Atheism and objective ethics

[Ace Otana]

Theists like to think they have the moral high ground. They don't.
What I find interesting is the fact that many theists don't see the bad in good people going to hell for simply lacking belief.
How many good people being tortured does it take before they see it as a bad thing? A hundred? Thousand? Million? How could you worship a god that would do that? Would it only become bad if one of your loved ones was sent to hell to be tortured? A parent? Bother/sister? Son/daughter? When does it become bad?

I think it's theists who need to rethink their sense of morality.

Morality doesn't come from religion, if it did. Mankind's history would have a lot less atrocities. Like the crusades, burning people at the stake, stonings, terrorism and out right intolerance.

[twocompulsive]

There is no such thing as objective morality since morality by definition is subjective. This is why on major issues where it is referenced - such as abortion and euthanasia - no universal consensus can be found.

And does one need God to be moral ? The simple answer is : no. Especially as consumed with anger and jealousy, he isn't particularly moral himself. One does not live in a black and white world where those who possess faith are good and those who do not are bad. The reality is more blurred than that. A simple demonstration : if a religious individual found your wallet they would return it and claim that the reason they did so was because of their belief. If I found your wallet I would do the same. But being an atheist, I would not be able to invoke religion. Yet we both did the same thing, so there must be a common cause or motivation. And the answer is psychology. It is this that provides us with our sense of right and wrong, not religion. All religion does is merely reinforce it. Ruth Gledhill, Religious Affairs Correspondent of The Times once stated that without her faith, she could not be moral. Oh yes you could Ruth, oh yes you could.

[Epimethean]

Social contracts have seemed to work just fine without religious mumbo jumbo.

[martin02]

What do you mean they were "only willing to argue subjective good"? Should they have argued something else? If so, what, and why?

First of all, thank you for this opportunity to further discuss the floor comment during debate.

Arguing good exists outside of their framework against theists is always going to be a tricky proposition. The strategy seemed to be to define good as something resultant from a subjective code of morals, rather than innate or imposed. This would then achieve the positive side of "Can there be good without God?".

How were they "giving the debate to the theists"? Answering this might explain why, in your opinion, the theists might then win on points.

If the theists were able to argue good is both an objective (in their case, from God via his/her/it's almighty code/helpers or revelation) thing and a subjective thing (presumably if it lines up with principles of their religion) they can argue twice as many forms of good. And that's simply as a positive argument; they can then pose multiple negative arguments. From a numerical viewpoint alone, I'd say the comment from the floor was on to something.

What are objective ethics anyway? What is your definition of objective ethics? What is it of subjective ethics?

It is nice to know you are happy, but what is your position? What are you saying? If you refer to the debate, please cite a time stamp in the web-available video.

I have no idea what objective ethics are; I assume it would require an infinite or similar objective knowledge to even begin such a discernment.

I am unable to give a time stamp; apparently the comment was not apparent in the recording. Please be aware my comments relate exclusively to the correctness of the comment (as I said I agreed with it), not the results of the debate, a larger ethical debate, or anything else. And the question mark at the end signifies a question.

[Boccaccio]

You seem to be looking mostly at the debate tactics themselves. Is that right? I can't really agree that their approach conceded the debate and anyway, the theist team obviously did not think it did. It looks like that will be a matter of opinion. I thought that Leigh was pretty clear about innate morality, meaning what has evolved. Decisions we make on that base are subjective, which has been covered here. That clarifies things.

[martin02]

You seem to be looking mostly at the debate tactics themselves. Is that right? I can't really agree that their approach conceded the debate and anyway, the theist team obviously did not think it did. It looks like that will be a matter of opinion. I thought that Leigh was pretty clear about innate morality, meaning what has evolved. Decisions we make on that base are subjective, which has been covered here. That clarifies things.

It's demonstrative that neither side won let alone lost; if anyone won it was the floor comments with the the exclusion of the first one.

However, let's proceed with the question. This is correct; if there is such a thing as ethics which are objective in any meaningful sense, they have defied philosophers' defining to almost anyone else's satisfaction.

[Anymouse]

Greetings.
I recently attended a debate, theists vs atheists on "Can there be good without God?"
Questions were taken from the floor at the end. One attendee stated that if the atheists were only willing to argue subjective good, they were giving the debate to the theists.
While I agree this would likely have seen the theists win on points, it was neither picked up by them, nor was the debate formal enough to see either side declared winners.
Can atheists argue for an objective ethics?

Comments?

My So. Baptist neigbour goes in for this question. (She doesn't go in for such deep thought as "objective good" versus "subjective good." To her, good is a function of God, not a function of good.)

It doesn't matter how I phrase the idea that "I am good because it both pleases me to be so, and I wish to be treated the same way," nor however my fun-loving and atheistic wife phrases it, the neighbour cannot fathom a concept of "good" beyond her (somewhat skewed) Christian idea of good.

She recognises that we are "good people" (we aren't stealing lollies from babies or anything like that) and has real trouble associating that with my wife the atheist and me the Wiccan. In her mind, atheists are merely deluded and Wiccans devil-worshipers, which doesn't square with how we treat her. It is more a trial of her faith to accept that such people can also be "good," and very disturbing to her she cannot really find anything to show we are not "good." - James

[martin02]

My So. Baptist neigbour goes in for this question. (She doesn't go in for such deep thought as "objective good" versus "subjective good." To her, good is a function of God, not a function of good.)

This is very good (relatively speaking ...) and essentially my interpretation of the comment during the debate; if we don't argue anything other than subjective ethics, we risk having all other points discounted ... because our opponents can see ethics as a race to objective claims of right, which they will invariably win. Their rules, their definition. Even if we can demonstrate a consistent subjective moral code, it risks being ignored.

While I don't have any easy answer to how to go to something else, I can come to grip with the problem ... through epistemology. While consistency is the only benchmark I can recommend in analyzing moral bodies, the question of how you know somersetting to be correct always seems paramount.