Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality
Moderator: Moderators
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4975
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 149 times
Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality
Post #1So, this would be a question to those who believe that objective morality can be founded upon an atheistic worldview. What is the objective foundation?
- 2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Re: Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality
Post #211Feel free, by all means. I will happily contribute, if I have anything pertinent to say.John Human wrote:Um, you just evoked the spirit of "natural law, " maybe I'll start a thread on that topic.2ndRateMind wrote: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.The Tanager wrote: 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?
Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Not all who wander are lost
Post #212
I don't understand the question but will try an answer. Vampire bats with a surplus of food share food with hungry roost mates who haven't found any. The behaviour was automatically selected for because it increases chances of survival. It's objectively right behaviour for a bat. Same with humans if that behaviour is most beneficial for survival.William wrote: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?Artie wrote:1: Evolution and natural selection evolved people capable of having subjective opinions.William wrote: [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?
2: In a way.That the process of evolution and natural selection give us an opportunity of understanding of what is right and wrong apart from subjective opinions?
3: Also one way to put it.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?
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4975
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 149 times
Post #213
I agree there is an objective standard irrespective of our personal set of values that leads to an objective good and evil. I just don't see a sensible foundation for that belief on an atheistic worldview. Are you arguing, assuming for the sake of argument that atheism is true (I mean that in the sense of a truth claim that God does not exist), that there is a sensible foundation for objective values? If so, I don't see what foundation you are arguing could be there.2ndRateMind wrote: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.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4975
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 149 times
Post #214
Okay, so whatever the magic number (I don't use that perjoratively, just to be clear) is, that society kills them off and continues to survive. We have achieved functional objectivity. Yet we have what we both would call an immoral rule, right? Or are you saying that it was a moral action for that society to kill off that race because they were able to survive as a society by doing so?Artie wrote:Whether a society can survive if one specific race is wiped out depends on how many members of that race lives in the society.
Post #215
A theist has the same foundation for objective morality as an atheist.The Tanager wrote:I agree there is an objective standard irrespective of our personal set of values that leads to an objective good and evil. I just don't see a sensible foundation for that belief on an atheistic worldview. Are you arguing, assuming for the sake of argument that atheism is true (I mean that in the sense of a truth claim that God does not exist), that there is a sensible foundation for objective values? If so, I don't see what foundation you are arguing could be there.2ndRateMind wrote: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.
https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/
Post #216
Causing a death or deaths that is detrimental to the society is immoral no matter if the society doesn't collapse because of those deaths. You don't "achieve" functional objectivity. Functional objectivity means that a death that is detrimental is objectively detrimental since whether it's detrimental or not doesn't depend on subjective opinion.The Tanager wrote:Okay, so whatever the magic number (I don't use that perjoratively, just to be clear) is, that society kills them off and continues to survive. We have achieved functional objectivity.Artie wrote:Whether a society can survive if one specific race is wiped out depends on how many members of that race lives in the society.
- 2ndRateMind
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1540
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
- Location: Pilgrim on another way
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Post #217
Uh huh. Well, I would tend to the opinion that the 'foundation' is not on bedrock certain fact, but the quality of our aspirations and intentions. What we want or do not want to become, the goodnesses we want or do not want to achieve for the world, these are what make of us virtuous or vicious. For we believers, motivated towards pursuing goodness in all things, the ultimate goodness is God. But for unbelievers, it is simply ultimate goodness. I don't see anything but a semantic difference at play here.The Tanager wrote:I agree there is an objective standard irrespective of our personal set of values that leads to an objective good and evil. I just don't see a sensible foundation for that belief on an atheistic worldview. Are you arguing, assuming for the sake of argument that atheism is true (I mean that in the sense of a truth claim that God does not exist), that there is a sensible foundation for objective values? If so, I don't see what foundation you are arguing could be there.2ndRateMind wrote: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.
This is a modified coherentist view, that our world-views are interlocking and mutually supporting systems of ideas, which, to avoid cognitive dissonance, we try to make and keep as consistent, coherent and comprehensive as possible. I am not arguing that atheism is true; just that it makes no difference, in this model of our psychologies, whether one is an atheist or a theist. Either way, for better or worse, it is our ambitions that determine our way of being, be that saint or sinner, and, jointly, the way the world is. This rather than any elusive foundation of knowledge epistemologists have yet to discover, and from which all other truths may be deduced.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost
Not all who wander are lost
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4975
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 149 times
Post #218
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When I talk about the foundation of objective morality for the theist, I'm talking about God.Artie wrote:A theist has the same foundation for objective morality as an atheist.
https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/
Functional objectivity says that anything detrimental to the survival of the society as a whole is immoral. The society as a whole could survive killing off one race. What do you mean by "society"?Artie wrote:Causing a death or deaths that is detrimental to the society is immoral no matter if the society doesn't collapse because of those deaths. You don't "achieve" functional objectivity. Functional objectivity means that a death that is detrimental is objectively detrimental since whether it's detrimental or not doesn't depend on subjective opinion.
- The Tanager
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4975
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 149 times
Post #219
But one person's goodness is another person's badness because we have different desires. What people want to do, what they consider virtues, what they call "ultimate goodness" differs. If our ambitions are the foundation, then, since our ambitions are subjective, the morality founded upon those ambitions would be subjective.2ndRateMind wrote:Uh huh. Well, I would tend to the opinion that the 'foundation' is not on bedrock certain fact, but the quality of our aspirations and intentions. What we want or do not want to become, the goodnesses we want or do not want to achieve for the world, these are what make of us virtuous or vicious. For we believers, motivated towards pursuing goodness in all things, the ultimate goodness is God. But for unbelievers, it is simply ultimate goodness. I don't see anything but a semantic difference at play here.
This is a modified coherentist view, that our world-views are interlocking and mutually supporting systems of ideas, which, to avoid cognitive dissonance, we try to make and keep as consistent, coherent and comprehensive as possible. I am not arguing that atheism is true; just that it makes no difference, in this model of our psychologies, whether one is an atheist or a theist. Either way, for better or worse, it is our ambitions that determine our way of being, be that saint or sinner, and, jointly, the way the world is. This rather than any elusive foundation of knowledge epistemologists have yet to discover, and from which all other truths may be deduced.
If atheism is true, these subjective differences appear to be all there is (unless one thinks morals are abstract ideas or physical properties we have, views which seem to me to have serious flaws). If theism is true, there is a standard that objectively exists that the various different human views can be measured up against.
Re: Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality
Post #2202ndRateMind wrote: 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?
You can't have a value without a valuer. It doesn't make sense to say that something is an improvement irrespective of our values. Only valuing a change can make that change into an improvement.