Objective Morality?

[Statler Waldorf]

So would we.

Ok how is this possible if atheists define morality as not causing harm to others or something of that nature?

[DeistPaladin]

So would we.

Ah, but we're relying on our own moral compass instead of saying "GodWillsIt". You see, that apparently makes all the difference.

[5thHorseman]

Whether they find out or not, your causing harm to your relationship and yourself and likely upsetting anyone else who knows. A friend of mine committed adultery (numerous)and I told him not to tell me anymore as I felt guilty whenever I saw his wife.

Suppose what I'm saying is at the very least you're harming yourself, which will affect the relationship and have a knock on affect, at worst(partner still not finding out) innocents who know and feel guilty about knowing, so either way you're doing damage, whether you tell someone or not.

[Statler Waldorf]

Ah, but we're relying on our own moral compass instead of saying "GodWillsIt". You see, that apparently makes all the difference.

I was hoping you’d respond in this thread because this question really is your kryptonite. You stated that we determine what is wrong and right by our social contract and by what hampers our ability to live in a society and so on. Yet if someone commits adultery and is never caught, this has no effect on society whatsoever. So at the very most you could say this was a morally neutral action.

[5thHorseman]

Surely there would some effect on the adulterer's personality that would have a knock on affect to the society he is part of, no matter how little.

[Statler Waldorf]

Whether they find out or not, your causing harm to your relationship and yourself and likely upsetting anyone else who knows. A friend of mine committed adultery (numerous)and I told him not to tell me anymore as I felt guilty whenever I saw his wife.

Suppose what I'm saying is at the very least you're harming yourself, which will affect the relationship and have a knock on affect, at worst(partner still not finding out) innocents who know and feel guilty about knowing, so either way you're doing damage, whether you tell someone or not.

Not really following how it necessarily causes harm to the individual, I have seen people who cheat and it doesn't even seem to make them think twice. Secondly, why is it morally wrong to cause harm to one's self? That seems like that would make all sorts of things morally wrong, smoking, tattoos, eating burgers, drinking, piercings, abortion, playing football, homosexuality, wrestling, and the list goes on and on....

[DeistPaladin]

Ah, but we're relying on our own moral compass instead of saying "GodWillsIt". You see, that apparently makes all the difference.

I was hoping you’d respond in this thread because this question really is your kryptonite. You stated that we determine what is wrong and right by our social contract and by what hampers our ability to live in a society and so on. Yet if someone commits adultery and is never caught, this has no effect on society whatsoever. So at the very most you could say this was a morally neutral action.

Suddenly I remember something I once said in an argument in high school, "Well, yes, you could SAY that ...but you'd be wrong".

The action is the same. The intent is the same. At the time of action, the adulterer was lying and risking the harm to others.

Saying it's OK because nothing bad happened is like pleading "not guilty" to attempted murder on the grounds that you failed and so no harm was done.

No matter how many times we ride this merry-go-round, my position doesn't change:

1. The "problem" you see in my inability to "justify" the use of reason or morality is only a problem in your head. It isn't a problem for me or any other freethinker. It also, I'll venture, wasn't a problem for you prior to your introduction to TAG. The only alternative was that you were unable to function at all until someone told you "JesusWillsIt".

2. The "solution" that you're so proud of boils down to saying "GodWillsIt n' stuff" (and spuriously dismissing all other gods but the one you just so happened to believe in all along). This simple-minded "axiom" actually does nothing to help us understand what morality is or why we use reason.

3. Unless you are prepared to tell us that you were completely unable to function in life until one day you heard "GodWillsIt n' stuff" and then suddenly everything fell into place for you, this whole argument is pure sophistry and an attempt to justify post hoc what you believed all along because you know you've got fuckall for evidence.

[Godscreated]

---

Ah, but we're relying on our own moral compass instead of saying "GodWillsIt". You see, that apparently makes all the difference.

I was hoping you’d respond in this thread because this question really is your kryptonite. You stated that we determine what is wrong and right by our social contract and by what hampers our ability to live in a society and so on. Yet if someone commits adultery and is never caught, this has no effect on society whatsoever. So at the very most you could say this was a morally neutral action.

---

[IATIA]

I agree that it does not exist in the concept that a theist would purport that is exists. However, objective morality may exist on some level. It may very well be the smallest of platforms, but I think it could be argued that it does exist. I don't know of any society (correct me if I'm wrong) that has ever endorsed random violence (killing) of its own people or a society that has ever excused all forms of murder, rape and theft. There does seem to be a general consensus the world over of a very basic nature that opposes violence when it is unchecked and unwarranted within it's own group.

Is that morality or survival? Try to take food from a wild animal. (theft) Try to injure a wild animals kids (murder) Try to rape a gorilla Do animals have morals?.

[theVOID]

I believe in objective morality. In saying this, I am building on top of Dan Barker's conception that "morality is nothing more than a function that a healthy brain performs".

If morality is simply a function of an individual's brain then it can't possibly be objective, whether or not the brain who determines the values is 'healthy'