By definition :
Objective : Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
Moral : mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
values : duh!
Based on these definitons, I am wondering if objective moral values even exist for an atheist. I do not mean to say that there are NO moral atheists. However, can atheists have objective moral values? What do they base there morals on? is a better way of asking the same question.
Since they deny any form of deity or religious structure, what do they base there morals on and furthermore, why are their morals correct instead of just the opposit being true?
objective moral values
Moderator: Moderators
- achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
objective moral values
Post #1It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
- Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #2
Reason
Justice
Experience
Universal
Mercy
Beneficence
Sympathy
I like these. I got them years ago in an ethics book by William K. Frankena that was used in a philosophy of ethics class. The other thing I like was that it is the means that justifies the end. I don’t think this is limited to theists. Atheists too are capable of all these factors with out resorting to “God told me so” or “the bible told me so”.
We evolved and are related to the universe and we are social creatures. We need to be cared for or we die. Ethical behavior and ideas are part of our sympathetic nature and we learn from or parents and culture as well as our experiences. We also have millions of years evolving as social creatures starting with being mammals. A snake’s ethics would be much different. I think that if there is a God then God would have the same moral restrictions. God would be ethical because it is good not because God does it. If there is an objective morality then God is also bound to it for it to be universal.
It seems to me that even God has criteria that would be objective. His morality would not be his every whim but have to do with things, as they are related Or Relative morality. He sees what is right but does not make it so. This all leads me to believe that ethics an morality can be reasoned and understood by atheist. I do see a danger with a God centered ethics that could lead to doing evil and thinking it is good because God says so thru some authority or writing. A God centered ethics would be every bit as dangerous as any other inadequate moral. I don’t think Christians have or can have an objective moral value. In fact obedience can hardly be called moral.
I am not into any divine command theory.
Justice
Experience
Universal
Mercy
Beneficence
Sympathy
I like these. I got them years ago in an ethics book by William K. Frankena that was used in a philosophy of ethics class. The other thing I like was that it is the means that justifies the end. I don’t think this is limited to theists. Atheists too are capable of all these factors with out resorting to “God told me so” or “the bible told me so”.
We evolved and are related to the universe and we are social creatures. We need to be cared for or we die. Ethical behavior and ideas are part of our sympathetic nature and we learn from or parents and culture as well as our experiences. We also have millions of years evolving as social creatures starting with being mammals. A snake’s ethics would be much different. I think that if there is a God then God would have the same moral restrictions. God would be ethical because it is good not because God does it. If there is an objective morality then God is also bound to it for it to be universal.
It seems to me that even God has criteria that would be objective. His morality would not be his every whim but have to do with things, as they are related Or Relative morality. He sees what is right but does not make it so. This all leads me to believe that ethics an morality can be reasoned and understood by atheist. I do see a danger with a God centered ethics that could lead to doing evil and thinking it is good because God says so thru some authority or writing. A God centered ethics would be every bit as dangerous as any other inadequate moral. I don’t think Christians have or can have an objective moral value. In fact obedience can hardly be called moral.
I am not into any divine command theory.
" Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:25
I remember it was Whitehead that the purpose of reason was to promote the art of living.“The Lord reigns.... He shall judge the peoples righteously.” Psalm 96:10
- achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #3
I agree. In fact I said this first. However, this was not my question.Atheists too are capable of all these factors with out resorting to “God told me so” or “the bible told me so”.
This is closer to an answer for my question. I think I understand that you believe that your morals come from society and what your parents have conditioned you to think. While this does provide you with a moral structure, it does not fulfill objective moral values in so much as each society views different things to be right and wrong. If each society evolved and each parent passed on their own values, then why are so many similar values found in every reach of the world? For example, murder, stealing, rape, these values are in almost ever culture. But if each society evolved their own morals, why does every society hold to these truths without having a common source for their beliefs?We evolved and are related to the universe and we are social creatures. We need to be cared for or we die. Ethical behavior and ideas are part of our sympathetic nature and we learn from or parents and culture as well as our experiences
Also, if society is the cause for morals, why do some societies agree on these few simple rules, while other societies do not? For example, murder is something atheists point to and say that it is indicitive of socially evolved morals. Population is a good thing. Therefore killing people contradicts this good thing and is therefore, "bad". However, many societies throughout the ages murdered in great numbers and in some cases society itself demanded murders on a regular basis. (aztec for example)
This would tend to show that societal evolution of morals only holds true for any given society. If this is true, how come the massacre of an entire race (like the holocaust) was thought of as bad. After all some societal morals would have no problem with it and so it would be acceptable to them. Yet people universally point to this point in history as bad.
So my questions still stands. . . Without a frame of reference for what is good or bad, why do atheists point to things like murder, rape, torture, etc, as being bad while things like giving to needy children or reading a story to your child are good? Is there really anything good or bad or is it all just a mix of stuff that happens?
final thought :
I don’t think Christians have or can have an objective moral value. In fact obedience can hardly be called moral.
By definition our values and morals are objective. Our morals are based on what God described thru his prophets to be good or evil. Hence they are objective in relation to what God says is good and evil. They are based on something or someone rather than there being nothing to base morals against.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
Re: objective moral values
Post #4Which atheist?achilles12604 wrote:
Based on these definitons, I am wondering if objective moral values even exist for an atheist.
My moral values may be different (or the same) as any another atheist. Atheism does not define morality.
Evolution as a species requires egoism - evolution as a community requires self denial. From self denial comes morality.achilles12604 wrote:What do they base there morals on?
Why are those that supposedly come from god correct? Because god says so? Because if you don't abide by his moral compass you will be doomed? Do be moral on these grounds is immoral.achilles12604 wrote: Since they deny any form of deity or religious structure, what do they base there morals on and furthermore, why are their morals correct instead of just the opposit being true?
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
- achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Re: objective moral values
Post #5bernee51 wrote:Which atheist?achilles12604 wrote:
Based on these definitons, I am wondering if objective moral values even exist for an atheist.
My moral values may be different (or the same) as any another atheist. Atheism does not define morality.
Evolution as a species requires egoism - evolution as a community requires self denial. From self denial comes morality.achilles12604 wrote:What do they base there morals on?
Why are those that supposedly come from god correct? Because god says so? Because if you don't abide by his moral compass you will be doomed? Do be moral on these grounds is immoral.achilles12604 wrote: Since they deny any form of deity or religious structure, what do they base there morals on and furthermore, why are their morals correct instead of just the opposit being true?
Well since you are answering, . . . you. I agree that no two atheists are exactly alike, however, since all atheists have the same permise of "there is no God." then this questions applies to all atheists equally. Actually your last sentence sums up why I am asking. If atheists have not objective moral values, then how do they justify their actions?Which atheist?
My moral values may be different (or the same) as any another atheist. Atheism does not define morality.
How does self-denial teach anyone not to kill? On the other hand, what is so good or moral about not eating an extra bowl of ice cream before sleeping? (I ask because if this is wrong because I am not denying myself, then I am WAAAAAAAAAY behind on my confessionsEvolution as a species requires egoism - evolution as a community requires self denial. From self denial comes morality.

My question did not concern what morals were right and what were wrong. My point was simply that Christians have the ability to point to some object and say their morals are in reference to that. I am trying to figure out where atheistic morals come from or what they are based on since it can not be God. Ultimatly if they have no real base for their morals, how do they know what is right and what is wrong?Why are those that supposedly come from god correct? Because god says so? Because if you don't abide by his moral compass you will be doomed? Do be moral on these grounds is immoral
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
- achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #7
This reply leaves two more questions to be answered.mishi wrote:Empathy. The ability to understand and sympathise with others and hence realise that to do something to someone else that you would not want done to you is wrong.
1) Does this mean that every single person's morals are different? After all not everyone is hurt by a cheating spouse. Some people even welcome it. What about being killed? Some people look for this as well. In fact I bet I could find someone who wants something which would be devistating to someone else. Once again, does this mean that moral's only apply to the extent of that individual person?
1a) (Sorry, I need to follow me train here and ask more than the two questions I allowed, oops) If this is the case, then can't I say as a warrior who would not mind being killed, that it is not wrong for me to then kill anyone else at will? After all according to what you put forth as your basis, this would not be wrong morally.
2) Where does a person's personal moral center (or concience) come from? If this center is the cause for a person's personal moral's, what drives these decisions of right and wrong and more importantly, how come some people feel one thing is right and someone else thinks it is wrong?
Within these thought lines, doesn't right and wrong become personal preference, leaving moral values rather impotent and useless? (which by the way should cause them to dissappear if natural selection is wholely accurate)
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
Post #8
achilles12604
I've said this before, but it is extremely relivent.
There is a book called "Everything I Needed to Know, I learned in Kindergarden" I forgot who wrote it.
The main thought of the book was that we learn the basics of our"morals"(ethics) BEFORE we learn language through the interactions we have with others in the first three years. This includes BEFORE we learn the concept of god. "Do unto others..." is the bottom line basis for those "morals" (ethics).
Simularly, as we mature, we learn the usefulness of cooperation vs. selfishness.
Then man has evolved a "uber-mind"(society) where our COLLECTIVE concensus of right or wrong are codified as laws/rules of behavior, which are reinforced by sanctions/punishment/humiliation until they become internalized as our PERSONAL morals.
Notice that I did not mention a superstitious belief/diety yet have given a reasoned arguement from the begining of cogence to internalized morals(ethics).
The concept of god is not required for ethics/morals to be a part of the Atheists worldview.
Grumpy
PS Robert Fulgham wrote the book, by the way. A Theist I believe.
I've said this before, but it is extremely relivent.
There is a book called "Everything I Needed to Know, I learned in Kindergarden" I forgot who wrote it.
The main thought of the book was that we learn the basics of our"morals"(ethics) BEFORE we learn language through the interactions we have with others in the first three years. This includes BEFORE we learn the concept of god. "Do unto others..." is the bottom line basis for those "morals" (ethics).
Simularly, as we mature, we learn the usefulness of cooperation vs. selfishness.
Then man has evolved a "uber-mind"(society) where our COLLECTIVE concensus of right or wrong are codified as laws/rules of behavior, which are reinforced by sanctions/punishment/humiliation until they become internalized as our PERSONAL morals.
Notice that I did not mention a superstitious belief/diety yet have given a reasoned arguement from the begining of cogence to internalized morals(ethics).
The concept of god is not required for ethics/morals to be a part of the Atheists worldview.
Grumpy

PS Robert Fulgham wrote the book, by the way. A Theist I believe.
Respect, Regard and Goodwill
Post #9The Bible has been used by many, in many different ways. And the same is true of belief in a God. I haven't seen where such belief or non-belief has caused a propensity for a certain moral disposition. That is, I've seen "Christians" (or believers in a deity) to be quite mean and uncaring in their overall nature; almost as if they didn't care about anything more than their "religion". And I've also seen people with a more secular view of reality, be just as uncaring and disconected from the needs of others.
What someone above said about "empathy", is very close to what I view as a most reasonable answer. The key (in my view), is to note whether or not people really CARE for or REGARD others as they regard themselves.
As the Bible often clearly implies: Love addresses and defines right/wrong in the most sufficient and consistent way/s. (1Cor13)
Human nature is evident in people (regardless of their philosophies/beliefs); but the promise rests with those who (for whatever reasons) endeavor to control or refine that "nature". And I believe that the essence of morality stems from the basic concepts of mutual respect and regard for others.
-Mel-
What someone above said about "empathy", is very close to what I view as a most reasonable answer. The key (in my view), is to note whether or not people really CARE for or REGARD others as they regard themselves.
As the Bible often clearly implies: Love addresses and defines right/wrong in the most sufficient and consistent way/s. (1Cor13)
Human nature is evident in people (regardless of their philosophies/beliefs); but the promise rests with those who (for whatever reasons) endeavor to control or refine that "nature". And I believe that the essence of morality stems from the basic concepts of mutual respect and regard for others.
-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-
- achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #10
Oh I never said God had to exist for morals to exist. In fact I think I pointed out that atheists can have morals without the guidance of a "God" I was simply curious where you thought those morals orriginated.Grumpy wrote:achilles12604
I've said this before, but it is extremely relivent.
There is a book called "Everything I Needed to Know, I learned in Kindergarden" I forgot who wrote it.
The main thought of the book was that we learn the basics of our"morals"(ethics) BEFORE we learn language through the interactions we have with others in the first three years. This includes BEFORE we learn the concept of god. "Do unto others..." is the bottom line basis for those "morals" (ethics).
Simularly, as we mature, we learn the usefulness of cooperation vs. selfishness.
Then man has evolved a "uber-mind"(society) where our COLLECTIVE concensus of right or wrong are codified as laws/rules of behavior, which are reinforced by sanctions/punishment/humiliation until they become internalized as our PERSONAL morals.
Notice that I did not mention a superstitious belief/diety yet have given a reasoned arguement from the begining of cogence to internalized morals(ethics).
The concept of god is not required for ethics/morals to be a part of the Atheists worldview.
Grumpy![]()
PS Robert Fulgham wrote the book, by the way. A Theist I believe.
You stated above that morals occur at a young age. This I agree with. However, this was again not my question. WHERE do morals come from? This was answered with your next sentence of "Do unto others . . . " I am curious however what makes the child do the right thing when human nature (in every single Child I have ever seen including my very own daughter) is to be selfish and only be concerned with ones-self. Children can learn the moral code of "Do unto others. . . " however, they do not have it intrinsically. Therefore, they must learn it from somewhere.
Is my logic sound so far? Really I want to know if I am off when tracing logical steps here so tell me.
I think I can logically trace your thought process here however without it being spelled out. If you learn morals at a very young age, then your parents must be mainly responsible for the formation of these morals. Hence your parents are where your morals come from. This however back's up the question one step. Where did your parents get their morals?
Does this line of thinking and questioning makes sense or am I off somewhere?
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.