrary (see above definition)? If it's arbitrary, why 'should' everyone else adhere to your views on how to be moral?

As with my discussion above on the "good salesperson", I'd be open to any rational discussion on any topic. My moral judgment may be wrong and, if it is, we can exchange reasons why.

To use your pedophile priests example, I'm quite outspoken about how wrong that is. To justify my evaluation, I would point out how it victimizes a child and how it harms them both in the short term and long term. The "social contract" is a useful tool in discussing issues like these.

Your utilitarianism/ Sarah Connor analogy concern in a way relates to your point about the admonishments of those so called "victimless" crimes- how could anyone possibly know how any of those things will affect someone else? Think chaos theory/butterfly effect (and your analogy for that matter). Just because you do not see the immediate effects of an action, doesn't mean there aren't any. And unless one can travel to the future (one would have to at every point in the future), we have no way of knowing how what we do now will affect everyone else, thus no rational way to determine with absolution, how to reduce pain & suffering.

Your use of the unforeseen future to justify religions obsession with victimless crimes seems to smack of an argument from ignorance (also known as "The Lord works in mysterious ways" argument). If we were to debate the reasons why blasphemy is morally wrong, the burden of proof would be on you to show reasons to think so.

If morality is in fact subjective in this socio-relational sense (like you, I am open to arguments on this point [though what I've heard seems grim]), then it would follow that no one has any basis to condemn or criticize another person for their actions. They would merely be "different from what you would do." Thus, on this view, Catholic priests molesting those boys were not objectively wrong per se, just acting different to how you would conduct yourself. Is this what you're willing to subscribe to?

Absolutely not, and this was my point in saying "subjective =/= anything goes".

This issue comes up when atheists condemn certain cruel religious practices, such as "honor killings" as practiced in certain Islamic countries. Such practices are considered "normal" in their culture but I have no problem saying they are morally wrong. To justify that evaluation, I can point to the cruelty of the practice, how it violates the rights of the woman, how it destroys a life and what that life might have brought, how it sows fear into society.