Can objective morality exist in Atheism?

[objectivitees]

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

[tavarish]

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

The source of morality, whether religious or not, has always come from the same place - societal norms. There was morality before religion, just as there will be afterwards.

We wouldn't get very far as a species if we went around killing everyone and taking all of their stuff.

It goes on the principle of the golden rule, which rings true in animals as well: Treat other the way you would like to be treated. Conversely, don't do anything that you wouldn't want done to you.

Pretty simple actually.

There is no such such thing as a objective moral standard.

[objectivitees]

The source of morality, whether religious or not, has always come from the same place - societal norms. There was morality before religion, just as there will be afterwards.

We wouldn't get very far as a species if we went around killing everyone and taking all of their stuff.

It goes on the principle of the golden rule, which rings true in animals as well: Treat other the way you would like to be treated. Conversely, don't do anything that you wouldn't want done to you.

Pretty simple actually.

There is no such such thing as a objective moral standard.(Emphasis added)

So, your answer to my question is "no"? If that's the case, is the "golden rule" objective?

[tavarish]

The source of morality, whether religious or not, has always come from the same place - societal norms. There was morality before religion, just as there will be afterwards.

We wouldn't get very far as a species if we went around killing everyone and taking all of their stuff.

It goes on the principle of the golden rule, which rings true in animals as well: Treat other the way you would like to be treated. Conversely, don't do anything that you wouldn't want done to you.

Pretty simple actually.

There is no such such thing as a objective moral standard.(Emphasis added)

So, your answer to my question is "no"? If that's the case, is the "golden rule" objective?

The golden rule, although objective, does not apply solely to morality. It is an evolutionary mechanism that allows the species to survive without killing itself. it is simply put, a survival instinct.

This golden rule, when applied to morality, is subjective, as it is SUBJECT to societal norms. This is where the details of human life come in.

I'll give an example: Slavery is regarded as immoral in western society, but when it was prevalent, it was a perfectly legitimized practice by most.

Morality is a concept adopted by societies to allow or prohibit certain practices that are/aren't in tune with their particular ideologies.

[objectivitees]

The golden rule, although objective, does not apply solely to morality.

This golden rule, when applied to morality, is subjective,

Ok, so the golden rule is objective or is it not?? (we are not concerned with what else it applies to) It applies to morality?

this would be much easier if you could answer with a simple yes or no.

[tavarish]

The golden rule, although objective, does not apply solely to morality.

This golden rule, when applied to morality, is subjective,

Ok, so the golden rule is objective or is it not?? (we are not concerned with what else it applies to) It applies to morality?

this would be much easier if you could answer with a simple yes or no.

I think I wrote it pretty clearly. The golden rule, as an evolutionary mechanism, in its truest sense, is objective.

YES.

The only thing that's subjective is when the concept of morality is tacked onto it. Then it has to do more with social ideologies and coexistence rather than ultimate survivability.

Golden Rule = objective.
Morality based on the golden rule = subjective.

understand?

[objectivitees]

The golden rule, although objective, does not apply solely to morality.

This golden rule, when applied to morality, is subjective,

Ok, so the golden rule is objective or is it not?? (we are not concerned with what else it applies to) It applies to morality?

this would be much easier if you could answer with a simple yes or no.

I think I wrote it pretty clearly. The golden rule, as an evolutionary mechanism, in its truest sense, is objective.

YES.

The only thing that's subjective is when the concept of morality is tacked onto it. Then it has to do more with social ideologies and coexistence rather than ultimate survivability.

Golden Rule = objective.
Morality based on the golden rule = subjective.

understand?

No, I don't understand, on the one hand you say it is objective, then with the other you turn right around and say it is not.

[tavarish]

The golden rule, although objective, does not apply solely to morality.

This golden rule, when applied to morality, is subjective,

Ok, so the golden rule is objective or is it not?? (we are not concerned with what else it applies to) It applies to morality?

this would be much easier if you could answer with a simple yes or no.

I think I wrote it pretty clearly. The golden rule, as an evolutionary mechanism, in its truest sense, is objective.

YES.

The only thing that's subjective is when the concept of morality is tacked onto it. Then it has to do more with social ideologies and coexistence rather than ultimate survivability.

Golden Rule = objective.
Morality based on the golden rule = subjective.

understand?

No, I don't understand, on the one hand you say it is objective, then with the other you turn right around and say it is not.

I'll give you an example.

The golden rule is objective as a survival tool, this is its most basic form. All species want to stay living and don't make it a habit of killing each other without reason. They want to be able to have kids, therefore they communicate with others in such a manner that they don't establish themselves as a threat, so their seed lives on. Surviving and procreating is instinctive, an objective value.

Morality is subjective. It is based on the tenets of the Golden Rule, but its execution is heavily dependent on the society around it.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, one society, based on the golden rule, feels that it's moral for the daughters of that society to wed at 12 years old. No one in the society has issue with this and they wouldn't mind wedding off their daughters at 12.

Another society views this as strictly immoral and they feel the age of wedding should be determined by the maturity of the woman at a later stage in life. They would not want their daughters to wed at 12, therefore they don't deem it morally just.

Both societies are using the golden rule, but their morals contrast sharply. All morals work off this very basic principle, but it is important to understand that there is no objective moral standard.

An objective moral standard being a moral that everyone, regardless of society or region can accept as true. The Golden rule is NOT a moral in itself, but rather a principle to guide societies to their various moral ideologies.

[objectivitees]

The Golden rule is NOT a moral in itself,

Yes it is. It says treating others good is right, treating others bad is wrong. That's a "moral" value to live by, just like saying "murder is wrong".

Morality is subjective.

Great. That's all I was trying to discern from you. On that basis, (that morals are subjective) is there a way to define right and wrong in Atheism?

[tavarish]

The Golden rule is NOT a moral in itself,

Yes it is. It says treating others good is right, treating others bad is wrong. That's a "moral" value to live by, just like saying "murder is wrong".

It is a principle on which morality is based, but the morality itself is subjective. The only thing it reinforces is surviving and procreating as a species. The golden rule is instinctive.

Good and bad are purely subjective, and those can be regarded as morals.

I'll give you an example:

In order to gain acceptance to a gang, you need to kill a member of an opposing gang or innocent individual. This not only allows murder, it encourages it as a moral practice within the society. This would greatly differ from the values of good and bad in other regions and parts of the world. What is bad for one, may be seen as good for someone else.

"Murder is wrong" is not objective, as there are plenty of examples where murder is advocated, especially in modern society:

Capital punishment
Suicide bombings
Self-defense
Times of war

It is subjective, morality changes as you change points of view.

Morality is subjective.

Great. That's all I was trying to discern from you. On that basis, (that morals are subjective) is there a way to define right and wrong in Atheism?

I'll play along.

Societal norms coupled with personal experience dictate an individual's morals. You cannot have an objective right and wrong anywhere. That doesn't mean subjectively, it's not dictated by anything.