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?

[Goat]

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.

Well, you know.. I can't subscribe to it be 'objectively wrong'.. it certainly is SUBJECTIVELY wrong. I certainly view it as wrong, but look at the tribes of New Guinea, and how they routinely treated their children. ... and child molestation is part of a lot of African tribes' culture. I view it as wrong.. being brought up in my own western culture, .. but they do not. In harsher environments, the 'empathy , love and justice' seem to go out the window.

I live by if I wouldn't want it done to me or my family then it is wrong...But I see what your saying that if I grew up in New Guinea I might allow somethings that I would see as wrong here because of a culture issue...Also makes me wonder if I was born in Afganastan would I be a Musslim that believes in God...They are 10 times more religious than Christians and Im sure if I was a kid I would get many lashing to differ from it..Hmmmmm?

Morality is a culturally conditioned response... and you might be right.n I am glad was born in the culture I was..

[Flail]

I don't think you can presuppose an atheist would agree with absolute objective moral principles. Morals arise out of explicit and implicit social contracts between members in a society to enhance social order and survival. No God required.

My society wants to annihilate your society. We claim it would enhance our social order and survival if you were gone. Your society, wanting to survive and maintain a social order, disagrees with my society. Are you saying your society has no grounds for appeal since your society claims morality is merely social contract?

We would need more facts as to the motivations of each society and how one is threatening the short and long term peace and survival of the other. Autocracies are often the source of naked aggression wherein a despotic/deluded/religious ruler does things for his own selfish interests or some 'god's' rather than those of his people. Democracies are better to serve the greater freedoms. Also the doctrine of ethical reciprocity might dissuade naked aggression as 'what's good for the good is good for the gander'.

[Flail]

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.

Interesting, but to me your choice to adhere to this view is also subjective. To my thinking all moral determinants are born of basic common sense and ethical reciprocity. Which is why in developed societies there is much commonality as to what is considered moral and what is immoral.

[dianaiad]

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.

[LiamOS]

I would lean towards stating that an Atheist cannot believe in absolute morals self-consistently, but I cannot think of how to prove such a statement; I also do have some level of doubt as to whether it would hold.

[4gold]

We would need more facts as to the motivations of each society and how one is threatening the short and long term peace and survival of the other. Autocracies are often the source of naked aggression wherein a despotic/deluded/religious ruler does things for his own selfish interests or some 'god's' rather than those of his people. Democracies are better to serve the greater freedoms. Also the doctrine of ethical reciprocity might dissuade naked aggression as 'what's good for the good is good for the gander'.

We want your land. We do not subscribe to your society's moral contract to the private right to property. We are stronger than you, so therefore we can take it from you. The doctrine of ethical reciprocity is understood by my culture...that's why we are taking as much land as we can so that we become the strongest and no one can take the land from us.

(This really isn't a silly internet exercise; this event has played out hundreds of times throughout history. Pick any example you want if you need more specific details.)

Here's where I'm going with this...where no contract exists between you and me, and I intend to destroy you, do you have any grounds for moral appeal? Or do you just go down fighting, because you understand morality is mere social contract, so the bigger consumes the smaller where the contract is nonexistent?

[dusk]

Assuming absolute morals where is the difference.
The one group say the Muslims still think they are doing the right thing. The Sikh still think that is their land. In the end they don't agree and bang in their heads.

Yes the bigger consumes the smaller where there is nothing else keeping them from it.

Yet other things can play a part. The bigger may be bound by its own morals that in some degree extends out farther than the immediate community. If I know that he killing me just because he thinks I look ugly is wrong, I'd have to forsake my own values if I do the same to him.

I live in a community where raping children is absolutely an abomination. Can I now just go out to another community where children have fewer rights (Say Jesus times) and go rape children.

If we believe in equality of every human that can walk on two feet, I just cannot exclude aborigines while still being "right". I would be morally corrupt.

Moral appeal is entirely useless and meaningless if two sides face each other who based on their own values think they are in the right. If there is no one stronger that can wipe them both out it doesn't matter, and in front of whom only appeal to this stronger ones values and morals would get you anywhere.
Like a judge when two neighbors fight. Only the law matters for the judge it is the only moral ground. What the two neighbors think as being right and wrong in their own heads is moot in that situation.


BTW and Atheist can believe in absolute morals. It wouldn't really be a theist god given it has no consciousness, it doesn't necessarily require judgement. To not believe in any of the "gods" doesn't mean you cannot believe in anything. You can be a patriot and believe in your country like communists.
Most secular humanist Atheist I think do not believe in absolute morals (which includes me). I don't know any reliable statistics.

[Bust Nak]

Can an Atheist really believe in moral absolutes and still be a true atheist?

As a subjectivist, I say nobody can really believe in moral absolutes, not atheist, not theists. Moral absolutes, an extension of intrinsic value, is simply an incoherent concept.

Here's where I'm going with this...where no contract exists between you and me, and I intend to destroy you, do you have any grounds for moral appeal? Or do you just go down fighting, because you understand morality is mere social contract, so the bigger consumes the smaller where the contract is nonexistent?

Well given that the bigger comsumes the smaller has played out hundreds of times throughout history, which do you think better describe reality? That there is an moral absolute that one can appeal to; Or that there is no such thing as moral absolutes, just contracts between willing parties.

[Jax Agnesson]

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

[dusk]

As a subjectivist, I say nobody can really believe in moral absolutes, not atheist, not theists. Moral absolutes, an extension of intrinsic value, is simply an incoherent concept.

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

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