Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality

Post by **The Tanager** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:35 pm

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 · Post by **Artie** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:39 am

marco wrote:
Artie wrote:
Are you actually telling us that you wouldn't lift a finger to save ten people if it meant hurting one?
There are so many unknown factors in this situation that one can act only when one is given the details. Of course one can kill ten evil people in order to save one person. Given there is no question of guilt it is certainly not clear that we should kill one person to save ten; counting heads isn't, I should have thought, a basis for making moral decisions.

Having said this I don't regard morality as being objective; what is right in one situation may be wrong in something of a similar situation.

Why can't something be objectively right in one situation and objectively wrong in another?

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:07 am

[Replying to post 301 by Artie]

The point was you claimed that it was obvious that "it's immoral to let 10 people die and one person live if your other option is to let one person die and 10 people live." It's not so obvious, it depends on the specifics.

Post by **The Tanager** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:42 pm

Artie wrote:No. Whether some action is moral or immoral depends on the circumstances and sometimes we just don't have enough information to make an informed decision. In your gunman example it's pretty clear what the moral action is but in other situations we do nothing because we can't tell what the moral action is so we figure inaction is better than the wrong action. In your transplant example I can't imagine it could be good for a society if random people started killing other random healthy people and took them to hospitals to harvest their organs.

But we need to see if your inability to imagine it being good is an emotional or rational response. What if society had specifically trained people perform the killing? And the people chosen to be killed are selected through a completely equal and transparent lottery? Their surviving family members, although it will not make up for their loss, can even be given some kind of compensation, as long as that compensation is not a detriment to society as a whole. All done in the interests of society as a whole. From what you had been saying, this seems like it would be an overall good for society, giving it that survival advantage over a society that loses so many to a lack of transplants.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:06 am

The Tanager wrote:
Artie wrote:No. Whether some action is moral or immoral depends on the circumstances and sometimes we just don't have enough information to make an informed decision. In your gunman example it's pretty clear what the moral action is but in other situations we do nothing because we can't tell what the moral action is so we figure inaction is better than the wrong action. In your transplant example I can't imagine it could be good for a society if random people started killing other random healthy people and took them to hospitals to harvest their organs.
But we need to see if your inability to imagine it being good is an emotional or rational response. What if society had specifically trained people perform the killing? And the people chosen to be killed are selected through a completely equal and transparent lottery? Their surviving family members, although it will not make up for their loss, can even be given some kind of compensation, as long as that compensation is not a detriment to society as a whole. All done in the interests of society as a whole. From what you had been saying, this seems like it would be an overall good for society, giving it that survival advantage over a society that loses so many to a lack of transplants.

What if we make body clones without brains and harvest their organs for our own use? What if we grow organs in labs? What if we print out organs? What if we manipulate animal DNA so that for example pigs can grow human organs? I imagine all these options could be better than your solution as they wouldn't involve losing members of the society.

Post by **The Tanager** » Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:22 am

Artie wrote:What if we make body clones without brains and harvest their organs for our own use? What if we grow organs in labs? What if we print out organs? What if we manipulate animal DNA so that for example pigs can grow human organs? I imagine all these options could be better than your solution as they wouldn't involve losing members of the society.

But the society we are talking about doesn't have that technology. Their best option involves the scenario as presented. By your reasoning, the society that kills the innocent person to harvest organs is acting in the best interests of society. It is a moral act, then, right? Even though societies in that situation never have historically chosen that because of a moral sensibility against it.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:41 am

The Tanager wrote:
Artie wrote:What if we make body clones without brains and harvest their organs for our own use? What if we grow organs in labs? What if we print out organs? What if we manipulate animal DNA so that for example pigs can grow human organs? I imagine all these options could be better than your solution as they wouldn't involve losing members of the society.
But the society we are talking about doesn't have that technology. Their best option involves the scenario as presented.

And how exactly do you know that this would be the society's best option? How did you reach that conclusion? Have you heard every argument for and against? Do you know exactly what would happen in a society if your option was implemented? Of course not. So no society has ever chosen it.

Post by **The Tanager** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:16 am

[Replying to post 306 by Artie]

You've admitted that when "what is best for society" clashes with an alternative desire, that the former trumps the latter. I'm trying to see why you think it trumps the latter. To do so I've tried to lay out a specific thought experiment, not because I know all the details, but to get at the general principle for why you are saying the former trumps the latter. But then you end up arguing that there is no apparent clash between the two. But you've admitted they can clash, so, let's forget the thought experiments because they are just confusing the picture; that's my bad. What I'm really interested in is why does the former trump the latter?

Your latest thought, it seemed to me, was that evolution and natural selection leads to benefitting society and that the alternative is due to bad genes, disease, injury, and bad upbringing. I wrote something that you did not respond to (I'm not blaming you for that because you were shocked that I would let ten people die for one and you wanted to make sure I wasn't a loony for saying that) that I would like to get back to:

Both wirings exist, so natural selection isn't just selecting one wiring over the other. Evolution has equally lead to the existence of both. To say that the selfish wiring is due to natural defects or an upbringing by a naturally defective individual or group seems to beg the question in favor of our wiring over another person's wiring unless you have support for that claim rather than just a claim that it has happened that way.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:38 am

The Tanager wrote: [Replying to post 306 by Artie]

You've admitted that when "what is best for society" clashes with an alternative desire, that the former trumps the latter. I'm trying to see why you think it trumps the latter. To do so I've tried to lay out a specific thought experiment, not because I know all the details, but to get at the general principle for why you are saying the former trumps the latter. But then you end up arguing that there is no apparent clash between the two. But you've admitted they can clash, so, let's forget the thought experiments because they are just confusing the picture; that's my bad. What I'm really interested in is why does the former trump the latter?

Your latest thought, it seemed to me, was that evolution and natural selection leads to benefitting society and that the alternative is due to bad genes, disease, injury, and bad upbringing. I wrote something that you did not respond to (I'm not blaming you for that because you were shocked that I would let ten people die for one and you wanted to make sure I wasn't a loony for saying that) that I would like to get back to:

Both wirings exist, so natural selection isn't just selecting one wiring over the other. Evolution has equally lead to the existence of both. To say that the selfish wiring is due to natural defects or an upbringing by a naturally defective individual or group seems to beg the question in favor of our wiring over another person's wiring unless you have support for that claim rather than just a claim that it has happened that way.

Suppose you have two people without children. One is moral and lives a long life helping people and produces lots of offspring. The other hurts people and gets shot before he can produce children. Can you guess which brain wiring was better for survival and got selected for?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:49 am

The Tanager wrote: [Replying to post 306 by Artie]

You've admitted that when "what is best for society" clashes with an alternative desire, that the former trumps the latter. I'm trying to see why you think it trumps the latter. To do so I've tried to lay out a specific thought experiment, not because I know all the details, but to get at the general principle for why you are saying the former trumps the latter. But then you end up arguing that there is no apparent clash between the two. But you've admitted they can clash, so, let's forget the thought experiments because they are just confusing the picture; that's my bad. What I'm really interested in is why does the former trump the latter?

Your latest thought, it seemed to me, was that evolution and natural selection leads to benefitting society and that the alternative is due to bad genes, disease, injury, and bad upbringing. I wrote something that you did not respond to (I'm not blaming you for that because you were shocked that I would let ten people die for one and you wanted to make sure I wasn't a loony for saying that) that I would like to get back to:

Both wirings exist, so natural selection isn't just selecting one wiring over the other. Evolution has equally lead to the existence of both. To say that the selfish wiring is due to natural defects or an upbringing by a naturally defective individual or group seems to beg the question in favor of our wiring over another person's wiring unless you have support for that claim rather than just a claim that it has happened that way.

One person helps other people and lives a long and moral life and produces lots of offspring. Another person hurts people and gets shot before he can produce offspring. Which brain wiring got selected? Which brain wiring is most beneficial for the well-being and survival of the society?

Post by **The Tanager** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:23 pm

Artie wrote:One person helps other people and lives a long and moral life and produces lots of offspring. Another person hurts people and gets shot before he can produce offspring. Which brain wiring got selected? Which brain wiring is most beneficial for the well-being and survival of the society?

But, if that were true, then why do we still have people with the wiring to hurt people and look out for number 1? We have a LOT of people in existence like that. (I would put myself there at times in reality, if not in stated intention, but that is probably beside the point). Their wiring, apparently, has been naturally selected, but your view is saying that can't be true. Or, earlier, you asserted (with no support) that those people have defective genes or were brought up by those who do. If that is still your thought, do you have evidence of that claim?