Can Atheism ground objective morality?

[The Tanager]

In my exploration and discussions, I have not seen an atheistic worldview be able to logically account for morality being objective. The closest I've seen is an atheistic platonic kind of moral system, but while that seems to be able to account for the existence of 'good' and 'evil', it still doesn't seem to account for why humans would be obligated to choose Good over Evil. I'd love to hear cases from those who think atheism can account for objective morality to make sure I haven't missed (or misunderstood) thoughts in my exploration.

[Bradskii]

No, I think we have free will to agree or disagree.

In passing, I don't think that we have free will.

I don’t think a command is objectively good because God commands it to be so.

That makes no sense. Even to an atheist. God cannot, by definition, command something that is not good. If He says that something is good then it is objectively good.

I think atheism can provide an account of us having an objective nature (where certain things are good/bad for things) , but I’m asking if it can provide an account for an objective purpose that we ought to pursue doing good for certain beings or not (or something other than objective purpose) that would account for objective morality.

As to why we ought to pursue going good for some people, there's the Golden Rule. Or, in evolutionary terms, reciprocal altruism. It's an evolutionary advantage so the majority of us would tend towards it. But that doesn't lead to an objective morality.

I agree. But that is not what I’m talking about in this thread. I’m not talking about how we choose to act one way or another, but about if “we ought to act this way” makes sense if atheism is true.

If beating me with a stick causes me distress, then you ought not to do it. I think that simple example probably sums up where an atheist might get their sense of morality from.

Yes, being generous has helped you avoid a very bad misunderstanding of what I was saying. I believe atheism logically leads to subjective morality, but many atheists still believe in objective morality, so I’m seeing if any one can provide a rational foundation to hold both objective morality and atheism to be true.

Short of the brief explanation of what Sam Harris thought...no, no-one can.

I don’t think ‘objective’ and ‘relative’ are referring to the same question. We should distinguish objective from subjective and relative from absolute. I’m an objective relativist. Whether an atheist is an objective relativist or objective absolutist, I’m asking if such an atheist can be logically consistent in holding the objectivist part.

Sorry! My bad. Perhaps I posted before I'd had my coffee. I meant subjective, not relative.

And in some matters, it's definitely a personal decision, and hence subjective. Like euthanasia for example. Or abortion. Or the death penalty.

Flesh this out more because it may be that we are talking past each other on the terms here, as I don’t think being ‘relative’ follows from it being a ‘personal’ decision.

I corrected my typo, so it will now read as I meant it.

[Vilferatus]

If there is an Absolute, it would serve as an objective reference, from wich you can define objective truth. So, God is exactly that by definition. If you deny the existence of God (the concept of God) then, you are denying that objective morality exist.

If you state, as you just did, that objective morality can only be defined by reference to God, then your original question makes no sense, because you are restricting it to people who don't believe in God. You're effectively saying 'Here's a question for people who believe that God does not exist, but it can only be answered by people who believe that God does exist'.

You're excluding those to whom the question is being asked.

The problem about how do you know what is that true is a different problem, even if not a single person in the world know what the Truth is, the Truth would still exist in the Theist framework.

There's no such thing as capital T Truth unless you're going to start a sentence with it. But now you're asking a different question. Which is easy to answer whether you're an atheist or not. Truth is a verifiable statement of fact.

Let's go back to an example I used. Tie me to a post and beat me with a stick will be painful. That's a true statement. I won't like it. Another true statement. I would prefer that you not do it. Yet another. So if we throw in terms like good and bad then we can say that as far as I am concerned it's true that you beating me with a stick is bad.

You'll note the highlighted section. It's a relative statement. It's not objectively true, even if we all agree that it's a fact.

Exactly my piont. Your worldview just accepts that there is no such thing as Truth with capital letter... nobody is imposing that on you, it is your own axiom. My axiom is, there is One. So in my framework, there is an Absolute Truth, so in my framework there is ground for objective morality. In yours, there´s not.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #41]

I don’t think a command is objectively good because God commands it to be so.

That makes no sense. Even to an atheist. God cannot, by definition, command something that is not good. If He says that something is good then it is objectively good.

There is a difference between whether God can command bad things and whether good/bad is determined by God’s commands. I think good/bad is determined by the nature of things (including purpose), not by statements about them (even if the statements are true). So, God's act of creation determines good/bad, even if God were able to command something against the natures created.

As to why we ought to pursue going good for some people, there's the Golden Rule. Or, in evolutionary terms, reciprocal altruism. It's an evolutionary advantage so the majority of us would tend towards it. But that doesn't lead to an objective morality.

Yes, there are reasons to do it and reasons not to do it (both would be the result of evolution). I agree with you that this doesn’t lead to objective morality.

If beating me with a stick causes me distress, then you ought not to do it. I think that simple example probably sums up where an atheist might get their sense of morality from.

Why should one only consider your distress (or distress in general)? If it gives them great benefit (for instance), why does your distress outweigh their benefit?

es, being generous has helped you avoid a very bad misunderstanding of what I was saying. I believe atheism logically leads to subjective morality, but many atheists still believe in objective morality, so I’m seeing if any one can provide a rational foundation to hold both objective morality and atheism to be true.

Short of the brief explanation of what Sam Harris thought...no, no-one can.

I thought you said you didn't agree with Harris’ explanation, but perhaps I misunderstood. Why do you think Harris' view provides a rational foundation for objective morality?

And in some matters, it's definitely a personal decision, and hence subjective. Like euthanasia for example. Or abortion. Or the death penalty.

Thanks for clarifying. Why do you think ‘subjective morality' follows from it being a ‘personal’ decision?

[Bradskii]

Exactly my piont. Your worldview just accepts that there is no such thing as Truth with capital letter... nobody is imposing that on you, it is your own axiom. My axiom is, there is One. So in my framework, there is an Absolute Truth, so in my framework there is ground for objective morality. In yours, there´s not.

Fair enough. So could you give me an example of an absolute morality that is determined by God?

[Bradskii]

There is a difference between whether God can command bad things and whether good/bad is determined by God’s commands. I think good/bad is determined by the nature of things (including purpose), not by statements about them (even if the statements are true). So, God's act of creation determines good/bad, even if God were able to command something against the natures created.

We're talking about objective morality. What god commands is objectively good. If He leaves it up to us, then it'll be our call. But that's not what we're talking about. You said:

I don’t think a command is objectively good because God commands it to be so.

In this case He's not leaving it up to us. He is literally commanding us. Do X! Doing it must, by God's definition, be objectively good. It cannot be otherwise.

Why should one only consider your distress (or distress in general)? If it gives them great benefit (for instance), why does your distress outweigh their benefit?

Because I'm giving my personal appraisal on the matter. I personally don't want to be beaten, so I personally think that you ought not to do it. I'm stating an objective fact - I don't like being beaten, but it's a subjective point of view. You may want to beat me to make me tell you where the world ending virus is hidden. If you think your view outweighs my view then you'll act on it.

I thought you said you didn't agree with Harris’ explanation, but perhaps I misunderstood. Why do you think Harris' view provides a rational foundation for objective morality?

I don't. What he's doing is basing morality on what we can agree are indisputable facts. And we should act on those facts in a beneficial way. But there may be contradictory facts regarding any matter.

You shouldn't beat someone for no reason.
Hey, we all agree with that.

We shouldn't torture someone.
Well...no, I don't agree with torture, so we both agree again.

But someone knows where your family is being kept. They will be killed unless we can find them.
Hey, get that information!

So it depends on the situation. It's relative to that situation. And we'll all have our own subjective views depending on the situation. So it cannot be objective, even if we all agree.

And in some matters, it's definitely a personal decision, and hence subjective. Like euthanasia for example. Or abortion. Or the death penalty.

Thanks for clarifying. Why do you think ‘subjective morality' follows from it being a ‘personal’ decision?

Oh, c'mon. It's the very definition of subjective morality. It's 'the view that moral judgments are based on personal preferences, feelings, or opinions'.

[Vilferatus]

Exactly my piont. Your worldview just accepts that there is no such thing as Truth with capital letter... nobody is imposing that on you, it is your own axiom. My axiom is, there is One. So in my framework, there is an Absolute Truth, so in my framework there is ground for objective morality. In yours, there´s not.

Fair enough. So could you give me an example of an absolute morality that is determined by God?

An example would be that objective value is relative to God; in other words, if something is valuable to God, then it is objectively valuable. God determines the value of things.

Now, the epistemological problem of how we can actually know that standard can only be solved if there is a direct revelation of that Truth from God to us. My thesis, which aligns with Christian theology, is that this revelation does exist.

Furthermore, the model posits that the entire creation is in constant interaction with its foundation, receiving real-time feedback from the very system that sustains it (God). This feedback loop manifests through our rational capacity, our moral conscience, and the consistent laws of reality. The anchor is not silent; the system is actively maintained and informed by its Creator.

And not only that, but this hypothetical model actually withstands experimentation in observable reality. The universe behaves exactly as the model predicts: it is highly ordered, mathematically consistent, predictable, and fully accessible to rational inquiry. Reality itself appears to coincide perfectly with the framework of an actively sustained system

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #45]

We're talking about objective morality. What god commands is objectively good. If He leaves it up to us, then it'll be our call. But that's not what we're talking about. You said:

If God created the earth objectively round and then came around and said the earth is flat, would that mean the objective shape of the earth is flat? No, it wouldn’t. God could command us to believe it is flat and punish us if we didn’t believe it, but that wouldn’t make it objectively true.

And if God created a round earth and then later said the earth is round or commanded us to believe that, the objectivity still isn’t in the statement or command, but His act of creation.

If beating me with a stick causes me distress, then you ought not to do it. I think that simple example probably sums up where an atheist might get their sense of morality from.

Why should one only consider your distress (or distress in general)? If it gives them great benefit (for instance), why does your distress outweigh their benefit?

Because I'm giving my personal appraisal on the matter. I personally don't want to be beaten, so I personally think that you ought not to do it. I'm stating an objective fact - I don't like being beaten, but it's a subjective point of view. You may want to beat me to make me tell you where the world ending virus is hidden. If you think your view outweighs my view then you'll act on it.

Yes, but this is subjectivism, not objectivism. Your “ought not to” is really just a way to redefine that phrase to mean “I don’t like it”. In the same way you don’t like pistachio ice cream (or whatever flavor you don’t like). And that desire of yours is equal in value to the desire of the one who wants to beat you to get whatever benefit they see in it.

I thought you said you didn't agree with Harris’ explanation, but perhaps I misunderstood. Why do you think Harris' view provides a rational foundation for objective morality?

I don't. What he's doing is basing morality on what we can agree are indisputable facts. And we should act on those facts in a beneficial way. But there may be contradictory facts regarding any matter.

Okay, so then you agree that atheism can’t provide objective morality, right?

You shouldn't beat someone for no reason.
Hey, we all agree with that.

We shouldn't torture someone.
Well...no, I don't agree with torture, so we both agree again.

But someone knows where your family is being kept. They will be killed unless we can find them.
Hey, get that information!

So it depends on the situation. It's relative to that situation. And we'll all have our own subjective views depending on the situation. So it cannot be objective, even if we all agree.

Different subjective views on X does not mean X cannot be objective. There are different subjective views on the shape of the earth, but there is still an objective truth about that shape.

And in some matters, it's definitely a personal decision, and hence subjective. Like euthanasia for example. Or abortion. Or the death penalty.

Thanks for clarifying. Why do you think ‘subjective morality' follows from it being a ‘personal’ decision?

Oh, c'mon. It's the very definition of subjective morality. It's 'the view that moral judgments are based on personal preferences, feelings, or opinions'.

What one believes about the shape of the earth is a personal decision, but that doesn’t make the shape of the earth subjective. Both subjective and objective morality (or other categories) include the concept of having personal decisions. Thus, it's not true that "it's definitely a personal decision, and hence subjective."

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #45]

We're talking about objective morality. What god commands is objectively good. If He leaves it up to us, then it'll be our call. But that's not what we're talking about. You said:

If God created the earth objectively round and then came around and said the earth is flat, would that mean the objective shape of the earth is flat? No, it wouldn’t. God could command us to believe it is flat and punish us if we didn’t believe it, but that wouldn’t make it objectively true.

And if God created a round earth and then later said the earth is round or commanded us to believe that, the objectivity still isn’t in the statement or command, but His act of creation.

If beating me with a stick causes me distress, then you ought not to do it. I think that simple example probably sums up where an atheist might get their sense of morality from.

Why should one only consider your distress (or distress in general)? If it gives them great benefit (for instance), why does your distress outweigh their benefit?

Because I'm giving my personal appraisal on the matter. I personally don't want to be beaten, so I personally think that you ought not to do it. I'm stating an objective fact - I don't like being beaten, but it's a subjective point of view. You may want to beat me to make me tell you where the world ending virus is hidden. If you think your view outweighs my view then you'll act on it.

Yes, but this is subjectivism, not objectivism. Your “ought not to” is really just a way to redefine that phrase to mean “I don’t like it”. In the same way you don’t like pistachio ice cream (or whatever flavor you don’t like). And that desire of yours is equal in value to the desire of the one who wants to beat you to get whatever benefit they see in it.

I thought you said you didn't agree with Harris’ explanation, but perhaps I misunderstood. Why do you think Harris' view provides a rational foundation for objective morality?

I don't. What he's doing is basing morality on what we can agree are indisputable facts. And we should act on those facts in a beneficial way. But there may be contradictory facts regarding any matter.

Okay, so then you agree that atheism can’t provide objective morality, right?

You shouldn't beat someone for no reason.
Hey, we all agree with that.

We shouldn't torture someone.
Well...no, I don't agree with torture, so we both agree again.

But someone knows where your family is being kept. They will be killed unless we can find them.
Hey, get that information!

So it depends on the situation. It's relative to that situation. And we'll all have our own subjective views depending on the situation. So it cannot be objective, even if we all agree.

Different subjective views on X does not mean X cannot be objective. There are different subjective views on the shape of the earth, but there is still an objective truth about that shape.

And in some matters, it's definitely a personal decision, and hence subjective. Like euthanasia for example. Or abortion. Or the death penalty.

Thanks for clarifying. Why do you think ‘subjective morality' follows from it being a ‘personal’ decision?

Oh, c'mon. It's the very definition of subjective morality. It's 'the view that moral judgments are based on personal preferences, feelings, or opinions'.

What one believes about the shape of the earth is a personal decision, but that doesn’t make the shape of the earth subjective. Both subjective and objective morality (or other categories) include the concept of having personal decisions. Thus, it's not true that "it's definitely a personal decision, and hence subjective."

I think the problem is that you are basically claiming that God could command something immoral, which is literally impossible because God is the standard for morality. Therefore, whatever God commands is ultimately good. That is what makes it objectively correct. By suggesting otherwise, you are mixing subjective morality with objective morality.

What a person believes, does, or feels has zero effect on the Absolute (God), so it cannot affect objective morality.

In your example:
'If God created the earth objectively round and then came around and said the earth is flat, would that mean the objective shape of the earth is flat?'

If God were to do that, God would be a liar, God would be ignorant, or God would not be referring to the literal shape of the Earth in that proposition. Whichever the case is, within a coherent theistic framework, God cannot be a liar and cannot be ignorant of objective reality.

Therefore, your hypothetical scenario is a logical impossibility. You cannot construct a valid argument about objective truth by proposing a premise that destroys the very nature of the Absolute.