Atheists Who Say that Morals Are Subjective or Non-Existent

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

OK Im a little confused Auto. You begin by stating you disagree with me then you go on to supplement the points I have made rather than argue against them.
What exactly are you disagreeing with?

 

[Autodidact]

I disagree that morality is subjective.

 

[Willamena]

The fact is that morality is rooted in our ability to cause harm to other sentient creatures, and our power both understand this, and act accordingly.

So they are subjective to the group, rather than to the individual. I agree.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

In what sense is it not? You seem to have left that part out.

 

[Autodidact]

What I'm saying is that ethics is the science of living the good life, and there are objective facts about what is and is not conducive to that. We can use science to find out what they are. So all of that is more objective than subjective.

 

[Ozzie]

Define "rape".

We have plenty of species right here on Earth who engage in the act of reproduction without consent; is this rape? Is it immoral?

In a human context, I certainly agree that rape is horribly immoral. However, the human context is not universal.

The "human context" is utilitarian. If it could be demonstrated that rape had social advantage it would become moral.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The "human context" is utilitarian. If it could be demonstrated that rape had social advantage it would become moral.

I was thinking more of other species.

For instance, a flower is incapable of consent. When a pollenator spreads pollen from one flower to another, sexual reproduction occurs. If we define rape as something like "engaging in the sexual act without consent of at least one of the participants", then pollenation of flowers is rape. However, I don't think anyone would say that pollenation is immoral.

If something is objectively immoral, then it's immoral in all contexts. But if it's not immoral in at least one context, then it can't be immoral in all contexts... and is therefore not objectively immoral.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I was thinking more of other species.

For instance, a flower is incapable of consent. When a pollenator spreads pollen from one flower to another, sexual reproduction occurs. If we define rape as something like "engaging in the sexual act without consent of at least one of the participants", then pollenation of flowers is rape. However, I don't think anyone would say that pollenation is immoral.

If something is objectively immoral, then it's immoral in all contexts. But if it's not immoral in at least one context, then it can't be immoral in all contexts... and is therefore not objectively immoral.

Do flowers have the capability of feeling violated?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do flowers have the capability of feeling violated?

Is that part of the definition of rape?

If you want to make the case that deliberately creating a feeling of violation is objectively wrong, then go for it, but recognize that this isn't the same as the original claim.

My point in all this is that our fundamental assumptions about right and wrong start to break down when you take them outside the bounds of human society. This makes it difficult or impossible for any morality to be truly objective.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

What I'm saying is that ethics is the science of living the good life, and there are objective facts about what is and is not conducive to that. We can use science to find out what they are. So all of that is more objective than subjective.

Yes but that doesnt contradict anything I said. I pointed out, in fact that 'morality' is a name we give to behaviors that are conducive to living in groups. That seems to be what you are saying as well.

But that doesnt make 'morality' an objective thing. As I mentioned, it is always contextual, and further only meaningful in subjective context.

Can you think of any one act that all people find immoral under all circumstances ? I didn't think so .

 

[Orias]

Define "rape".

We have plenty of species right here on Earth who engage in the act of reproduction without consent; is this rape? Is it immoral?

In a human context, I certainly agree that rape is horribly immoral. However, the human context is not universal.

I agree with you 100% there. Good post.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes but that doesnt contradict anything I said. I pointed out, in fact that 'morality' is a name we give to behaviors that are conducive to living in groups. That seems to be what you are saying as well.

Not exactly, no.

But that doesnt make 'morality' an objective thing. As I mentioned, it is always contextual, and further only meaningful in subjective context.

This doesn't translate for me. I don't know what you mean by "contextual," "meaningful" or, come to think of it, "subjective context."

Can you think of any one act that all people find immoral under all circumstances ? I didn't think so .

No, I don't think you're getting me. Objective does not mean universal. You're still thinking of morality as a set of prohibitions. I'm talking about the science of virtue, with virtue being the art of happiness.

It is an objective fact that making certain choices is more conducive to your happiness than others. You may not be aware of this fact, or may even disagree with it, but solid research now establishes that it is so. Fact = objective.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

And who decided for everyone that 'happyness' was the bottom line ultimate standard for morality? While I agree that is as good a standard as any it is still arbitrary. Morality is 'contextual' in that any action can be seen as either moral or immoral depending on the surrounding circumstances.

Ultimately what is moral and what isnt is a matter of perspective.

 

[dust1n]

No, I don't think you're getting me. Objective does not mean universal. You're still thinking of morality as a set of prohibitions. I'm talking about the science of virtue, with virtue being the art of happiness.

'Objective' means to pass all falsification. If an object is 'objective', it exists in and of itself without human perception or any context.. meaning that in any context the 'object' occupies, it still holds the same truth value.

There is no moral that is an 'object'.

 

[dust1n]

It is an objective fact that making certain choices is more conducive to your happiness than others.

And in the same bit of 'objection', it is not that true that any choice is always more conducive to your happiness within all circumstances or that happiness is the only effect of that choice.

 

[Orias]

And in the same bit of 'objection', it is not that true that any choice is always more conducive to your happiness within all circumstances or that happiness is the only effect of that choice.

Exactly, some choices could end you up in prison for the rest of your life. I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't be very happy if that happened.

 

[Autodidact]

And who decided for everyone that 'happyness' was the bottom line ultimate standard for morality? While I agree that is as good a standard as any it is still arbitrary. Morality is 'contextual' in that any action can be seen as either moral or immoral depending on the surrounding circumstances.

Ultimately what is moral and what isnt is a matter of perspective.

I think happiness is a universal goal. If you keep asking someone why they want X, at the end of the interrogation the eventual goal is happiness. (Why do you want to follow God's commandments? To get into heaven. Why do you want to go to heaven? Because I would be happy there.)

So I strongly assert that it is not a matter of perspective. There are objective, discoverable answers to the question: How should I live?

btw, speaking of universality, these are applicable universally. That is, whether you are a New Guinea highlander or a Londoner, you will derive happiness from doing kindness, earn trust by being honest, and prosper better if you can learn to live in peace with your neighbors.

 

[Autodidact]

'Objective' means to pass all falsification. If an object is 'objective', it exists in and of itself without human perception or any context.. meaning that in any context the 'object' occupies, it still holds the same truth value.

There is no moral that is an 'object'.

I disagree. It is an objective fact that if you get up right now, go down to the street and put a coin in someone's parking meter, you will immediately be happier, and will continue to be happier for about 24 hours. We know this about you because we've researched it. So if you want to make the most of your life, it is an objective fact that you should make the most of any opportunity to be kind to others.

 

[Walkntune]

No, I disagree. Reality is objective, so to speak, but people differ in their perception of it. There is an objective basis to ethics, but people differ in their knowledge and understanding of it.

What I mean, is (unless you are a sociopath) giving presents to others makes you happier than spending money on yourself. Unfortunately, many poor souls don't know this, and try to make themselves happy by spending on themselves, which doesn't work. There is an objective reality, it's just that they are ignorant of it.

And the truth will set you free! If people only realised the happiness comes from giving love and not trying to receive love they would constantly feel love and walk above all laws of morality for love is not subject to any laws but obeys automatically.

 

[McBell]

One common mistaken idea that I encounter mostly among atheists is the idea that morals are purely subjective. This is simply not true, and I find it very annoying that they so often criticize theists for having unfounded claims about morality, but can't in return offer any alternative themselves.

Morality is a suite of sociobiological tendencies which foster social cohension. In order to accomplish this, altruism is necessary, and the concept of harm is also necessary. To say that morality is simply what we all think is a good idea is clearly false. If this were so, then it would be a valid argument to say that Hitler acted morally because he was acting in accordance with the desires of his cohorts.

The fact is that morality is rooted in our ability to cause harm to other sentient creatures, and our power both understand this, and act accordingly.

Please feel welcome to challenge me, becasue I think it is an area where non-religious people need to do some thinking if they expect to continue criticzing theological claims about morality.

Please present an objective moral law.
Not a law that most people agree with, like killing is wrong.
But a truly objective moral law.