Where do atheists get their morality from?

[DeistPaladin]

This proposal that through our evolution we can now better evaluate moral issues is highly dubious. The fact is there is no metric in existence that can tell us if we're doing a 'better' job or not, objectively.

I think the case couldn't be more clear. Prior to the 20th century, what we now call "wars of aggression" was a normal part of political life. Today, it is recognized as and prosecuted as a "war crime". Progress.

Two hundred years ago, slavery was an accepted institution in many parts of America and defended (often times using the Bible, btw). Today, it is recognized as an abhorrent practice. Progress.

So when I say we are evolving morally, it is in recognizing how certain actions create pain and violate the rights of others

I'm afraid this does lend itself to an "anything goes" system. There has been nothing presented to objectively justify otherwise, only reasons found arbitrary. The "Social Contract" is not necessarily obligating- there's nothing to say people cannot go off on their own and begin their own society with a different set of values- who then are you to say they are "wrong?" What if precisely half the world felt rape and slavery is ok? Who is right?

I'm having a little trouble here getting across my carefully articulated point that not all subjective opinions are equal. I can try repeating that some subjective opinions can be supported by objective data and logical argument while others can't but would there be any point? I'm not sure why you're not understanding what I'm telling you.

Your assertions concerning the origin of "Do unto others..." and how Muslims may 'feel' about their law does nothing to undermine the truth of the law, or one's obligation to it. That would commit the genetic fallacy.

How?

Ultimately, this view places a great deal of faith on mankind to "do the right thing." Incidentally, I have faith we will, for I believe God has written the moral code on all our hearts (Romans 2:14-15), but what assurance does the non-believer have?

You can believe that our conscience is a divine imprint or telepathic message from our Creator if you wish but I don't see how that strengthens your case. If we as humans are programmed with a conscience, what need have we of religion?

You say you believe morals are personally-relative, but honestly I think your backpedalling and appeals to authorities of statistics and/or social contracts betrays this feeling, and that you really feel objective moral values do exist!

And again, I'm having to repeat myself here. I've said over and over that yes, morality is subjective and, no, that doesn't mean "anything goes". Not all subjective evaluations are equal and that which is an evaluation can be supported or derailed by logical argument and objective data.

Also, to date, I have never received a satisfactory explanation of what "objective morals" would even be, as the very phrase seems an oxymoron.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

If anyone has any question on Islam and how Muslims view things, just let me know. I see that it has come up. I've studied a bit of the matter, and it's actually quite interesting. Just let me know if you're interested.

[Boccaccio]

I have moral objectives related to staying alive and breeding and taking pleasure in the exercise of my senses and abilities and, remarkably enough, these objectives prove best satisfied by treating other people well rather than by casual murder or abuse. The theist notion that radiating circles of interest lead inexorably to mutual destruction is just plain silly really. Does that really need to be discussed?

My strategies include those I mentioned in that earlier post. You can toss a bit of Kant into the following although I am not trying to be rigorous here.
-
If you can identify that then you can measure the success of strategies toward those objectives using principles of utility and consequences, for example.

While noble objectives, I don't see any objective prescription of what you "ought" to do other than what is only self-identified, making your values and duties arbitrary.

Your "ought" appears to be power-based alone.
Saying "only self-identified" and "arbitrary" appears to me to be undertaking significant effort on your part to miss the point, although I see that DP is having similar problems bringing you to understand much the same point.

Given objectives, as a very simple case "the survival of a social species largely unable to fend for itself other than by using its brain co-operatively", success of behaviours can be measured. If, within that learning, I adopt "only self-identified" and "arbitrary" behaviours, especially those demonstrably unsuccessful, I will soon find myself in great pain and most probably out of the breeding pool.

No individual entity has to tell me what I ought to do if I have evolved, can perceive, and can learn culturally, what are successful behaviours. Is that really so hard a point?

Someone may see things differently than you- are they wrong?

Which of us is wrong is measurable in accord with the moral objectives.

Couldn't a case be made that foricble copulation is a 'good' method of staying alive, breeding, and taking pleasure in the exercise with regards to one's survival?

Demonstrably, this is not a successful strategy for humans. Why do you ignore this fact?

Especially if it produces a citizen of the world who makes significant beneficial contributions- something that could and would certainly be a measured success. Is the preservation of one woman's liberty worth precluding a benefit of the world? Your view doesn't suggest it is.

Oh dear, you are right of course. I will get out there and start raping on the off-chance I may conceive a beneficial citizen.
What a pity that the behaviour entailed will ensure that the person conceived is unlikely to have any chance to progress beyond the social norms of stone-age hunter-gatherers.

It is (supposedly) divine-command morality which faces exactly the problem of likely damaging behaviours. Human group morality gradually learns to avoid these problems.

(I have taken an example of objective morality to another post).

In the meantime I will further my own: Indeed, my moral judgement is stripped of me- judgment is reserved to that which is a more knowledgable, more powerful, more loving, universe-creating, eternal being. Being a fallible and imperfect human I am (end everyone I posit), better the world is for having such an authority rule over mine. Which in part answers your following question(s):

If [you obtain your morality from] the bible, how do you determine what is true or literal, symbolic or false, or human error in the transcription?

If [from] godly commands, by what means do you receive them?

As I have stated, 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.

You select and reinterpret scripture on which to base your ideas of morality, and you assume your perfect god changes his mind, or else you would still be behaving in accord with Leviticus and still promoting slavery. Further, you can not offer any means on which you make one reinterpretation or another, other than to say that whatever happens it is your fault and your god remains perfect.

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.

I recognise that you take the second horn of Euthyphro, that it is good because your god loves it. Incidentally, does your god control his own nature?

---

Are you really saying, Stephen, that the determinant of whether something is objectively moral depends on it being dependent on something which is independent of you?

Yes.

If so, I can provide you with a perfectly objective morality, not dependent on any mind beyond that you have agreed to follow the rules emerging. To say the only objective morality comes from a deity is false. To say morality comes from a deity serves only the purpose of absolute followership, like any dictatorship, and strips your moral judgement from you leaving you only to follow orders.

You could be right! I await your case.

Stephenmills1000 has agreed that the determinant of whether something is objectively morali is that it is dependent on something which is independent of him. He has also agreed that such a morality must not depend on any mind beyond that he has agreed to follow the rules emerging. Very well, on those terms I give you objective moralty, as follows:

1. All preceding moral decisions are binding and may not be re-asked.
2. All moral questions are framed for a yes or no answer.
3. All of the these questions are answered by the high flip of a fair coin, heads for no and tails for yes.

Anything wrong with that, Stephen? Do you think, perhaps, it might not actually produce moral results? I submit that it will because the fair coin has goodness as its nature. Can you show otherwise?

Any questions?

The main difference in your notion of objective morality is that preceding decisions are not binding, your god changing his mind exactly when you do, as you can read in the paper in my third link here.

---

God would be an unemobodied mind or consciousness. It has no "parts" or "pieces," so you wouldn't get any more simple than that I presume. This does not preclude God's thoughts and ideas- the functions of the mind- from being complex themselves.

From time to time I forget about this quaint notion of theists about disembodied minds.

Stephen, can you point me to reliable instances of a functional mind without a functioning brain?

If not, why do you make this shit up?

Thanks.

---

The fact is there is no metric in existence that can tell us if we're doing a 'better' job or not, objectively.

It is trivial to define this objectively. You object only because you want the angels of the lord to flutter down to tell you instead.

In fact, thanks to the advent of technology, I'm sure we can marshal such statistical evidence that you have placed such a premium on, and find that if anything we've become more efficient at killing people in the last 2 centuries, citing the enormous body counts of several regimes during this period.

Please go to your library and take out "Better Angels of Our Nature" by Pinker. It is not about religion but about the steady decline in violence in our societies and inferential reasons for that.

It is interesting that despite our vastly more efficient methods of killing people, we are less likely to die a violent death than ever before in history. This, incidentally, coincides with gradually increasing atheism and is evident in the most secular societies. I do not claim atheism is the reason (see Pinker for reasons) but I note that the result is precisely contrary to the fervid beliefs of religious people.

[stephenmills1000]

Your "ought" appears to be power-based alone.

Only somewhat correct. If God exists, he is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and I am only a contingent being. As such, it would only make sense to place my duties and obligations in the hands of that which creates and sustains such a place wherein I live, does it not? When independently visiting another country (that is to say not in some sort of 'exchange' program or the like), the laws of my land do not take precedence.

Saying "only self-identified" and "arbitrary" appears to me...

I don't feel I need to point out the irony in this statement.

No individual entity has to tell me what I ought to do if I have evolved, can perceive, and can learn culturally, what are successful behaviours.

What I am not understanding is here, you eschew the need for an independent entity to inform your moral duties, saying what you yourself discover via observation & experience will suffice. That's all well and good, however you then turn around and make appeals to entities independent of yourself [emphases mine]:

Which of us is wrong is measurable in accord with the moral objectives.

Demonstrably, this is not a successful strategy for humans.

Human group morality gradually learns to avoid these problems.

You select and reinterpret scripture on which to base your ideas of morality, and you assume your perfect god changes his mind, or else you would still be behaving in accord with Leviticus and still promoting slavery.

These are misplaced presumptions. Regarding the moral values and duties, I see no evidence God has changed his mind. It is correct to say the law was fulfilled, as in Matthew 5:17, as well as Romans 3:31 and throughout that book.

Further, you can not offer any means on which you make one reinterpretation or another, other than to say that whatever happens it is your fault and your god remains perfect.

I may make the very same appeals you have regarding the 'strategies' and 'measured success' to help make that interpretation. Given I believe the law is written on our hearts/we have been imbued with a conscience, we should hardly find it surprising our moral discoveries often square with scripture. It is the atheist however, that lacks such a governing and immutable authority. There is nothing to say one must interpret 'the numbers' or 'the measurement' one way or another regarding moral duties.

I recognise that you take the second horn of Euthyphro, that it is good because your god loves it. Incidentally, does your god control his own nature?

Again, incorrect. That is a false dilemma – we don’t need to pick either of those two horns, but rather the correct alternative is to say that God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is what Plato called “The Good,” and his will expresses that toward us in the form of commandments which constitute our moral duties.

Stephenmills1000 has agreed that the determinant of whether something is objectively morali is that it is dependent on something which is independent of him. He has also agreed that such a morality must not depend on any mind beyond that he has agreed to follow the rules emerging. Very well, on those terms I give you objective moralty, as follows:

1. All preceding moral decisions are binding and may not be re-asked.
2. All moral questions are framed for a yes or no answer.
3. All of the these questions are answered by the high flip of a fair coin, heads for no and tails for yes.

Anything wrong with that, Stephen? Do you think, perhaps, it might not actually produce moral results? I submit that it will because the fair coin has goodness as its nature. Can you show otherwise?

You are certainly entitled to allow a coin flip to determine choice to moral dilemmas. However, the coin does not issue moral commands. Besides, your premise is flawed: what says that every moral dilemma requires a 'yes' or 'no' answer? For instance, is killing someone always bad? What about the death penalty? Or vegetative state cases? It requires your presuppositions to determine what are moral 'dilemmas' in the first place- it's plausible you would never not be flipping coins! Thus we see this argument is question-begging.

Stephen, can you point me to reliable instances of a functional mind without a functioning brain?

Though I would point out what the attributes of God, if he exists, would necessarily have to be, as well as near-death experiences, I am loath to head down this rabbit trail as it would significantly stray from the OP...

The fact is there is no metric in existence that can tell us if we're doing a 'better' job or not, objectively.

It is trivial to define this objectively.

If it is, then why is this ok to define objectively:

Which of us is wrong is measurable in accord with the moral objectives.

This is special pleading.

You object only because you want the angels of the lord to flutter down to tell you instead.

And this is ad hominum circumstantial.

It is interesting that despite our vastly more efficient methods of killing people, we are less likely to die a violent death than ever before in history. This, incidentally, coincides with gradually increasing atheism and is evident in the most secular societies. I do not claim atheism is the reason (see Pinker for reasons) but I note that the result is precisely contrary to the fervid beliefs of religious people.

I thank you for the reference.
You may reference this gentleman's site for statistics, adopted from Statistics of Democide: Atrocities done in the name of religion

As slandered as he has been here, I can't disagree with Vinny regarding the atheist moral landscape, when he says:

I'm arguing from a purely philosophical position, one where objective moral values don't exist. This is the default position of atheism from which our moral norms are derived. The problem is, our atheistic position cannot RATIONALLY reject the possibility of genocide, rape, murder and the likes being morally good. There is always the possibility. And more importantly, it's a metaphysical possibility, not just a logical one.

This is worrying for the rational atheists among us, and this is an area I am enormously interested in researching. My problem is, I need a better grasp of the fundamentals of ethics and moral studies.

[discordianpope]

I'm arguing from a purely philosophical position, one where objective moral values don't exist. This is the default position of atheism from which our moral norms are derived. The problem is, our atheistic position cannot RATIONALLY reject the possibility of genocide, rape, murder and the likes being morally good. There is always the possibility. And more importantly, it's a metaphysical possibility, not just a logical one.

This is worrying for the rational atheists among us, and this is an area I am enormously interested in researching. My problem is, I need a better grasp of the fundamentals of ethics and moral studies.

I don't buy this. But even if true, is a theist really in any better a position. I mean, if morality is based on God's will and God can will that genocide is moral, then well I guess a theist would just have to accept that. It's just the euthyphro dilemma. Either there are true moral propositions which exist independantly from God or God can make rape moral. This kind of theistic morality is as shifting and unsure as any secular morality.

[greneknight]

As slandered as he has been here, I can't disagree with Vinny regarding the atheist moral landscape, when he says:

I'm arguing from a purely philosophical position, one where objective moral values don't exist. This is the default position of atheism from which our moral norms are derived. The problem is, our atheistic position cannot RATIONALLY reject the possibility of genocide, rape, murder and the likes being morally good. There is always the possibility. And more importantly, it's a metaphysical possibility, not just a logical one.

This is worrying for the rational atheists among us, and this is an area I am enormously interested in researching. My problem is, I need a better grasp of the fundamentals of ethics and moral studies.

When I first read what you wrote, I asked myself who the writer might be. Everyone knows Vinny is a Christian who pretends to be an atheist. Vinny has not denied this allegation. Then I realized it was written by a Christian. Hahahaha!!!

What Vinny the Christian who pretends to be an atheist wrote is typical nonsense I've read in fundy websites. There is no objective morality in Christianity. In fact, if you read the Bible too much, you might really end up believing that God supports rape and carnage. A Christian who accuses an atheist of having the potential to commit rape and murder because of his stand that there is no objective morality is like a serial murderer who accuses someone of cheating on the parking meter. You don't know how much I cringe every time I read such self-righteous garbage.

[Boccaccio]

Your "ought" appears to be power-based alone.

Only somewhat correct. If God exists, he is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and I am only a contingent being. <etc>

Thank you for agreeing. This is no revelation.

Saying "only self-identified" and "arbitrary" appears to me...

I don't feel I need to point out the irony in this statement.

Whereas I do need to point out that you have quote-mined and misrepresented my text so as to make a false claim. The topic is where atheists get their morality but my statement from which you quote-mined the above deals specifically with your logical and perceptual failures noted by more than one responder to you. Are you trying to tell us here that you are not failing but that your misrepresentations are deliberate lies?

What I am not understanding is here, you eschew the need for an independent entity to inform your moral duties, saying what you yourself discover via observation & experience will suffice. That's all well and good, however you then turn around and make appeals to entities independent of yourself [emphases mine]:

Which of us is wrong is measurable in accord with the moral objectives.

Demonstrably, this is not a successful strategy for humans.

Human group morality gradually learns to avoid these problems.

The concept is simple. We are all people. For me in the above you can substitute any person. What else is a group, a society? I influence the behaviour of others as they influence me. The question, as DeistPaladin has also taken up extensively, is what behaviours show measurable success and how do we refine those behaviours and remove or control deleterious behaviours in society.

I see you have abandoned your contention that in subjective morality rape must be a good strategy. I guess you got that idea from the bible, where rape is sufficiently atoned by paying the father some shekels and marrying the victim. This would be the law fulfilled?

Why did god need slavery, rape, stonings and genocide fulfilled before he thought (in people's reinterpretations) that you did not need it any more? Why did god think that BCE Jews needed laws and legal systems more primitive than those of societies run by other gods? Isn't your god really a bit of a dumb dick?

I may make the very same appeals you have regarding the 'strategies' and 'measured success' to help make that interpretation.

Then god is otiose.
You have granted the correctness of a very early post here in answer to the question of where do atheists get their morality. From themselves, from society, the same as you do. You merely invent stories about it.

Given I believe the law is written on our hearts/we have been imbued with a conscience, we should hardly find it surprising our moral discoveries often square with scripture. It is the atheist however, that lacks such a governing and immutable authority.

Dead right we lack a governing and immutable authority. So do you, but you like the idea of a personal pixie to justify yourself when you decline to look at measurable results.

There is nothing to say one must interpret 'the numbers' or 'the measurement' one way or another regarding moral duties.

One measures in relation to moral objectives, not in vacuo. This is trivial to understand if you are not already over-laden with authoritarian assumptions.

That is a false dilemma – we don’t need to pick either of those two horns, but rather the correct alternative is to say that God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is what Plato called “The Good,” and his will expresses that toward us in the form of commandments which constitute our moral duties.

I asked you in there whether your god controlled his own nature. Please answer.

You are certainly entitled to allow a coin flip to determine choice to moral dilemmas. However, the coin does not issue moral commands. Besides, your premise is flawed: what says that every moral dilemma requires a 'yes' or 'no' answer? For instance, is killing someone always bad? What about the death penalty? Or vegetative state cases? It requires your presuppositions to determine what are moral 'dilemmas' in the first place- it's plausible you would never not be flipping coins! Thus we see this argument is question-begging.

Really? What question did it beg? I did not claim to present something I consider a sensible morality but I note that you protest vigorously against the result which, like me, you see as absurd. What you do not argue at all is my salient point, that it is an external basis for moral decisions independent from human judgement. A god is not needed for an "objective" morality but an "objective" morality without an epistemology and moral objectives is ludicrous. You are unable to produce a coherent set of moral strictures from the bible (churches were funding and running slavery only a few centuries ago) nor explain how they change other than by churches catching up with societies, with human subjectively refined morality, nor answer the Epley et al study to which I linked you and which you have here avoided.

If there is merit in your commands from god and from your bible, then you would hypothesise that christians would cope better with novel moral problems, would you not? If you agree, then I will point you to another study which falsifies that claim. If you do not agree that christians would perform better then allow me to introduce you to Ockham's Fucking Great Chainsaw. Your god-specific rather than human beliefs are demonstrably of no value to moral decisions.

Stephen, can you point me to reliable instances of a functional mind without a functioning brain?

Though I would point out what the attributes of God, if he exists, would necessarily have to be, as well as near-death experiences, I am loath to head down this rabbit trail as it would significantly stray from the OP...

Not working. Claiming that "god would have to be such-and-such" directly fails my request for an actual instance. Speaking even of near death experiences does not help you, despite that you would hope to interpret them favourably. When brain function ceases, yo iz ded, and there is no disembodied mind prancing about the place regardless of hallucinations experienced when the brain is close to shutdown.

It is trivial to define this objectively.

If it is, then why is this ok to define objectively:

Which of us is wrong is measurable in accord with the moral objectives.

This is special pleading.

Still confused about objectives and objective moral values, aren't you Stephen. There is no special pleading because I have not cited, claimed or supported at any point objective moral values as you define them. My statements are completely consistent, supporting optimisation of behaviours toward human objectives, which we grace with the word 'moral'.

You may reference this gentleman's site for statistics, adopted from Statistics of Democide:

Indeed I may, and his results through history are consistent with those published by Pinker. Indeed, Pinker may use some of his material. The question is not absolute numbers but death rates. The rate has been declining. As I said and you do not dispute, you are less likely to be killed by other people today than at any time in history.

As slandered as he has been here, I can't disagree with Vinny

I know you can't, and like Vinny, you are at a loss for arguments how it is that secular and atheist societies function increasingly well with increases in democracy, reduction in authoritarianism, rule of law, and overthrowing religious strictures born of patriarchal tribal societies with arse-licking beliefs in personal salvation over social good.

[Boccaccio]

I will not be reading or responding to posts on this thread for about four days, Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Have fun.

[stephenmills1000]

I look forward to your return. Until then, stay well!

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I'm arguing from a purely philosophical position, one where objective moral values don't exist. This is the default position of atheism from which our moral norms are derived. The problem is, our atheistic position cannot RATIONALLY reject the possibility of genocide, rape, murder and the likes being morally good. There is always the possibility. And more importantly, it's a metaphysical possibility, not just a logical one.

This is worrying for the rational atheists among us, and this is an area I am enormously interested in researching. My problem is, I need a better grasp of the fundamentals of ethics and moral studies.

I don't buy this. But even if true, is a theist really in any better a position. I mean, if morality is based on God's will and God can will that genocide is moral, then well I guess a theist would just have to accept that. It's just the euthyphro dilemma. Either there are true moral propositions which exist independantly from God or God can make rape moral. This kind of theistic morality is as shifting and unsure as any secular morality.

I wouldn't say a theist is in a necessarily better position simply by virtue of being a theist.

But having some external, objective source of morality, and having it being all-good gives one a transcendent source for morality. Now granted, the existence of such a being is questionable, and your objection per the euthyphro dilemma is a relevant one.

But hypothetically, all other things being equal, if the only difference was that the morality was dependent on an all-good God rather than human culture, it seems the theists are better off.

I say this in light of Aushcwitz, Rwanda, Dachau, Nanking, Khmer Rouge. As wonderful as it would be to deny that humanity is eminently capable of horrors given subjectivist views of the world, we can't deny this.

Looking at the local news near my own home town enough to remind us that moral subjectivism/relativism based on how we construct our own experience of reality is not as universally beneficial as we deem it to be.

I wish I could just go into his brain and find out how exactly he constructed his moral worldview.