As an Atheist...

[St. Anger]

Can an Atheist really believe in moral absolutes and still be a true atheist? If so, who sets what is and isn't a moral absolute? Who has the power?

[scourge99]

What I strongly believe to be right and wrong feels to me like absolute morality. Of course it does.

You feel absolute morality? Is that like a tingling feeling you get in your arm or an itch on your back?

Apparently you have some extra senses i do not (or i am unfamiliar with) because i have no sense or "feeling" of absolute morality.

For example I believe in equal rights for all humans.
Some people of my acquaintance base their morality on personal honour and loyalty to their (and also, as it happens, 'my') family and nation.

Of course I believe they are 'absolutely' wrong.

But in my arguments with them, I can only claim that I find their attitude totally repellent, and that where they choose to act to harm people who are not of 'our' family, nation, etc, I will oppose them by all means necessary.

IOW, I think I am admitting that morality is actually not much more than preference.
Ethics as aesthetics. Thoughts?

Your morality can stem from aesthetics, sure. Or from reason. Or from instinct...

[alive]

Can an Atheist really believe in moral absolutes and still be a true atheist? If so, who sets what is and isn't a moral absolute? Who has the power?

Well first there is right and wrong...

How do you know what that IS?

If you know what that is and live by it then it doesnt matter what you believe..

Except of course what 'right' and 'wrong' are.

Yeah Goat make me re-think that...It woud be right and wrong as the culture Im dealing with...I asked my wife which is a Christian and of corse Im a Atheist if we were Born in Afganastan and only new Musslim traditions She would of corse live that way and the Scary thing I would probably believe in God because even a whisper that I didn't probably wouldn't go well over there...Of corse she said she would still end up Christian and I would not believe...But Im sure it would not be that way...

[Crazee]

I say both Atheist and Theist can believe loads of incoherent nonsense, just that Atheist believe one less. The god one.

Do you agree with the statement: infinity < infinity – 1? Or, as another way of putting it: infinity + 1 > infinity.

IOW, I think I am admitting that morality is actually not much more than preference.
Ethics as aesthetics. Thoughts?

Imagine if everything one did, one treated as art. Giving the focused attention and determination to achieve a goal that leaves you feeling fulfilled could one day be the governing force behind society. Everyone is an artist. There are some of us that, at one time or another, have decided our work was not worth appreciating; and have thus fallen to sadness.

The ethics of a given society ought to be given the same aesthetic attention that a painter gives his painting, that a conductor gives to an orchestra, that an architect puts into a building. Now, one can paint, orchestrate, and design in a variety of aesthetically beautiful ways.

Morals are social contracts. There are many variations of systems of social contracts that would be aesthetically pleasing in their own right. It will only take a society willing to more openly accept its inherent artistic ability to find a better set of rules. In the end, these rules are what we prefer because they leave us content.

[dusk]

Do you agree with the statement: infinity < infinity – 1? Or, as another way of putting it: infinity + 1 > infinity.

No but I don't get where you are going with this.
If INF<INF-- was true than INF++>INF wouldn't be another way of putting it. Both are mathematically wrong but what's with the infinities anyway? Loads of possible nonsense is from the perspective of one human being still a comparatively small finite number.

The connection to the Aesthetics is well written. I'd completely agree to that. I never put it that way but it is effectively the same thing as what I think about the nature of subjective morals.

[Bust Nak]

Yet you still can believe in loads of incoherent nonsense. "Really" believing doesn't require the believed stuff to make any sense or actually existing.

You are right about that.

Does it describe reality vs. idealism? Is more or less the underlying problem to the debate.

As in ideally there is an absolute morality, but in reality might makes right?

[Jax Agnesson]

What I strongly believe to be right and wrong feels to me like absolute morality. Of course it does.

You feel absolute morality? Is that like a tingling feeling you get in your arm or an itch on your back?

Apparently you have some extra senses i do not (or i am unfamiliar with) because i have no sense or "feeling" of absolute morality.

I am using 'feels' in the emotional, not physical, sense.

[Crazee]

Do you agree with the statement: infinity < infinity – 1? Or, as another way of putting it: infinity + 1 > infinity.

No but I don't get where you are going with this.
If INF<INF-- was true than INF++>INF wouldn't be another way of putting it. Both are mathematically wrong but what's with the infinities anyway? Loads of possible nonsense is from the perspective of one human being still a comparatively small finite number.

Yeh I'm not sure it's as relevant in my mind now as when I first wrote it. My point is that since thoughts are also not necessarily quantifiable, then does it make sense to look down on another group for having one less, or one more, belief among an infinite number of beliefs. Even though thoughts aren't perfectly quantifiable they seem to be at least estimable, so I don't think it's a good argument (at least not till I've developed it more).

The connection to the Aesthetics is well written. I'd completely agree to that. I never put it that way but it is effectively the same thing as what I think about the nature of subjective morals.

Thanks

[scourge99]

What I strongly believe to be right and wrong feels to me like absolute morality. Of course it does.

You feel absolute morality? Is that like a tingling feeling you get in your arm or an itch on your back?

Apparently you have some extra senses i do not (or i am unfamiliar with) because i have no sense or "feeling" of absolute morality.

I am using 'feels' in the emotional, not physical, sense.

Same problem. I don't have any emotion i am aware of that "feels to me like absolute morality."

Reflecting upon my emotions, i can say that certain actions disgust me, make me squimish, uncomfortable, happy, or anxious. But i don't know of any feeling that feels like or indicates absolute morality. That you "emotionally feel absolute morality" is as foreign to me as saying that you emotionally feel the color red.

[St. Anger]

Although I don't consider myself an "atheist" for many reasons, I disbelieve in gods and would qualify under most definitions of "atheist." I'm also a moral absolutist: I believe that some things (such as child molestation) are objectively absolutely wrong, and that others (such as saving innocent human lives) are objectively absolutely right. The moral theory I subscribe to is called sentimentalism, or moral sense theory. Ontologically, these moral absolutes are grounded in human sentiment and emotion, such as empathy, love, and justice.

Hmmm... let's imagine a world for a moment where all morals are decided by the individual's emotions. I believe this would not work out too well. Someone called you a dips**t because you did somethins stupid, and you're already having a bad day, so you kill him out of anger (one of the strongest emotions). If morals were decided by emotions, this would happen on a regular basis, and no one would be able to punish them, because they acted on their emotions. Unless, of course, they too kill them out of anger/hate.

[St. Anger]

If the law is the highest source of morality, as some claim, then what made slavery wrong in young America? Years before the civil war, practically everyone owned a slave, and the law was fine with it. The lawmakers themselves owned slaves. Was slavery wrong then? The White people were stronger (in numbers) than the African Americans at the time, so if they wanted to take them as slaves, what's wrong with that?