Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality

[The Tanager]

So, this would be a question to those who believe that objective morality can be founded upon an atheistic worldview. What is the objective foundation?

[The Tanager]

On the basis that they couldn't care less about general human wellbeing. And since all ethical theory essentially comes down to that*, they can't call themselves moral, even if they don't (say) have sex with underage children.

This seems like begging the question. You seem to be saying that morality objectively means A, B, C. If they disagree and say morality objectively means not-A, not-B and not-C, then they aren't really talking about morality. But they are. They just disagree with you on what "general human wellbeing" means.

*eg; deontology - rules and duties imposed (perhaps by God) for our greater good determines the ethical. Or utilitarianism - human happiness determines the ethical. Or virtue ethics - human flourishing as promoted by human virtue determines determines the ethical. Or situation ethics - what we should do in any given situation to promote human well-being determines the ethical. 2RM.

That disagreement could come through rules and duties imposed upon us for our greater good, or our greater happiness, or our flourishing, through an absolutist view or through a situationally objective view.

[The Tanager]

Right you are, "it just is" is the same kind of answer to "God made it that way."

I think it's the same in one way, but not another. They are the same in the sense of bottoming out in a brute, eternal fact (morals/math facts versus God). They both end in "the explanation as to why ends here." But those brute, eternal facts (if true) don't relate to our observation (of math or morality applying to reality objectively) in the same way. The explanation ended upon are different kinds of explanation. The God brute fact gives a good explanation of this applicability of math and morals: an intelligence made those things apply. The no-God brute fact scenario: we just got lucky.

If we see stones arranged in an english word on another planet, a better kind explanation is that there is intelligence behind that, rather than "it just is." Even if we can't give a reason why that intelligence exists rather than not existing.

[2ndRateMind]

On the basis that they couldn't care less about general human wellbeing. And since all ethical theory essentially comes down to that*, they can't call themselves moral, even if they don't (say) have sex with underage children.

This seems like begging the question. You seem to be saying that morality objectively means A, B, C. If they disagree and say morality objectively means not-A, not-B and not-C, then they aren't really talking about morality. But they are. They just disagree with you on what "general human wellbeing" means.

OK, but there are certain biological, objective certainties about human well being. One needs enough to eat, such that one's diet (particularly important with children) actually nourishes one's physical development. One needs clean, unpolluted, water to drink, such that it causes no disease in the drinker. etc.

*eg; deontology - rules and duties imposed (perhaps by God) for our greater good determines the ethical. Or utilitarianism - human happiness determines the ethical. Or virtue ethics - human flourishing as promoted by human virtue determines determines the ethical. Or situation ethics - what we should do in any given situation to promote human well-being determines the ethical. 2RM.

That disagreement could come through rules and duties imposed upon us for our greater good, or our greater happiness, or our flourishing, through an absolutist view or through a situationally objective view.

Indeed it could. And among many ethicists it certainly does. But nevertheless, most ethical philosophers are agreed that human well-being is their final, decisive, objective goal. Or what would be the point of ethics?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[DPMartin]

So, this would be a question to those who believe that objective morality can be founded upon an atheistic worldview. What is the objective foundation?

subjective or objective muddies the waters on morality. intentionally I suspect.


morals are relative, because their must be an agreement between two or more conscious beings that can have a agreement. no one is bound to an agreement they are not conscious of such as animals or people or God that they have not agreed to.

without the agreement there are no such thing as morals. if there's no understood agreement in the case of who should eat your sandwich then some one takes your sandwich is it immoral? or is it that you disagree with that person that they should eat the sandwich in your possession?

but if you live within a society that has not only taught you and that person that he should not take your sandwich without your permission and remain in that society then by default both you and that person agree its your sandwich and he shouldn't take it without your permission. then is there an anxiety for morals if he should take your sandwich by force without your permission.

otherwise without the agreement who ever gets the food and eats it first wins the nourishment to live another day, such as animals do, without reservation or hesitation guilt or blame, or shame or entitlement to restitution.


also

what is agreed to do's and don'ts in the US isn't what is agreed to do's and don'ts in say Iran or Russia. the Russian citizen is not obligated in anyway to US law or moral standards nor is the US citizen obligated or bound to Russian law or moral sensibilities. one group is not in agreement with another. hence separate nations and ways of thinking and doing.


if one nation should attack another is that immoral? not if there is no agreement or treaty between the two. if there's a agreement then there is a set of morals to hold each other to.

[Bust Nak]

The God brute fact gives a good explanation of this applicability of math and morals: an intelligence made those things apply.

How is that a good explanation when God had no reason to make those things apply? It's entirely arbitrary: we just got lucky.

If we see stones arranged in an english word on another planet, a better kind explanation is that there is intelligence behind that, rather than "it just is." Even if we can't give a reason why that intelligence exists rather than not existing.

But there is a reason why this intelligence put those words there, right? It's not a brute fact that an intelligence made that word.

[2ndRateMind]

So, this would be a question to those who believe that objective morality can be founded upon an atheistic worldview. What is the objective foundation?

if one nation should attack another is that immoral? not if there is no agreement or treaty between the two. if there's a agreement then there is a set of morals to hold each other to.

We do all, of course differ in detail on matters relating to ethics and morality. Humanity has yet to reach deciding conclusions on this topic.

But, nevertheless, I do not think a contractual interpretation of ethics to be altogether satisfying. Should I be moral only to those with which I have such a contractual relationship, or should I be moral towards everyone, everywhere?

I think I can guess where you get this idea of a contractual morality from, and it is the market economy, which the US Republican political tendency often thinks to be the highest good. So, I pay $X and you give me widget W. I work for you for H hours, and you pay me $Y. It is all very fair and just, but depends on it's fairness and justness on a higher justification than simply the market going rate.

Ethics doesn't really work like this. Ethics is about what is good and right, irrespective of any market. It is about doing what is good and right, not because I have a contractual relationship with you, but just because the good is good, and the right is right, and humanity and humans flourish when the good and right is done.

Or look at it another way: if people didn't do what is good and right, they wouldn't honour any supposedly ethical, supposed contract, and that would be the end of the market economy, and any contractual theory of ethics.

So, I am inclined to the view that the good, and the right, take precedence over simple agreements. I think we should be ethical, not because there is some supposed contract to be ethical, (which I can't remember ever signing, anyway) but because we want to be ethical, and have found that to be what makes us happy.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[DPMartin]

So, this would be a question to those who believe that objective morality can be founded upon an atheistic worldview. What is the objective foundation?

if one nation should attack another is that immoral? not if there is no agreement or treaty between the two. if there's a agreement then there is a set of morals to hold each other to.

We do all, of course differ in detail on matters relating to ethics and morality. Humanity has yet to reach deciding conclusions on this topic.

But, nevertheless, I do not think a contractual interpretation of ethics to be altogether satisfying. Should I be moral only to those with which I have such a contractual relationship, or should I be moral towards everyone, everywhere?

So, I am inclined to the view that the good, and the right, take precedence over simple agreements. I think we should be ethical, not because there is some supposed contract to be ethical, (which I can't remember ever signing, anyway) but because we want to be ethical, and have found that to be what makes us happy.

Best wishes, 2RM.

but "good and right" isn't according to your judgement. telling me you are inherently good therefore your judgement is good.


and all law, constitutions, governments and their people, social etiquette, households, friends, marriages, clubs, contracts, economic activity are in the context of an agreement, always. or transactions are by force, and violent. there is no coexistence between people of any sort without an agreement. us and them are just a application thereof, there is not a natural law that expresses utopia according to your judgement of what ought to be, so everyone isn't required to agree in all aspects of this life in the flesh. hence this people and those people.

one should look at things as they are, not what one thinks they ought to be. thinking ones self is good isn't correct, to make ones self in ones own mind a judge of what is good. that's basically narsisitic that one sees themselves as what is good for the world, therefore the judge thereof, and bad is what doesn't agree with that person. that's real center of the universe thinking, a need to be important when they are not.

if a person continues with in a nation's territory it by default agrees to the nations laws. if one is a guest in some ones household then the rules of the household apply and the guest agrees to the rules to remain a guest. if you pay a cover charge to enter an establishment you agreed. you valued entry more than the money paid. when you go into a store you agree by default to the rules that most shoppers follow, or they throw you out or have you arrested for theft. the agreement takes precedence over your personal judgement. all human activity in a coexistent environment is under a agreement that can be spoken written or even unspoken in some cases.


what is immoral is to enter the agreement and deliberately brake it, what is unethical is to be entrusted with the administration of the agreement for the group in the agreement, and betray that trust.

[The Tanager]

OK, but there are certain biological, objective certainties about human well being. One needs enough to eat, such that one's diet (particularly important with children) actually nourishes one's physical development. One needs clean, unpolluted, water to drink, such that it causes no disease in the drinker. etc.

But there is still a disagreement about who needs these things. You and I say it should be extended to every human being. And, hopefully, we put some of our resources into actually bringing this about. [I'm not saying you aren't, I'm just trying to remind myself at least that this isn't just some intellectual exercise.] But others could care less about every human being well, caring only about a certain group (only themself, family, friends, tribe, country, whatever). Why is there an objective truth in this kind of disagreement we have with others?

[The Tanager]

subjective or objective muddies the waters on morality. intentionally I suspect.


morals are relative, because their must be an agreement between two or more conscious beings that can have a agreement. no one is bound to an agreement they are not conscious of such as animals or people or God that they have not agreed to.

What do you see as the difference between what you are calling 'relative' and what others call 'subjective'? You seem to be saying morality is conventional. People decide together what is going to be moral and immoral and then are wrong if they go against their conventional agreements that could have been different than they are. But if no one enters any agreement, they can't be moral or immoral. This seems to me to say morality is a matter of opinion. This sounds like subjectivity to me. Why does calling it "subjective" muddy things?

[The Tanager]

How is that a good explanation when God had no reason to make those things apply? It's entirely arbitrary: we just got lucky.

I'm distinguishing between that explanations and why explanations.

I'm saying theism is a good explanation for that those things apply. Just like the good explanation for that the rocks on another planet spell an english word is that an intelligent being laid the stones out. That is a better explanation of the fact that it spells an english word then coincidence is.

We can then further ask your question for an explanation of why those things apply. What was the purpose behind it? Different theists may give different responses here. God gives humans the ability to understand math so that they can create wonderful things to help each other navigate the physical world could be part of a response, for example. Just like in the analogy the why of the rocks spelling an English word could be to inform English speaking humans that other planets are populated and they know about us. Or they could spell it out in other or multiple languages, I'm not meaning to be an American elitist in this example.

But, what I was pointing to was a different further question, still of the that kind of explanation. We can then ask why that intelligence exists that made those things apply for whatever reason they decided to make those things apply. Everyone has to stop at a brute fact in the explanations for that something is the case. That is the point the theistic explanation stops at. God is the eternal brute fact. That, in this sense, is a stop one step beyond where the atheist you described stops the explanation at. I think stopping it at the theistic brute fact makes better sense because I think intelligence is a better explanation for that something intelligible exists than coincidence.