Atheism and Ethics

[Sheldon]

I don't see how the basis for anyone's morality can be anything but subjective, even theists. My own morality is based on the idea that we should strive to avoid and where possible prevent all unnecessary suffering. Now while I can make objective assertions about ways to best achieve that, it remains my subjective opinion that unnecessary suffering is bad, or causing it therefore is wrong or immoral.

I have never seen anyone who is able to offer an objectively moral or immoral act?

I understand why people find the notion that morality is subjective very disconcerting, but that's not a reason to disbelieve it of course. Not if you care that what you believe is true, more than you value any belief anyway. Theists of course in my experience are emotionally invested in their religious belief, and thus bend facts to their belief, rather the other way around.

[Lucian]

I don't see how the basis for anyone's morality can be anything but subjective, even theists. My own morality is based on the idea that we should strive to avoid and where possible prevent all unnecessary suffering. Now while I can make objective assertions about ways to best achieve that, it remains my subjective opinion that unnecessary suffering is bad, or causing it therefore is wrong or immoral.

I have never seen anyone who is able to offer an objectively moral or immoral act?

I understand why people find the notion that morality is subjective very disconcerting, but that's not a reason to disbelieve it of course. Not if you care that what you believe is true, more than you value any belief anyway. Theists of course in my experience are emotionally invested in their religious belief, and thus bend facts to their belief, rather the other way around.

I am a hybrid error theory/expressionist so I am not going to argue with your views about that lack of an objective morality. I also agree that discomfort in a view is not reason to object to it. That said, I am also an idiot :-)

[Ahriman]

I'm not seeing what suffering has to do with morality?

[Disagreeable]

I'm not seeing what suffering has to do with morality?

Everything, IMO. It's how I make sense of meta-ethical language.

[The Grand Nudger]

Most of the theists we get around here are also metaethical subjectivists, sure. I cant say I find the idea of moral subjectivity very disconcerting. I already live in a world full of it. Whatever that means, whatever effects that have - just a tuesday. Speaking of caring about the truth...should I...and if I should it's worth noting that moral objectivity is the only metaethical stance in which moral statements can be correct or incorrect, true or false, in any non-novel sense.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Everything causes people suffering. Even utilitarianism, which proposes ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, acknowledges that there will always be those who suffer.

But I do admire the neatness of your tautology.

Boru

Everything? If I don’t treat someone like a jerk but am polite and courteous towards them then I am avoiding immoral behaviour and acting in a positive moral manner. That doesn’t cause suffering? Sure, in some instances it may cause me to have to put up with things I don’t want to… but not always

How do you know that politeness and courtesy is what someone wants? I routinely hold doors open for people and once had a man yell at me, ‘I’m not some fucking cripple!’

The point is that it isn’t remotely possible to know in advance with any degree of certainty what the ramifications of a given action will be.

Boru

[Lucian]

Most of the theists we get around here are also metaethical subjectivists, sure.  I cant say I find the idea of moral subjectivity very disconcerting.  I already live in a world full of it.  Whatever that means, whatever effects that have - just a tuesday.  Speaking of caring about the truth...should I...and if I should it's worth noting that moral objectivity is the only metaethical stance in which moral statements can be correct or incorrect, true or false, in any non-novel sense.

Do you disagree with Cuneo’s views of epistemic normative values that include “should” statements?

[Lucian]

Everything? If I don’t treat someone like a jerk but am polite and courteous towards them then I am avoiding immoral behaviour and acting in a positive moral manner. That doesn’t cause suffering? Sure, in some instances it may cause me to have to put up with things I don’t want to… but not always

How do you know that politeness and courtesy is what someone wants? I routinely hold doors open for people and once had a man yell at me, ‘I’m not some fucking cripple!’

The point is that it isn’t remotely possible to know in advance with any degree of certainty what the ramifications of a given action will be.

Boru

Well first, screw that guy. Second, my point is more that whilst everything can cause suffering not everything does. I have bipolar disorder, sometimes just loud noises can cause me great discomfort, so someone laughing loudly can make me really struggle. Everything can cause suffering, it is not the case that everything does

[Lucian]

I'm not seeing what suffering has to do with morality?

Everything, IMO. It's how I make sense of meta-ethical language.

I think this is a problem for me still… it is how you make sense of it, it doesn’t mean that is how everyone sees it, nor that your view is the dominant one. I need to read up on this obviously, and am tempted to lend it some credence based on grandnudgers posts, but I don’t think it is a universal view. 
On the other hand, dismissing suffering as a consideration entirely does seem wrong so I am with you on pushing back on Ahriman

[Ahriman]

Suffering is largely subjective in the first place....therefore "suffering" can't really be used to determine the validity of moral beliefs.