Can objective morality exist in Atheism?

[tavarish]

So what? It ultimately doesn't matter where values are subjective.

Sure it does. If the society you belong to does not condone it, it matters.

If I subjectively think that killing babies is fine, the society I'm in has something different to say about it.

This does not mean that there is an objective standard, it just means I'm only as moral as my subjective societal norms perceive me to be.

Again, so what? Why choose procreation over death?

---

Survival and procreation go hand in hand. Your genetic code is represented in offspring, and your "legacy" can live on biologically.

I understand what you're alluding to. I'm not sure if it's even a relevant question. I am sure that I'm not qualified to answer, especially with my limited knowledge of biology and psychology. However, I can speculate.

If sentient life could not replicate, there would be no life proliferation in general. It would be a short-lived experience. My guess is, life, through natural selection, remained living by devising a way in which it could reproduce and form more sentient beings.

Sir, respectfully, that's not the concept of morality, that's Evolutionary theory of survival, the two are not the same, despite your equivocation. Morality involves the concept of "rightness" and wrongness" the theory of Evolution only involves surviving to procreate, regardless of right and wrong.

let's look at a moral. I'll take myself as a hypothetical example.

I don't want others to harm me in a violent manner. To harm someone violently is immoral to me. Violence is wrong in my opinion.
However, there are many others in the world who view violence as the only positive way to solve their disputes. They see it as an outlet and a constructive force.

This adheres to the golden rule, yet is subjective, and the basis of how morality is formed. Add to this a social structure with acceptable norms and you have a recipe for a civilized, moral society.

[objectivitees]

Sure it does. If the society you belong to does not condone it, it matters.

Which part of "ultimately" did you miss in my reply? I didn't say it did not matter to society, I said it "ultimately" does not matter.

If I subjectively think that killing babies is fine, the society I'm in has something different to say about it.

Yes, but neither view would be "ultimate".

This does not mean that there is an objective standard, it just means I'm only as moral as my subjective societal norms perceive me to be.

That's what I meant. You seem to keep switching sides. If morality is relative to "societal norms" it's not "ultimate". If it's not "ultimate" it does not matter who survives and who dies.

[tavarish]

Sure it does. If the society you belong to does not condone it, it matters.

Which part of "ultimately" did you miss in my reply? I didn't say it did not matter to society, I said it "ultimately" does not matter.

Why would it ultimately not matter? Many small progressions or regressions turn into a big change. Ultimately, the moral construct could evolve into something different, be regarded as irrelevant, or dismissed in favor of something more suitable.

Yes, but neither view would be "ultimate".

Ahhhh. I see what you're getting at. You're trying to assess validity of moral absolutes and eventual consensus of moral ideologies. As long as there are societies that differ in any measurable fashion, there will be a difference in the acceptance of certain actions, i.e. morals.

By the way, do mean ultimately at the end of life of humans? The end of life on earth? The end of the universe?

This does not mean that there is an objective standard, it just means I'm only as moral as my subjective societal norms perceive me to be.

That's what I meant. You seem to keep switching sides. If morality is relative to "societal norms" it's not "ultimate". If it's not "ultimate" it does not matter who survives and who dies.

I never said it was ultimate, and I never implied that it was. I never switched sides and attempted to stay well within the realm of reason and didn't overstep my boundaries.

When you say "Doesn't matter", what do you mean? Doesn't matter in regards to what?

It has a definite effect on the survivability of the species if the only ones left alive are those who don't have a need to procreate, serve themselves, and kill those round them. That would be headed for certain extinction.

[Darwinian]

Although our morals are subjective and may of course change over time, it is also true I think to say that in order to serve us as useful tools they must remain fixed with a certain framework. This framework must be such that it serves as a positive behaviour mechanism that allows us not only as a species but also as a society to prosper and coexist in such a way that the survival of our species is not threatened.

As soon as our moral behaviour falls outside this framework and jeopardises our future survival it is the nature of evolution that it will be breed out, or de-selected if you like. So, in a very real sense, a lot of our key morals can in some way be considered objective in that they are key to our species and in evolutionary terms, the survival of our species. They may not have been imposed on us by a celestial hierarchy but instead, like many aspects of human behaviour, the very fact that they are present requires that they have been naturally selected as an advantage to us as a species.

[theVOID]

That's what I meant. You seem to keep switching sides. If morality is relative to "societal norms" it's not "ultimate". If it's not "ultimate" it does not matter who survives and who dies.

Of course it matters, it matters to US, we are the only people who care about our own continued existence as a species, because only in society can we survive, we are not independent animals, we evolved to be in groups, it is a survival mechanism, safety in numbers. Were we to have societies that didn't consider murder wrong we would effectively be a suicidal species, we needed each other in the past just to survive - This is the case with all social animals, at some point in the evolution of life on earth species started to realise that working together offered the greatest chance for survival, and if more of a species survive longer there are more offspring to reinforce the population leading to a trend in growth and higher and higher chances of survival for the species as a whole.

We have evolved not just to think about our own survival, but the survival of our own direct progeny and the survival of the species as a whole, and as such we instinctively seek ways we can maintain survival. Stopping violence, murder, stealing etc are just common sense ways of achieving all this.

Culture also evolves and that explains the difference in general moralities amongst different regions, races, religions and traditions in various times and places. The more isolated the communities become from each other the more different they become over time, due to independent emergences of cultural, political, historical and genetic events shaping opinion (Eastern and Western philosophy being examples of such) and thus the social moralities of different peoples changes.

If you believe it is moral to eat babies you can go and do it, but you'd better be ready to face the wrath of society if you do. As part of a society you have to live within it's rules, there are consequences from minor to major depending on the violation, you lose the privilege of being part of this group, either temporarily through prison or permanently through exile or death.

[objectivitees]

Of course it matters, it matters to US,

Yeah, but so what if it matters to you? Why is your version of what matters any more important than someone else's version which happens to oppose yours?

---

Ahhhh. I see what you're getting at. You're trying to assess validity of moral absolutes and eventual consensus of moral ideologies.

Almost... I'm trying to get you to asses your moral beliefs and justify them given the presupposition of your worldview (Atheism) which demands moral subjectivity, not 'moral absolutes' "validity". Consensus has nothing to do with what I am attempting to do. Consequences have everything to do with it. Have you reasoned out the logical consequences of a reality where morals are subjective? Are those consequences acceptable to you? Do you even know what the consequences are?

---

As soon as our moral behaviour falls outside this framework and jeopardises our future survival it is the nature of evolution that it will be breed out, or de-selected if you like. So, in a very real sense, a lot of our key morals can in some way be considered objective in that they are key to our species and in evolutionary terms, the survival of our species. They may not have been imposed on us by a celestial hierarchy but instead, like many aspects of human behaviour, the very fact that they are present requires that they have been naturally selected as an advantage to us as a species.

Here, you are equivocating on the definition of "morality", like Tavarish did, and conflating it with "survival". There is no "right and wrong" with respect to Darwinian survival. There only is what is. There is only what makes you survive or fail to survive. Survival speaks nothing to the concept of morally right or morally wrong.

If you continue to equivocate in this manner, I'm afraid all our dialogs will be fruitless.

So much for the total agreement eh? didn't last too long!! wink wink.

[theVOID]

Of course it matters, it matters to US,

Yeah, but so what if it matters to you? Why is your version of what matters any more important than someone else's version which happens to oppose yours?

It matters to the vast majority, that's why the society holds this majority view as moral. We may not consider the majority view of people in another time, place or culture as moral, but that is based on our own societal norms and neither are objectively true, the best we can do is attempt to reason that one position is demonstrably superior and if this is shown then societies will often adapt morally to allow these new ideologies, the history of slavery or oppression of women would be prime examples of this.

The vast majority of people on earth hold the same basic moral core, the one we evolved with genetically as social animals - yes there are always exceptions, people who come to display different moral decisions be it minor or major, this can either be genetic or environmental factors that leads to this divergence, such as someone compelled to murder or steal, but they know that society does not condone this behaviour and there are serious consequences for doing so, it may be something that they cannot control, but that does not mean that society should allow it at all, actions deemed immoral will be frowned upon if minor (such as right-wing Christians frowning on homosexuals) or punished if serious (such as murder).

Consequences have everything to do with it. Have you reasoned out the logical consequences of a reality where morals are subjective? Are those consequences acceptable to you? Do you even know what the consequences are?

The consequences are eternal vigilance.

Are the consequences acceptable? It doesn't matter whether or not it's acceptable, only that it is. We have to deal with the truth of the situation, not with the ideological fantasies we want to be true. Either way it makes no difference to the state of morality in the world, we still require vigilance to uphold the majority moral standards be they absolute or relative.

The argument for evolved morality, both socially and genetically, offers us a far better explanation for the state of morality in the world than the argument for absolute morality. But seeing as you disagree you might like to explain why you think that there is an absolute morality and back that up with examples or a logical necessity and then explain why you think it better explains the morality of the world.

[tavarish]

Of course it matters, it matters to US,

Yeah, but so what if it matters to you? Why is your version of what matters any more important than someone else's version which happens to oppose yours?

---

More important in regards to what? There is no standard to which we hold morals. The concepts of right and wrong, are simply soncepts that manifest into reality via actions. My level of morality is important to me because it has an impact on self-worth, societal acceptance, and psychological development. My morals can be relatively superior to those who don't abide by them, but conversely mine can be seen as weak in their eyes.

Since there is no objective standard, it is impossible to compare these apples to apples.


Almost... I'm trying to get you to asses your moral beliefs and justify them given the presupposition of your worldview (Atheism) which demands moral subjectivity, not 'moral absolutes' "validity". Consensus has nothing to do with what I am attempting to do. Consequences have everything to do with it. Have you reasoned out the logical consequences of a reality where morals are subjective? Are those consequences acceptable to you? Do you even know what the consequences are?

---

[/quote]

Atheism isn't a worldview, as I've discussed in other threads. I'm also beginning to understand that you're making the point that subjective morals = anarchy. I already posted, in some detail the methods in which we drive morality. subjective doesn't mean everyone just does whatever they want. Civilizations have forms of order based on their particular ideologies, and express this as moral code. A civilization based on anarchy cannot survive.

If I am mistaken, and I'm assessing this in an incorrect fashion, please correct me, as I'm a little confused where you're going with this.

(Please don't say "Your goin to HELL LOLZ")

Here, you are equivocating on the definition of "morality", like Tavarish did, and conflating it with "survival". There is no "right and wrong" with respect to Darwinian survival. There only is what is. There is only what makes you survive or fail to survive. Survival speaks nothing to the concept of morally right or morally wrong.

If you continue to equivocate in this manner, I'm afraid all our dialogs will be fruitless.

So much for the total agreement eh? didn't last too long!! wink wink.

What you don't seem to understand is that survival and morality have very much in common.

We have morality so our society can prosper and breed other like-minded entities. This is happening with the Westernization of the modern world. Many people embrace the ideals of western society, and abandon older, more traditional societies in favor of ones that employ free thinking and expression. The same goes for the increasing secularization of the developed world.

To say the two concepts are not connected isn't seeing the big picture.

[objectivitees]

[quote='objectivitees' pid='56744' dateline='1266533751']

Of course it matters, it matters to US,

Yeah, but so what if it matters to you? Why is your version of what matters any more important than someone else's version which happens to oppose yours?

It matters to the vast majority, that's why the society holds this majority view as moral. We may not consider the majority view of people in another time, place or culture as moral, but that is based on our own societal norms and neither are objectively true, the best we can do is attempt to reason that one position is demonstrably superior and if this is shown then societies will often adapt morally to allow these new ideologies, the history of slavery or oppression of women would be prime examples of this.

The vast majority of people on earth hold the same basic moral core, the one we evolved with genetically as social animals - yes there are always exceptions, people who come to display different moral decisions be it minor or major, this can either be genetic or environmental factors that leads to this divergence, such as someone compelled to murder or steal, but they know that society does not condone this behaviour and there are serious consequences for doing so, it may be something that they cannot control, but that does not mean that society should allow it at all, actions deemed immoral will be frowned upon if minor (such as right-wing Christians frowning on homosexuals) or punished if serious (such as murder).



Yo, void man... I already pointed out that there are repercussions for those who don't conform to societal norms. So, I really don't get why you keep repeating this point as if it will spark some realization in me, and lead me to finally get your point. my point in saying that is, that you aren't understanding my goal here. The question is why? Why does it matter when every individual or society gets to choose their morality, if one or the other is offended? If morals are subjective, as you claim, then no one's morals are "superior" to anyone else's. I ask "why" in an attempt to get you, the Atheist to justify your moral values as a rhetorical exercise to demonstrate to you it is not possible given your presuppositions. If all moral values are equal, then in effect, there can be no justification for any of them over and against any other moral value. Why is what you believe "better" or "good" or "superior to" or "preferable" to any other set of moral values? If you say it's for "survival", I'll just ask what makes "survival" a "preferable" condition when it matters not whether you survive in the struggle, or someone or something else does. In the end, something will survive, or not, and none of it will matter where there are no moral values. There will only be what there is.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's acceptable, only that it is.

Exactly.

---

What you don't seem to understand is that survival and morality have very much in common

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.

[theVOID]

Yo, void man... I already pointed out that there are repercussions for those who don't conform to societal norms. So, I really don't get why you keep repeating this point as if it will spark some realization in me, and lead me to finally get your point. my point in saying that is, that you aren't understanding my goal here.

It's all part of the package, if we are going to have moral codes we have to uphold them or else they become just as meaningless to us humans as it is cosmically.

The question is why? Why does it matter when every individual or society gets to choose their morality, if one or the other is offended?

Why do morals matter? Because they are the founding tenants of how a society chooses to function.

Society grew and evolved with moral norms, either genetically such as the moral stance against murder for the benefit of society or historically such as the rise and fall of the moral slave trade, at any given point in time a culture of humans will have a certain set of moral codes that represents how the majority of them wish to live. Break these moral laws and lose your place in society. If you are a minority on a given position then tough, you either behave how your society deems moral, leave the society, or you have consequences. It doesn't matter if in the future or on another continent people agree with your minority position, the society that you are currently part of and all of the benefits that come with it dictate what is morally accepted at that moment in time and space. If it's a minor moral offence you can either take scorn, such as the homosexual community often do around the world, or leave. If it's a major offence, such as murder, you suffer the consequences opposed or flea prosecution, either way society will judge you based on their majority morals.

If morals are subjective, as you claim, then no one's morals are "superior" to anyone else's. I ask "why" in an attempt to get you, the Atheist to justify your moral values as a rhetorical exercise to demonstrate to you it is not possible given your presuppositions.

Majority rules within it's territory, in another territory another majority rules. Don't like it? well too bad, because that's what happens all over the world. You can either pull your head out of the sand and start making judgements on the nature or morals based on what is actually happening in the world or you can stay in lala land. The choice is yours.

If all moral values are equal, then in effect, there can be no justification for any of them over and against any other moral value.

One man, one vote - Does that make everyone president?

Why is what you believe "better" or "good" or "superior to" or "preferable" to any other set of moral values? If you say it's for "survival", I'll just ask what makes "survival" a "preferable" condition when it matters not whether you survive in the struggle, or someone or something else does. In the end, something will survive, or not, and none of it will matter where there are no moral values. There will only be what there is.

1) I never said my views were absolutely better than anyone else's just on face value, they are representatively better amongst the society I currently live in. The only moral disagreements i have with the majority position are minor to the point of irrelevant at present, such as a few issues on victimless crime, such as legalizing weed.

2) Survival is preferable to death, for no other reason that life wants to live, death is not part of it's function, it is the antithesis of it's function.

3) None of it matters cosmically or eternally, but it matters to us as a community, nation, culture and species, all right here and now, and that is enough reason to give it the best damn shot we have. We need to work at it as a society and find the moral values that the majority agree with and try and live our lives by these tenants as best we can.

I noticed you dropped the last part so i will rephrase:

Why do you think that there is an absolute morality, do you have any rational or empirical reasons for this belief and why do you think that absolute morals explain the reality of the worlds moral situation better than evolutionary models of morality?