Atheism and Ethics

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know if we have the same thing in mind, but if you mean the view that epistemic fact statements can and do contain implicit or even explicit normative values and claims and "shoulds"..and so, are like moral fact statements in that way, then no. I agree entirely.

I've employed a version of his preferred argument more than once on the boards. The notion that the very good reasons we have to doubt moral fact statements are equally concerning with respect to epistemic fact statements.

[Lucian]

I don't know if we have the same thing in mind, but if you mean the view that epistemic fact statements can and do contain implicit or even explicit normative values and claims and "shoulds"..and so, are like moral fact statements in that way, then no.  I agree entirely.

Ah sorry, I might have misunderstood. You discussed whether you should care about the truth and then turned to metaethics. To me that would be more of an epistemological normative value that isn’t necessarily to do with morality. Re reading your post though I see that I failed to connect that properly to what followed it. So yeah, I bodged

[Sheldon]

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

Nothing objectively, though it is my subjective opinion that causing unnecessary suffering, or not doing what we can reasonably be expected to, to prevent it, is immoral. It is not objectively true that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong, at least as far as I can see, though as always I shall keep an open mind.

[Ahriman]

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

Nothing objectively, though it is my subjective opinion that causing unnecessary suffering, or not doing what we can reasonably be expected to, to prevent it, is immoral. It is not objectively true that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong, at least as far as I can see, though as always I shall keep an open mind.

I would agree with that. It's not nice, but life isn't really nice as it is. I think it ultimately boils down to what you expect of yourself. Going against one's conscience can have severe consequences, all questions of morality aside. Try justifying, to yourself, that what you did was technically "moral" (for whatever reason) when your conscience literally won't let you sleep and you've been up for days.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Nothing objectively, though it is my subjective opinion that causing unnecessary suffering, or not doing what we can reasonably be expected to, to prevent it, is immoral. It is not objectively true that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong, at least as far as I can see, though as always I shall keep an open mind.

In a non-novel objectivist understanding of these terms "not objectively true" is redundant.  It's just not true, full stop.  Do you not care whether or not the things you believe are true?

[Sheldon]

Nothing objectively, though it is my subjective opinion that causing unnecessary suffering, or not doing what we can reasonably be expected to, to prevent it, is immoral. It is not objectively true that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong, at least as far as I can see, though as always I shall keep an open mind.

Do you not care whether or not the things you believe are true?

Actually I do very much, which was why I was careful to label it a subjective opinion, one can prefer red to blue, but one can't pretend that red is objectively better than blue, just because they prefer it, no more can I pretend it is objectively true that we should not cause unnecessary suffering, and should do what is reasonable to prevent it where possible. 

I can only infer how I would feel, indeed how I have felt on occasion, when others caused me to suffer unnecessarily, and that I would prefer to live in a society, and a world where we don't cause, and try to prevent unnecessary suffering.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you're committing Moore's naturalistic fallacy.  The fact that harm is often associated with immorality doesn't mean that harm is morality.  The same with benefit.  What is beneficial may or may not be good in a moral sense.

I agree that harm is not morality.  I'm a value pluralist.  I think that harm is one of the things we're talking about when we talk about morality.  That we couldn't give a full and accurate description of morality without a reference to harm, and we couldn't give a full and accurate description of morality by referring to harm alone.  Hence my agreement with sam harris comment that if whatever someone else is talking about when they use the term doesn't include harm then we are not talking about the same thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you not care whether or not the things you believe are true?

Actually I do very much, which was why I was careful to label it a subjective opinion, one can prefer red to blue, but one can't pretend that red is objectively better than blue, just because they prefer it, no more can I pretend it is objectively true that we should not cause unnecessary suffering, and should do what is reasonable to prevent it where possible. 

I can only infer how I would feel, indeed how I have felt on occasion, when others caused me to suffer unnecessarily, and that I would prefer to live in a society, and a world where we don't cause, and try to prevent unnecessary suffering.

I have opinions, you have opinions, we all have opinions.  Moral objectivism is the opinion that our moral opinions can be factually correct, or factually incorrect.  

So when I say that rape is bad because rape is harmful - just for starters, I really believe that there's something about rape that is harmful.  That the harm is not a figment of my imagination, or of my societies construction.  I don't think it would be difficult to establish that this opinion of mine is factually accurate.

[Sheldon]

I have opinions, you have opinions, we all have opinions.  Moral objectivism is the opinion that our moral opinions can be factually correct, or factually incorrect.  

So when I say that rape is bad because rape is harmful - just for starters, I really believe that there's something about rape that is harmful.  That the harm is not a figment of my imagination, or of my societies construction.  I don't think it would be difficult to establish that this opinion of mine is factually accurate.

Indeed, and I'd agree it is objectively harmful, but I am dubious it is objectively true that harming someone is immoral? I think that is a subjective opinion, one I share of course. Also need I point out that not everyone shares that opinion.

[Angrboda]

I think you're committing Moore's naturalistic fallacy.  The fact that harm is often associated with immorality doesn't mean that harm is morality.  The same with benefit.  What is beneficial may or may not be good in a moral sense.

I agree that harm is not morality.  I'm a value pluralist.  I think that harm is one of the things we're talking about when we talk about morality.  That we couldn't give a full and accurate description of morality without a reference to harm, and we couldn't give a full and accurate description of morality by referring to harm alone.  Hence my agreement with sam harris comment that if whatever someone else is talking about when they use the term doesn't include harm then we are not talking about the same thing.

That's your opinion. Rather than talking about different things it's also possible that we're talking about the same thing, but one or both of us is wrong.