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?

[Artie]

[Replying to post 197 by Artie]But a rule like the ones I mentioned will not inherently destroy a society. If the Nazis won the war and eradicated their society of all Jews, then they could have survived without Jewish people (if they maintained power--I think it's power that leads to survival of a society). If all whites were killed, society could go on because there is nothing that only whites can do.

The Nazis had a lot of power but used it so immorally that the rest of the world had no choice but to wipe them out. Behaving too immorally gets your society destroyed.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 197 by Artie]But a rule like the ones I mentioned will not inherently destroy a society. If the Nazis won the war and eradicated their society of all Jews, then they could have survived without Jewish people (if they maintained power--I think it's power that leads to survival of a society). If all whites were killed, society could go on because there is nothing that only whites can do.

The Nazis had a lot of power but used it so immorally that the rest of the world had no choice but to wipe them out. Behaving too immorally gets your society destroyed.

That it historically happened that way is different than saying that it had to happen that way. I want to see the reasoning behind your belief that it had to happen that way.

My explanation that the way things happened to work out is more due to which group had the power behind them makes perfect sense of both parts of this issue. Those with the power will win out. Their beliefs will win out. Luckily, the Nazis did not have more power or use their advantages more shrewdly. Functional objectivity is better explained by who has the power.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 197 by Artie]But a rule like the ones I mentioned will not inherently destroy a society. If the Nazis won the war and eradicated their society of all Jews, then they could have survived without Jewish people (if they maintained power--I think it's power that leads to survival of a society). If all whites were killed, society could go on because there is nothing that only whites can do.

The Nazis had a lot of power but used it so immorally that the rest of the world had no choice but to wipe them out. Behaving too immorally gets your society destroyed.

That it historically happened that way is different than saying that it had to happen that way. I want to see the reasoning behind your belief that it had to happen that way.

My explanation that the way things happened to work out is more due to which group had the power behind them makes perfect sense of both parts of this issue. Those with the power will win out. Their beliefs will win out. Luckily, the Nazis did not have more power or use their advantages more shrewdly. Functional objectivity is better explained by who has the power.

Doesn't matter how much power you have or what your beliefs are you can't change what is objectively beneficial or detrimental for the well-being and survival of the society. "I have a lot of power and I believe it's good for the society if I murder everybody..." no, still doesn't make it objectively moral. You wrote "if the Nazis won the war". Theoretically when would that be?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 198 by 2ndRateMind]

I'm not sure I am following. What do you mean by "the outcomes of our moral choices are objective"? Could you give a specific example?

Sure. Let's take two examples, one of the good, one of the bad.

1) So, suppose I decided to devote 4% of my income to helping poor people in Africa. But instead of giving that income away each month, I lend it, to be paid back over a year or so, as the budding entrepreneur I support can afford it, out of the extra earnings she can make due to the increased investment she can now afford. As a result, her income increases, and she can afford fresh and clean water (reducing disease), a proper diet for her family (reducing malnutrition and hunger) and maybe even send her children to school (breaking the poverty cycle that keeps the poorest poor). And when she has finished repaying, I can lend the money to someone else, to improve the next individual's life chances, also. These are all objective outcomes.

2) Or, suppose I decided to spend my 4% of income on drugs, alcohol, tobacco, whatever. I get a reduced life expectancy, and eventually die of an overdose/cirrhosis of the liver/lung cancer or heart disease. These are all objective outcomes, also.

So, if these outcomes of my moral choices are objective, then maybe the morals themselves are, also.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 203 by Artie]

I agree that the much more general rule--you can murder anyone for any reason--would destroy a society if followed. I've used much more specific rules than that, however. Are you saying that a society could not conceivably survive if one specific race were wiped out? That the action is immoral is enough to make that society fall apart regardless of the subjective opinions of others? That is, assume other societies are indifferent to the action for whatever reason...this society could not continue to exist in such a world?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 204 by 2ndRateMind]

Something tells me I'm still missing something about how you are using "morals" in that last sentence. I agree that your choice and the outcomes from that are objective in a sense like "existing outside of the subject's mind." Our choices objectively exist and can impact other human beings, rather than being a game all in our heads. But this doesn't tell us anything about what kind of impact we had. To put it another way: the fact that one's choices can objectively change another's objective situation is a different question than whether that change was an objective improvement or not.

[William]

[Replying to post 103 by Artie]

I didn't really understand your apparent answer.

Are you perhaps claiming that the subjective opinions of people are not part of the process of evolution and natural selection?

1: Evolution and natural selection evolved people capable of having subjective opinions.

That the process of evolution and natural selection give us an opportunity of understanding of what is right and wrong apart from subjective opinions?

2: In a way.

That the process of evolution and natural selection is not subject to personal opinion (subjective interpretation?) and are perhaps easily enough understood through impartial observation where right and wrong can be observed within said process?

3: Also one way to put it.

If we were to observe the planet and evolutionary processes re that, where can it be seen besides in human subjective opinions, any sign of objective morality within said nature?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 204 by 2ndRateMind]

Something tells me I'm still missing something about how you are using "morals" in that last sentence. I agree that your choice and the outcomes from that are objective in a sense like "existing outside of the subject's mind." Our choices objectively exist and can impact other human beings, rather than being a game all in our heads. But this doesn't tell us anything about what kind of impact we had. To put it another way: the fact that one's choices can objectively change another's objective situation is a different question than whether that change was an objective improvement or not.

To be sure, whether we think an outcome an improvement or not depends on our personal set of values. But that does not preclude an outcome that really is an objective improvement on the status quo irrespective of our values. And that would imply some objective 'right' set of values, don't you think?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 203 by Artie]

I agree that the much more general rule--you can murder anyone for any reason--would destroy a society if followed. I've used much more specific rules than that, however. Are you saying that a society could not conceivably survive if one specific race were wiped out? That the action is immoral is enough to make that society fall apart regardless of the subjective opinions of others? That is, assume other societies are indifferent to the action for whatever reason...this society could not continue to exist in such a world?

Whether a society can survive if one specific race is wiped out depends on how many members of that race lives in the society.

[John Human]

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?

Human nature? I would like to derive an uncontroversial morality from undisputed fact, despite Hume's contention that one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. And it occurs to me that an appeal to human well-being may be one way of doing so.

Um, you just evoked the spirit of "natural law, " maybe I'll start a thread on that topic.