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.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #109]

For the purposes of the original discussion question, we are assuming objective morality is true and asking if, being true, would it coherently fit in an atheistic worldview via the means of something beyond blind faith.

I would just define objective morality using some trick of language.

I would say that since humans are subject to the laws of physics, and that biologically, we are programmed with certain moral principles and that our societies reinforce those principles, that objectively, we are predetermined to have those moralities.

Those are objective facts that can ground an "objective" view of where our morality comes from, but of course, our personal morality can be altered due to the fact that we can self-program ourselves to an extent.

I can be born with an aversion to eating human flesh but learn to eat it happily and think that it's moral.

I'd rather not though.

I have an objective aversion .. and this affect my subjective idea that it's wrong.
So, our objective reality affects our subjective feelings.

That's the best I can do.
What do you think of my solution?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #109]

I mean that food is good for an organism's continued ability to live.

then the "good" you are talking about isn't moral good.. it's healthy.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #111]

I would just define objective morality using some trick of language.

I would say that since humans are subject to the laws of physics, and that biologically, we are programmed with certain moral principles and that our societies reinforce those principles, that objectively, we are predetermined to have those moralities.

Those are objective facts that can ground an "objective" view of where our morality comes from, but of course, our personal morality can be altered due to the fact that we can self-program ourselves to an extent.

I can be born with an aversion to eating human flesh but learn to eat it happily and think that it's moral.

I'd rather not though.

I have an objective aversion .. and this affect my subjective idea that it's wrong.
So, our objective reality affects our subjective feelings.

That's the best I can do.
What do you think of my solution?

I think you are right that this is a trick of language…if one would then offer that the initial question was therefore solved. Your explanation does not provide the means of something beyond blind faith making what is meant by ‘objective morality’ coherently fit in an atheistic worldview.

I mean that food is good for an organism's continued ability to live.

then the "good" you are talking about isn't moral good.. it's healthy.

I never said that “good” was a moral good. bluegreenearth asked me if values have independent existence in reality like a sphere-shaped planet. Not knowing exactly what bluegreenearth meant by this (or others would understand by it), I explained my view that values objectively exist, but not in the way a physical object exists or a Platonic form would exist (if such a thing were real); it exists in a third, yet valid way. To show this, I used a non-moral value example that I felt we would agree on.

[bluegreenearth]

Yes, being biologically good and morally good are two distinct concepts, but that doesn't mean 'value' means something different as applied to each one (which was the analogical point). Biological value isn't a physically independently existing thing, it's not a Platonic form that independently exists, but it does speak of an objective reality. If that is what you are asking me about, then, yes, I'm a moral objectivist in that I do believe moral value speaks of an objective reality.

I'm not understanding your response. What does "objective" refer to in objective morality that distinguishes it from subjective morality?

[The Tanager]

Yes, being biologically good and morally good are two distinct concepts, but that doesn't mean 'value' means something different as applied to each one (which was the analogical point). Biological value isn't a physically independently existing thing, it's not a Platonic form that independently exists, but it does speak of an objective reality. If that is what you are asking me about, then, yes, I'm a moral objectivist in that I do believe moral value speaks of an objective reality.

I'm not understanding your response. What does "objective" refer to in objective morality that distinguishes it from subjective morality?

Let's go general first, then apply it to other features of reality to see it play out and then bring morality back in. Objective features of reality are the same for everyone; subjective features of reality are different for each person, depending on their own thoughts, feelings, preferences, etc.

Since I believe the shape of the earth being an oblate spheroid is true for everyone, I am an objectivist about the earth's physical shape. Since I believe "chocolate tastes good" is true for some and false for others (based on their preferences), I am a subjectivist about food tastes.

A moral objectivist about the statement "torturing your daughter is wrong" would be one who thinks that statement applies equally to everyone, no matter what the individual prefers. A moral subjectivist, then, would be one who thinks "torturing your daughter is wrong" is true for some and false for others (based on their preferences).

[bluegreenearth]

Let's go general first, then apply it to other features of reality to see it play out and then bring morality back in. Objective features of reality are the same for everyone; subjective features of reality are different for each person, depending on their own thoughts, feelings, preferences, etc.

Since I believe the shape of the earth being an oblate spheroid is true for everyone, I am an objectivist about the earth's physical shape. Since I believe "chocolate tastes good" is true for some and false for others (based on their preferences), I am a subjectivist about food tastes.

A moral objectivist about the statement "torturing your daughter is wrong" would be one who thinks that statement applies equally to everyone, no matter what the individual prefers. A moral subjectivist, then, would be one who thinks "torturing your daughter is wrong" is true for some and false for others (based on their preferences).

It is possible, given unlimited resources, to eventually demonstrate that the shape of the Earth is a sphere to someone who currently believes it is flat. It is not possible to demonstrate that chocolate tastes good to someone who doesn't enjoy it. Is it possible to demonstrate that it is wrong to torture your own daughter to someone who genuinely prefers to do so? What makes that behaviour objectively wrong? Is it objectively wrong because it objectively causes unnecessary harm to someone?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #113]

I think you are right that this is a trick of language…if one would then offer that the initial question was therefore solved. Your explanation does not provide the means of something beyond blind faith making what is meant by ‘objective morality’ coherently fit in an atheistic worldview.

I didn't mention blind faith.

Can you elaborate why you think that my explanation isn't based on objective facts about human beings?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #113]

You: I mean that food is good for an organism's continued ability to live.

Me: then the "good" you are talking about isn't moral good.. it's healthy.

You: I never said that “good” was a moral good. bluegreenearth asked me if values have independent existence in reality like a sphere-shaped planet. Not knowing exactly what bluegreenearth meant by this (or others would understand by it), I explained my view that values objectively exist, but not in the way a physical object exists or a Platonic form would exist (if such a thing were real); it exists in a third, yet valid way. To show this, I used a non-moral value example that I felt we would agree on.

Thanks for your clarification.. that was very helpful !!

We agree that the word good can mean "tasty" .. and not necessarily "moral".

Yes, I think I understand his comment.. he is asking if a value is material like a planet, or immaterial, like an idea is. Ideas are emergent properties of the human brain.. they "happen" but they cannot be measured, like a planet can be. They are more like events than things.

Values are ideas.. they aren't made of matter like planets are. On a neurological level, ideas are patterns of neural activity and connections in the brain.

There are actual planets.. like ours, and then there are concepts of planets.

Concepts and objects are not the same.

You are trying to argue for a platonic realm where ideas exists as if they were objects.. but not made of material stuff.

We have a lot of evidence that planets actually exist... we live on one... and so on...
I don't know of any evidence that values are anything but ideas.

If you are claiming that ideas exist outside of our minds, ok.. then you have the burden of the proof.

We have tons of evidence for the existence of planets, and I would be very surprised if you told us you were skeptical that planets exist.

hope that clarifies.