Atheists only vote please: Do absolute MORAL truths exist? Is Rape ALWAYS "wrong"?

[Alex K]

I'm not fond of the topic at all, it triggers too many emotions especially by those affected, especially since the OP has such a strong agenda of some sorts and ignores
all the subtlety that such a delicate topic requires. I don't like the taste of that.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Absolute morals do not exist but I think rape is always wrong in every instance I can think of.

Others may disagree and there might be an instance where it isn't wrong and I can't think of it.

I'd also like to remind the OP that you can't stipulate who can and can't reply to your threads. I know you only want opinions from atheists but anyone can comment here.

Thanks.

[miniboes]

My apologies if what I say below has been said before, I have not read the whole thread.

I think there are absolute and objective morals, here's why:

I think all morals are based on conscious creatures, as if something cannot experience it has no interest in morality. A world with no life, with only rocks, or even a world with only rocks and plants, would have no morals. I think this is a pretty safe thing to say.

However, once you get conscious creatures, I think morals can be objective, Sam Harris does a very good job of explaining it in his book The Moral Landscape.

Let's say we take the worst possible scenario; the most possible suffering for everyone. I cannot think of anything worse than that. If that is objectively the worst possible scenario for all conscious creatures then everything that moves away from that is moral and everything that moves towards that is immoral. As rape causes suffering for the victim, I think it can be objectively considered immoral. In a case where the victim enjoys the rape, however, would not necessarily be immoral.

Basically I think there is one big absolute moral truth; to minimize suffering is good, to increase suffering is bad.

I am not sure if this is an adequate explanation, feel free to ask questions.

[Ryantology]

There are people and belief systems, such as the Abrahamic religions, that do not censure rape as an immoral activity.

There are no such things as 'universal moral truths', and I see no need to cite such a fantasy to say that I think something is morally incorrect.

[Ben Davis]

Hi Tsun Tsu,

---

I'm very sorry. In the last post I seem to have not made myself clear. I apologize for this. The information I am compiling is a comparative study on Theistic and Atheistic values and convictions, and their impact on society.

Also since it seems someone took me wrong when I said I wouldn't challenge the belief stated, I guess we can do that in this thread too if you like.

So the question... Does absolute universal moral truth exist? Is there ANYTHING where it can be said that it is morally true universally?

For instance: "Rape is ALWAYS wrong" <<<This would be considered a moral truth. Is it universally true? Is it true even if society deemed that rape was perfectly acceptable?

---

I've read all 11 pages, so-far, of this discussion and a few things have jumped out at me. So before we start:

1. You think there's an 'atheist' position on absolute/universal morality. Since atheism is solely a lack of belief in god/s, you will find that 'atheism' has absolutely nothing to say regarding morality. Consequently you will find that different individuals will offer different positions, dependent on their individual moral value-systems. You will find that the 'atheist' position is proportional to the acceptance of absolute/universal morality in a given cultural population. Additionally, it's worth remembering that some atheist value-systems are as rooted in supernaturality as theist ones.

2. You've conflated a/gnosticism with a/theism a couple of times. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

3. You've offered fuzzy definitions of the terms terms 'universal' & 'wrong' and you're clearly working with erroneous definitions of 'atheist' & 'agnostic'. You've also introduced other poorly defined terms which weren't in the OP (e.g. 'higher truth'). Others have picked you up on the details throughout this thread but you haven't really addressed those concerns. These definitions (or lack thereof) are causing you to argue at crossed-purposes with some people and will ultimately skew the validity of any statistical analysis.

So on to your question. A few definitions from me first:

Absolute/Universal - Applicable in all circumstance, irrespective of nuance or circumstance; non-subjective
Moral - concerning the principles of 'right' or 'wrong' behaviour; regarding the actions of 'moral agents'
Moral agents - those having moral agency; sentient beings who can differentiate between the potential consequences of their actions; beings who are capable of acting with reference to 'right' and 'wrong'
Right - correct; appropriate/justified. With reference to morality - positively valuable
Wrong - incorrect; inappropriate/unjustified. With reference to morality - negatively valuable

My position is that there are no absolute moral truths in our current stage of social development; all moral actions are necessarily subjective because there always exists the possibility of someone taking an action which is both positively valuable or 'right' (e.g. provides an immediate personal benefit) and is negatively valuable or 'wrong' (e.g. creates a victim). I hold this position as true for non-human moral agents, too (e.g. wild dogs, who clearly have moral agency but have no qualms in creating victims). For beings who can develop and learn moral systems which have ever increasing positive values and ever decreasing negative values, it's possible to imagine a situation where all moral decisions only have positive values (therefore are 'absolutely' right) however I don't know if that would ever become a reality. In these terms, an understanding of moral subjectivity is, in & of itself, positively valuable (or right) because it could lead to the development of an absolute morality however if absolute morality is, in reality, impossible, it would at least lead to a maximally positive morality.

Regarding your example of rape, I would suggest that this is a poor example to use in examination of subjective moral systems because humans have developed a maximally positive moral position on it: non-consensual sex is wrong because it violates one's right to bodily autonomy thus creating victims. Further, we are developing justice systems which support and enforce this maximal position on societies where rape still occurs. This is also true of child abuse and slavery. If society were to suffer a situation where this maximal position was retarded (e.g. extinction-level events where rape becomes a broadly accepted/useful/necessary method of ensuring propagation of the species), our level of sentient development would ensure that it would still be wrong (victims would still be created) but that wouldn't preclude the possibility of redeveloping the maximal position.

Maybe the subjects of euthanasia or coercive justice systems may serve your purposes better?

[TreeSapNest]

So the question... Does absolute universal moral truth exist? Is there ANYTHING where it can be said that it is morally true universally?

Nope. Only the world we make for ourselves.

[Whateverist]

Well that did the trick. Now I'm bored and tired and ready to sleep. Hope you find the confirmation for your bias that you're looking for so ardently. Reality and I will get on just fine without you.

And I hope you find that justification for rape

But I was't looking for it, don't desire it and remain as repulsed by rape as I've repeatedly already told you. Somehow my indifference to your project of classifying actions we do not approve of as universally and objectively wrong, keeps leading you imply that I would support rape in some circumstance. You're wrong of course and I've explained clearly enough for a 5th grader to follow. Wait a minute .. what grade are you in?

[Alex K]

Wait a minute .. what grade are you in?

Religion - the eternal kindergarden of the mind

[TreeSapNest]

you might explain when you think rape is good? ...or simply admit it is universally absolutely a moral wrong regardless of opinion, and that this truth transcends the human race.

I know morailty is a difficult subject and it seems to you like you have stumbled upon a clear indication that what you believe is true, but you have missed where the reasoning faulters.

Rape is always harmful, at least for people who don't enjoy dom/sub. It is always harmful in that circumstance regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks about it. So it might at first seem that an absolute moral truth is found. But morality isn't about whether something is harmful. It's about whether something is right or wrong. Whether there is in fact a rule or a command to be followed regarding a particular behavior.

[Esquilax]

I'm sure I'll go through the rest of this thread and find something objectionable to respond to at some point, but before that I guess I'll give my position.

While objective morals don't exist- even under the theist framework where god hands down morals they aren't objective, but we'll get to that later- there is an objective reality from which one can derive their morals. There is a basis that is objectively real; we are evolved creatures, with social grouping and cooperation as our survival niches. We are also biological creatures, with a series of needs and wants that are uniform to our species and most others. From those two things, our evolved nature and the necessities of our survival, objective standards can be found from which our morality can hang.

These are simply brute facts of our existence: life is generally preferable to death, pleasure is preferable to pain, health is preferable to sickness or injury, and so on. They're general rules, there are contexts in which they come into conflict with one another and one must be selected over another, but that doesn't invalidate their usefulness in general. Simply pointing out one specific situation in which one of those rules is not true, as I'm sure you're tempted to do, theist OP, will not make them any less true for the majority of situations.

So now we have a basis, with the recognition that individual parts of it may come into conflict in time. From there, we can evaluate individual acts, in context, and see whether they violate that basis. Let's go with the OP's example: is rape wrong? Well, it causes harm with no overriding benefit, so... yes. Rape is wrong. Furthermore, I doubt anyone could provide a context in which rape does not violate our objective basis, so for the time being, in our current reality on planet earth, I would argue that rape is always wrong.

Now that we've established that, let's take a look at the theist claim, specifically that god's moral commandments comprise some objective moral truth. This is, bluntly, utter nonsense. God is not objective. God is a subject, a being with a mind precisely the same as humans are. If human morality is supposedly subjective, because humans are subjects and it's only their opinions, then how is it any different from god? God, who is a subject, and for which his moral commands are his opinions?

This lofty perch that theists occupy, where they claim to have some high ground where morality is concerned, is entirely illusive. It's pretend; they've mistaken "subjective, from a position of asserted authority," with "objective." Perhaps it's just a mistake, but I can't help but be suspicious, given that their chosen baseless redefinition happens to help them hide the big hurdle to their argument; demonstrating that god actually earns his authority. Bit convenient.