Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality

[The Tanager]

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]

A theist has the same foundation for objective morality as an atheist.
https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/

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.

We both have the same foundation of objective morality. We both got our moral rules from the same place, except you attribute them to a god and I don't.

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.

Functional objectivity says that anything detrimental to the survival of the society as a whole is immoral.

Correct.

The society as a whole could survive killing off one race.

What a society can survive is not the point. The point is that just the loss of one moral member of society diminishes its chances of survival no matter which race. Why this obsession with "killing off one race"?

[Artie]

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.

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.

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.

And the functionally objective morality or standard we both measure different human views up against is: Is it beneficial for the well-being and survival of our society and the people in it or not? If it is, it's moral. If not, it's immoral. We both use the same standard from which we derive the same moral rules, like don't steal and don't murder. Except you attribute those standards to some god while I don't.

[Bust Nak]

If theism is true, there is a standard that objectively exists that the various different human views can be measured up against.

Yes but why should we use that standard? We are back to subjectivity.

[The Tanager]

We both have the same foundation of objective morality. We both got our moral rules from the same place, except you attribute them to a god and I don't.

But what is the "place" in your view? Evolution? If so, then morality isn't about what is true, but what helped us survive. Evolution has equally created the one willing to sacrifice themselves and the one who is only out for selfish reasons. Our morality as a race could easily have been different than it is because we could have survived with other morals in place. We could have viewed killing off a minority race as good for society. We could have different subjective opinions than we currently do and just as well call those moral. Actions could have been good or bad on this account. Objectivity (in the moral realism sense) is not the case on this view. Yet we have a sense that some things really are good or bad regardless of how a species actually evolved. You still have a sense that it is wrong to kill off a minority race. Functional objectivity does not make sense of that sense.

What a society can survive is not the point. The point is that just the loss of one moral member of society diminishes its chances of survival no matter which race. Why this obsession with "killing off one race"?

What a society can survive is the point of functional objectivity, which we were talking about. Functional objectivity would lead to a rule like "killing off a minority race for greater adhesion between the remaining members of society" conceivably being good. I do not think such a rule is good no matter if a society can survive it. Killing a race off does not necessarily diminish the society's chances of survival. One could argue that it actually helps the society as it gets rid of a factor that often divides members of societies.

I keep using this kind of example because functional objectivity doesn't seem to have anything to say against it and you are saying functional objectivity explains everything about human morality. I don't think it does. You can't rationally maintain a view simply by ignoring a critique that may show the view false.

And the functionally objective morality or standard we both measure different human views up against is: Is it beneficial for the well-being and survival of our society and the people in it or not? If it is, it's moral. If not, it's immoral. We both use the same standard from which we derive the same moral rules, like don't steal and don't murder. Except you attribute those standards to some god while I don't.

That is too vague. Different people will mean different things by "well-being". And, as I've argued, while killing off a minority race could conceivably help society survive (divisions in society can cause great damage), I would not be for that society surviving.

[The Tanager]

If theism is true, there is a standard that objectively exists that the various different human views can be measured up against.

Yes but why should we use that standard? We are back to subjectivity.

I don't think we are. If theism is true, then God created humans for a specific purpose and to work on a certain "fuel", so to speak. God knows how we would work best, what kind of life would provide us with the most joy. We should use God's standard, because it is the operator's manual.

[wiploc]

Functional objectivity would lead to a rule like "killing off a minority race for greater adhesion between the remaining members of society" conceivably being good. I do not think such a rule is good no matter if a society can survive it. Killing a race off does not necessarily diminish the society's chances of survival. One could argue that it actually helps the society as it gets rid of a factor that often divides members of societies.

I keep using this kind of example because functional objectivity doesn't seem to have anything to say against it and you are saying functional objectivity explains everything about human morality. I don't think it does. You can't rationally maintain a view simply by ignoring a critique that may show the view false.

I don't believe it is good to exterminate a minority race even if your god orders it. So how is your test of goodness better?

If you say that you believe your god doesn't happen to want us to do that, then we'll point out that we don't think genocide makes people happier.

You may say, "But if genocide increased net happiness, then your morality would promote happiness," in which case we may answer, "But if your god ordered us to do genocide, then your morality would promote genocide."

I've never figured out how you think you come out ahead.

[Artie]

We both have the same foundation of objective morality. We both got our moral rules from the same place, except you attribute them to a god and I don't.

But what is the "place" in your view? Evolution? If so, then morality isn't about what is true, but what helped us survive.

Morality is defined as "The extent to which an action is right or wrong." You might as well add "for the well-being and survival of a society and the citizens" for clarity.

Evolution has equally created the one willing to sacrifice themselves and the one who is only out for selfish reasons.

Evolution and natural selection automatically selects for behaviors that increases chances of survival for the society and the greatest number of people.

Our morality as a race could easily have been different than it is because we could have survived with other morals in place.

Could we have survived if we all had thought that it would be moral to go around murdering people and proceeded to act "morally"?

We could have viewed killing off a minority race as good for society.

That would be subjective morality. I wouldn't want to live in a society where people just went around killing others just because they belonged to a minority race. Not beneficial for the society. What if somebody suddenly decided to kill off some group I belonged to? No thanks.

We could have different subjective opinions than we currently do and just as well call those moral.

Sure. You could have the subjective opinion that murdering everybody would be good for society and call it moral but you would be objectively wrong.

Actions could have been good or bad on this account. Objectivity (in the moral realism sense) is not the case on this view. Yet we have a sense that some things really are good or bad regardless of how a species actually evolved.

No, you have a sense that some things really are good or bad because of how you evolved. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... -80976434/

You still have a sense that it is wrong to kill off a minority race. Functional objectivity does not make sense of that sense.

Of course it does. Losing any productive and useful member(s) of a society is detrimental to the society doesn't matter if the person belongs to a minority race. You would also deplete the gene pool.

What a society can survive is not the point. The point is that just the loss of one moral member of society diminishes its chances of survival no matter which race. Why this obsession with "killing off one race"?

What a society can survive is the point of functional objectivity, which we were talking about. Functional objectivity would lead to a rule like "killing off a minority race for greater adhesion between the remaining members of society" conceivably being good.

Have you read the Bible, especially the Old Testament? Do you notice any similarities between what you wrote and the stories in the OT?

I do not think such a rule is good no matter if a society can survive it.

No of course it isn't good. That's why functional objectivity doesn't lead to it. Subjective morality might. Or just read the Old Testament.

Killing a race off does not necessarily diminish the society's chances of survival. One could argue that it actually helps the society as it gets rid of a factor that often divides members of societies.

Depleting the gene pool is detrimental to any society not to mention the loss of productive members.

I keep using this kind of example because functional objectivity doesn't seem to have anything to say against it and you are saying functional objectivity explains everything about human morality. I don't think it does. You can't rationally maintain a view simply by ignoring a critique that may show the view false.

It doesn't. It's just your reasoning that is faulty. You keep confusing functional objective morality with subjective.

And the functionally objective morality or standard we both measure different human views up against is: Is it beneficial for the well-being and survival of our society and the people in it or not? If it is, it's moral. If not, it's immoral. We both use the same standard from which we derive the same moral rules, like don't steal and don't murder. Except you attribute those standards to some god while I don't.

That is too vague. Different people will mean different things by "well-being". And, as I've argued, while killing off a minority race could conceivably help society survive (divisions in society can cause great damage), I would not be for that society surviving.

How would a society thrive or flourish or even survive if people just went around murdering members of a certain race?

[Artie]

If theism is true, there is a standard that objectively exists that the various different human views can be measured up against.

Yes but why should we use that standard? We are back to subjectivity.

I don't think we are. If theism is true, then God created humans for a specific purpose and to work on a certain "fuel", so to speak. God knows how we would work best, what kind of life would provide us with the most joy. We should use God's standard, because it is the operator's manual.

The standard isn't God's and it's very simple: Do what is beneficial for your society and the people in it. Just use your logic, reason and common sense and do what helps your society thrive and flourish. And avoid for goodness sake many of the Biblical examples! Do not drown people and their animals if you don't like their behavior!

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 226 by wiploc]

I think that is because you are looking at my view as simply being about God ordering something. My view is more nuanced than that. On my view God creates humans to become most happy in one way and commands things that will lead to that happiness.

So, yes, if God created humans to be most happy through enacting genocide on minorities, then this morality would promote genocide. But, in that case, us humans would have no problem with it because we were made to like that sort of thing. We don't like that because we have been made to like something different.

Let's compare this to an atheistic response. If atheism and evolution are both true (for example), then the evolutionary process has produced humans to become most happy in more than one way and, therefore, different commands will lead to happiness for different people. Evolution has lead to people thinking it is a good thing to commit genocide of a minority population and evolution has also lead to people thinking it is a bad thing to commit genocide of a minority population. Societies could survive lead by both ethics. This seems to be a clear difference to me between the two views.

Note that I'm not saying the following: if theism is true, then everyone will think the same way. I believe in free will. So, yes, my view still leads to some people being okay with genocide and some not. That's not the difference I'm talking about. On theism there is one way that humans are supposed to be. On atheistic evolution, there is not just one way because evolution has no intention in it. So, while on theism the person who chooses to attempt genocide really won't be as happy as they could have been, on atheism that person could really be most happy by attempting genocide.

[The Tanager]

Morality is defined as "The extent to which an action is right or wrong." You might as well add "for the well-being and survival of a society and the citizens" for clarity.

Adding that would be question-begging because not all people think that is always the moral action.

Evolution and natural selection automatically selects for behaviors that increases chances of survival for the society and the greatest number of people.

If that is the case and we have people who are only out for selfish reasons, then this seems to mean that such actions do increase the chances of survival for many.

Could we have survived if we all had thought that it would be moral to go around murdering people and proceeded to act "morally"?

Once again you return to a more general example that I have already agreed with, while I have given more specific examples to make my points.

That would be subjective morality. I wouldn't want to live in a society where people just went around killing others just because they belonged to a minority race. Not beneficial for the society. What if somebody suddenly decided to kill off some group I belonged to? No thanks.

Obviously, just to make sure we are clear, I do not think it is moral. But it's not about my opinions here. An argument could be made that it could be beneficial for society as a whole. People do make those arguments and choices. Society could survive with such a rule. That shows that functional objectivity does not explain all of our moral sense.

No, you have a sense that some things really are good or bad because of how you evolved. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... -80976434/

And that evolution could have been different and even has been different for some individuals and groups. Morality is subjective on that view, there is more than one way things are and no one "should" that fits everyone, at least about some issues.

Of course it does. Losing any productive and useful member(s) of a society is detrimental to the society doesn't matter if the person belongs to a minority race. You would also deplete the gene pool.

Other races could be just as productive and useful. The society could survive. One could think that having more racial tensions is more detrimental to the society. The gene pool would not be depleted enough to do any damage to the society as a whole.

Have you read the Bible, especially the Old Testament? Do you notice any similarities between what you wrote and the stories in the OT?

I have read the Bible. I don't think they are as similar as you do, but that is irrelevant. Assume it is. My view does not rest on Biblical inerrancy. Reject the OT for this reason and you've done nothing to counter the argument I've given here. It's an issue I must deal with as a Christian, but a different issue than what we are talking about here.

No of course it isn't good. That's why functional objectivity doesn't lead to it. Subjective morality might. Or just read the Old Testament.

To say that functional objectivity doesn't lead to it means that society could not conceivably survive with such a rule in place. Why do you not think a society could survive with such a rule like this? If you've given the answers previously and I did not respond to them here then I have overlooked them and would appreciate you bringing them back up to challenge my view.

How would a society thrive or flourish or even survive if people just went around murdering members of a certain race?

Societies, for long periods of history, survived being made up of one race. It can obviously be done. If people agreed it was good, they'd be okay with it.