Can objective morality exist in Atheism?

[tavarish]

And what you don't seem to understand is that no matter what commonalities you think you see, they are still not the same thing.

I'm sorry, did I write that anywhere? I'm pretty sure I wrote the golden rule is objective, while morality is subjective. Did I have a mental lapse where I said they are the same thing?

I said morality is connected to the golden rule, and it is. I never said survival = morality. I said they have much in common.

Let's get off of our high horse here a bit. Let's pretend that the world doesn't have moral absolutes for a second. What would the outcome of a society-based moral system look like?

What would you consider objective morality? And what evidence would you provide to illustrate that it's more moral than a subjective moral concept?

Since you go off on tangents and assume things, I'll ask you to read my post and make sure your reply is in order and free of illogical arguments.

[Zen Badger]

There is no objective morality in atheism.

But, there is no objective morality, period.

It is always subjective.

[tavarish]

There is no objective morality in atheism.

But, there is no objective morality, period.

It is always subjective.

Wrong.

The bible is God's infallible word. There's your moral code.

Checkmate, Atheists!

[Zen Badger]

There is no objective morality in atheism.

But, there is no objective morality, period.

It is always subjective.

Wrong.

The bible is God's infallible word. There's your moral code.

Checkmate, Atheists!

Oh my....

I am crushed by the irreducible logic of your argument.

Oh dear, oh dear what will I do now.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I said morality is connected to the golden rule, and it is.

Umm not sure that's entirely true as a principle.

Certainly some,even a lot of morality is based on the principle of "do unto others" Indeed,the Buddha said 'above all,loving kindness'. I'm sure there are people who consider that an objective moral absolute.I am not one of them.


My position is that I have so far failed to discover a universal moral absolute nor any external moral authority.

My observation is that in practice morality is subjective,based on what we 'believe' 'or 'feel' to be right. I have never seen any evidence that humans as a species are even capable of consistent, objective, rational thought or behaviour.

Morality is above all pragmatic ,based on self interest. The Golden Rule is pragmatic and self serving for social animals some of the time. Usually we ignore it to some degree in petty ways, to get what we want.If threatened, we are immediately able to justify ignoring the Golden Rule.

[Purple Rabbit]

If Atheism obtains (God does not exist) is there a source for morality other than oneself that is objective?

The term objective morality is a contradiction because morals are about something and what that something is matters to what "moral" means. If morals were objective they should apply in all possible universes and contexts. This means they should apply not only to human relations and human behaviour but also to aliens, gravity, electrons and protons smashing into each other in the LHC.

Moral codes can serve the purpose to regulate behaviour in social groups. By definition this means that the moral we know of, the one described in literature and legislation, is relative to humans. At all times individuals in a group can adopt or reject some or all moral codes that prevail in a group. It also is subject to cultural differences of which differences in legislation across the globe testify.

The idea that moral is objective is not only a misconception but also a cop out for critical thinking on just and fair behaviour.

[tavarish]

I said morality is connected to the golden rule, and it is.

Umm not sure that's entirely true as a principle.

Certainly some,even a lot of morality is based on the principle of "do unto others" Indeed,the Buddha said 'above all,loving kindness'. I'm sure there are people who consider that an objective moral absolute.I am not one of them.


My position is that I have so far failed to discover a universal moral absolute nor any external moral authority.

My observation is that in practice morality is subjective,based on what we 'believe' 'or 'feel' to be right. I have never seen any evidence that humans as a species are even capable of consistent, objective, rational thought or behaviour.

Morality is above all pragmatic ,based on self interest. The Golden Rule is pragmatic and self serving for social animals some of the time. Usually we ignore it to some degree in petty ways, to get what we want.If threatened, we are immediately able to justify ignoring the Golden Rule.

I agree.

However, I contend that the golden rule (as a survival mechanism) advocates cooperation as a function of self interest.

"In order for me to have favorable living conditions and have a chance to procreate, I will cooperate with the others in my immediate area"

I think most, if not all morals are based on this tenet, as the survival of the society (if regarded as a single entity) depends on it. Humans are definitely able to ignore the golden rule, but this is done by dehumanizing the ones to which we do harm. It's bending the rule by changing the decription of "others", not outright breaking it, so to speak.

Although I think it is a guiding principle of morality in society, it is not in itself a moral, and as you said, can be ignored.

Then again, I could be talking crap like I always do.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

[/quote]

---

Then again, I could be talking crap like I always do.

(1) In my country we call that kind of false modestly 'fishing for compliments' and the speaker 'a wanker'

(2) If you honestly have so little confidence in your own intellect,I apologise sincerely. ( I think Adrian may have stolen it)

[tavarish]

(1) In my country we call that kind of false modestly 'fishing for compliments' and the speaker 'a wanker'

(2) If you honestly have so little confidence in your own intellect,I apologise sincerely. ( I think Adrian may have stolen it)

I was neither fishing for compliments nor doubting my intellect. I'm just outlining that sometimes I do have a tendency to ramble and digress from the topic. Perhaps I misspoke, but I'm not above being called out on something you might deem as verifiable BS. This is the heart of reasoned debate. I see that I didn't really convey that message well, and it did seem like attention whoring. Whoops.

BTW, I rather enjoy the UK, other than the traffic laws and the MOT. I'm assuming that you're a Brit.

Either way, I don't think there are any moral absolutes or objective values in the world, I don't think anyone here does, other than those who quote the Bible as a moral text for humanity.

I propose a better question:

Should similarities between the vast majority of those who identify with atheism be considered dogma? This goes to the theists who see atheism as a worldview.

I understand that from an untrained and misinformed eye, it can look a bit religious and somewhat dogmatic. Why is that?

[tackattack]

I don't feel atheism is a world view.