Morality without God

[The Grand Nudger]

Would that make capital punishment fundamentally wrong, if it's what made the other thing fundamentally wrong?

I tend to go the most direct route on this myself, and say yeah - both fundamentally wrong for (at least some of) the same reasons. In that sense, the two can be compared directly and equivalently. Yes, we quickly see that the innocent can be and have been wronged...but we're equally capable of harming the guilty (perhaps even-more so, but that would be a digression)...and we can have all sorts of reasons to do the wrong thing.

[arewethereyet]

Would that make capital punishment fundamentally wrong, if it's what made the other thing fundamentally wrong?

As I said, my thoughts are changing with regard to capital punishment.  I am allowed to say I am on the fence still, right?  I have an issue with people who hurt children...that's the roadblock for me being four square against it.  And yes, that's emotion getting in the way.  I know that. If  others can see everything as either black or white...good for them...I see shades of gray in some things.

[Superjock]

Something about rape is why rape is wrong?

That's moral realism.  Objective morality.  If someone asks you how you justify a moral declaration, you refer to facts of the matter.

Well I would say that violating a person against their will is immoral. It doesn't lead to well being or flourishing. I don't know if that is objective morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can say anything that we want, hold any moral position that catches our fancy.

Human beings are capable of thinking that something is wrong and still being compelled to do it or allow for it. I'd only say that it's not shades of moral grey, in that case, but shades of desire or motivation red.

---

That's moral realism.  Objective morality.  If someone asks you how you justify a moral declaration, you refer to facts of the matter.

Well I would say that violating a person against their will is immoral. It doesn't lead to well being or flourishing. I don't know if that is objective morality.

It states that there are facts of the matter of violating a person against their will - and these facts of that matter demonstrate that this thing is wrong.  That's all that objective morality is.

What problems do you see, what objections can you anticipate?

[arewethereyet]

We can say anything that we want, hold any moral position that catches our fancy.  

Human beings are capable of thinking that something is wrong and still being compelled to do it or allow for it.  I'd only say that it's not shades of moral grey, in that case, but shades of desire or motivation red.

---

Tell me what the correct answer is.  I'll type it out if it will make everyone happy. 
I describe what's in my head as shades of gray and you tell me that's incorrect.
Please, tell me what I think.

[The Grand Nudger]

The correct answer is whatever position you hold on the matter. You seem to understand the difference between cognitivist statements and emotivist impulse, is all I was pointing out.

[Abaddon_ire]

That's moral realism.  Objective morality.  If someone asks you how you justify a moral declaration, you refer to facts of the matter.

Well I would say that violating a person against their will is immoral. It doesn't lead to well being or flourishing. I don't know if that is objective morality.

It is objective morality. What you are saying is that you have subjectively decided that well being and flourishing are moral. FWIW I would agree.

Once that decision is made, it is entirely possible to make objective assessments as to whether or not any given action meets the goal of being congruent with well being and fluorishing

[The Grand Nudger]

That wouldn't be objective morality.

That would be a reference to a fact of the matter of a subject, not a fact of the matter of the object.

[vulcanlogician]

I had nine of my ten fingers amputated.  By any measure that is a violent act, so it seems that being a violent act alone isn't enough to make rape wrong.   Seeing as you followed it with, "therefore," it seems that was your implication.

By analogy, capital punishment is a violent act against a person, therefore it is fundamentally wrong.  Now there may be objections to capital punishment, but I don't think it being a violent act would be what makes it wrong.

Someone could hold the view that rape is wrong, while capital punishment and amputation (that is motivated towards increasing the well being of the person who's fingers are being amputated) are right. Just because violence is not a supergreat criterion for identifying possible moral absolutes, doesn't mean there aren't any moral absolutes.

***

@Superjock I don't see any way that a god existing and passing forth commandments could have any bearing on whether something is fundamentally right or wrong. Read this.

After we realize that belief in God has nothing to do with realizing moral facts, we have all our work cut out for us to show how we differentiate right from wrong. The point is, we care what is ACTUALLY right or ACTUALLY wrong. We don't need an immaterial being to decide and then coerce us to do one or the other.

I personally see things in a non-naturalistic way. That is, I see good and bad as a spectrum that exists independently of the natural world. Kind of like centimeters. No "centimeter" exists in reality. But we still use centimeters to measure things IN reality. And we measure precisely when doing so. Likewise, I think "goodness" is a definite concept... just like the centimeter is definite. We could use another unit of measurement (say inches) but in the end, either of these units of measurement measure the same thing, and make the same exact measurements.

But not all atheistic moral realists think the way I do. Some want to say, "moral facts are natural facts."

"The moon is influenced by Earth's gravity." --- this is a natural fact. "Something about rape is why rape is wrong." Is another natural fact, so say the naturalists. The "wrongness" of rape is a feature of rape. Like craters on the moon are features of the moon. The wrongness is right there, waiting for us to observe it with our telescopes and microscopes.

So there you have it, OP. Two ways to get to moral realism without a god. But the REAL challenge is finding out what a god has to do with morality in the first place. Or if there is any way to say, "God exists, therefore morality." I don't see how it can be done.

[The Grand Nudger]

Analytic naturalists also think that moral whatsits are like centimeters or inches. Exactly like them.