Atheism and Ethics

[Lucian]

Yeah, I was explicitly calling for justifications of objective moral standards in the original post. I don’t believe there are any, so wanted to get views that countered that. I happen to be a bit of a hybrid expressivist/error-theorist, but am early in my investigation of these issues so I put is always valuable.

I would define a "wrong" action as an action that causes suffering. So, therefore, going by that definition, any action that causes suffering is  wrong. What would you say to that?

I would ask whether that action is wrong in respect to a mind-independent categorical imperative, or whether it is something else?

[Disagreeable]

I would define a "wrong" action as an action that causes suffering. So, therefore, going by that definition, any action that causes suffering is  wrong. What would you say to that?

I would ask whether that action is wrong in respect to a mind-independent categorical imperative, or whether it is something else?

Suffering is mind dependent. Therefore it's not wrong due to a mind-independent categorical imperative.

However, I would ask you: What makes you think it's not wrong due to an opinion dependent imperative? It could still be a fact, simply not a mind independent fact.

[Lucian]

I would ask whether that action is wrong in respect to a mind-independent categorical imperative, or whether it is something else?

Suffering is mind dependent. Therefore it's not wrong due to a mind-independent categorical imperative.

However, I would ask you: What makes you think it's not wrong due to an opinion dependent imperative? It could still be a fact, simply not a mind independent fact.

I happen to think morality is grounded in opinion, so wouldn’t dispute with you on this too much. However I would question how we therefore apply the word “wrong”. Is it at a cultural level, a sub-culture, a personal one etc. depending on the response to that will come onto the What Now Question, but interested to hear your answer first

[Disagreeable]

I happen to think morality is grounded in opinion, so wouldn’t dispute with you on this too much.

But I'm saying the truth may be opinion independent, but not mind independent. What say you to that?

However I would question how we therefore apply the word “wrong”. Is it at a cultural level, a sub-culture, a personal one etc. depending on the response to that will come onto the What Now Question, but interested to hear your answer first

It can be wrong according to the truth. The truth doesn't have to be mind-independent. Right?

[Lucian]

But I'm saying the truth may be opinion independent, but not mind independent. What say you to that?
....
It can be wrong according to the truth. The truth doesn't have to be mind-independent. Right?

 I would ask what you mean by "truth", and admit when it comes to that that I am out of my depth and a philosophical slug. That is why I prefer to categorise based on the lines of cognitivism/non-congitivism, error-theory vs moral realism and in some schemes subjectivism etc. That way I know what the terms mean

what do you mean by "opinion independent" but not "mind independent"? To my mind an opinion is an artefact of the mind, are you saying that it is something of the mind but not opinion? If so, do you mean it is an expression of emotion / desire/ preference etc as expressivism would have?

[Angrboda]

Morality only requires a justification if one is arguing for moral objectivity. Is that what you mean? Because if morality is subjective then you can have any opinion you like and you're no less "moral" whether you're a theist or an atheist.

Yeah, I was explicitly calling for justifications of objective moral standards in the original post. I don’t believe there are any, so wanted to get views that countered that. I happen to be a bit of a hybrid expressivist/error-theorist, but am early in my investigation of these issues so I put is always valuable.

Nudger has what he feels is an objective basis for morals. I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, I was explicitly calling for justifications of objective moral standards in the original post. I don’t believe there are any, so wanted to get views that countered that. I happen to be a bit of a hybrid expressivist/error-theorist, but am early in my investigation of these issues so I put is always valuable.

I would define a "wrong" action as an action that causes suffering. So, therefore, going by that definition, any action that causes suffering is  wrong. What would you say to that?

The various justifications required for a morality of type x are the basis of the terms that refer to them.  A subjective morality requires true facts about particular subject.  A relative morality requires true facts about subject's societies cultures and norms.  An objective morality requires true facts about the object itself.  It may be that there are no true moral statements in the objective, relative, or subjective sense.  In this metaethical reality, all cognitive moral systems lack justification.  

I think suffering is a good measuring stick.  I would certainly say that any action which causes suffering is of moral import.  Worth considering carefully.

Suffering is mind dependent. Therefore it's not wrong due to a mind-independent categorical imperative.

This seems false.  It appears that people and other things can and do suffer whether we or our societies realize it, believe it, or not.  That suffering is a facet of reality, not a peculiar belief of a single subject unattached to said reality, or a construct of some particular society or time.  I do think we have a categorical imperative to reduce or eliminate what suffering we cause and can, and if we have some free time...mitigate what suffering we haven't caused and cannot prevent.  This flows from a simple deontology, as most of my moral opinions do.  Don't harm.  Do help.  I don't think that either of these categories exist solely in my mind...I'm the subject, and therefore I don't believe that they are mind-dependent in the metaethical sense.  

[Disagreeable]

From a metaethical point of view, I look at language and deem that it makes sense to say that what people are talking about is things that cause suffering. To me, "truth" is what corresponds with existence. And suffering exists. So the question is, when somebody says "X is wrong" is it reasonable to conclude that they mean that "X causes suffering."?

[Lucian]

Suffering is certainly a consequence of many acts that are deemed immoral but not all. If I lie to you about something inconsequential, it will not cause suffering but would still be seen by many people to be immoral depending on the context. It could be said that if people lied too often about things then trust would break down and that could lead to wider issues, but it doesn’t seem that suffering is the key there
Similarly, incest that could not result in a baby would still seem to be immoral to many, but there is no suffering

Not saying that you don’t have a point; but just that it is too narrow a point

[Ahriman]

I would like to know, are you guys really suffering that much? The word has been used many times in this thread, how much is it affecting you, personally?