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?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by The Tanager]

Don't need to believe in objective morality to answer this: The objective foundation for objective *anything* is objective reality.

[wiploc]

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?

I don't know what you mean by "objective," but I am an atheist utilitarian.

I offer utilitarianism as a possible answer to your question.

[2ndRateMind]

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?

To my mind, the term 'objective' means that things (like me) exist independently of you. The only alternative is solipsism, that nothing exists independently of you. That has turned out to be an intellectual cul-de-sac, as discovered by Descartes, when he decided cogito ergo sum, and then could prove nothing else without invoking God.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

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?

Human nature? I would like to derive an uncontroversial morality from undisputed fact, despite Hume's contention that one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. And it occurs to me that an appeal to human well-being may be one way of doing so.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[The Tanager]

By objective, I mean something like 'existing independent of people's perceptions, opinions.'

Bust Nak, I'm not sure if I'm understanding your response clearly. If we are saying morality is an objective feature of reality, it doesn't seem to help to say the foundation for morality being an objective feature of reality is objective reality. What part of objective reality gives us morality? Theists will say it is God and that does seem to me to provide the objective feature of morality to humans, because a source outside of humanity provides the foundation for what is moral or immoral. But, in your view, what feature of objective reality provides the objectivity of morals?

Wiploc, what kind of utilitarian are you? How do you determine utility?

2ndRateMind, what do you mean by human well-being? What kinds of things are included?

[wiploc]

By objective, I mean something like 'existing independent of people's perceptions, opinions.'

Let me argue, then, perhaps temporarily, that morality cannot be objective--regardless of whether gods exist:

Morality is about making people happy. Happiness _is_ a perception. Therefore, morality cannot be independent of perception.

Wiploc, what kind of utilitarian are you? How do you determine utility?

I'm a rule utilitarian.

I've been exposed to desire utilitarian, and found it appealing, but I never read the book. For that matter, I never read a book on any kind of utilitarianism.

Well, I did read _The Moral Landscape_ by Sam Harris. I recommend it. It's not about utilitarianism exactly ...
Okay, maybe it is.

In any case, I found its arguments compelling. Because of this book, I began calling myself a moral realist.

2ndRateMind, what do you mean by human well-being? What kinds of things are included?

I talk about "happiness" as a kind of shorthand. Reducing unhappiness is important too. Degrees of happiness are important. Dan Barker talks about "flourishing," which sounds good to me, but which I also wouldn't be able to explain very well. I don't have a robust answer to that question (even though it wasn't directed at me).

[Bust Nak]

Bust Nak, I'm not sure if I'm understanding your response clearly. If we are saying morality is an objective feature of reality, it doesn't seem to help to say the foundation for morality being an objective feature of reality is objective reality. What part of objective reality gives us morality?

What part of objective reality gives us mathematics? One apple and another apple in a basket is just two apples, it just is. If morality is objective like mathematics is, then treat it like a fundamental aspect of reality like mathematics is.

Theists will say it is God and that does seem to me to provide the objective feature of morality to humans, because a source outside of humanity provides the foundation for what is moral or immoral. But, in your view, what feature of objective reality provides the objectivity of morals?

In that sense God is the foundation of objective reality, morality is a feature of this created objective reality, an atheist would just drop the God part.

To be clear, I am not a moral objectivist.

[The Tanager]

Let me argue, then, perhaps temporarily, that morality cannot be objective--regardless of whether gods exist:

Morality is about making people happy. Happiness _is_ a perception. Therefore, morality cannot be independent of perception.

In thinking about "objectivity," I think about the shape of the earth as a point of comparison. There is an objective fact, regardless of whether I perceive it to be spherical or not. If I think "it looks flat to me," then I am objectively wrong. But if I say "I perceive the world to be spherical," it's my perception, but it is still objectively true.

As to the second part, there are at least two kinds of responses. First, the theist can say morality is not about making people happy. Often times the moral choice is seen to make the agent very unhappy, isn't it?

Second, there is a question of whether happiness is (at least, generally) the same for all humans or if it changes for each individual. My very initial understanding of rule utilitarianism would be that the rules apply to everyone equally. Stealing is wrong, for example, because it will lead to greater unhappiness than the alternative, even if an individual act may seem to the individual agent to lead to more happiness in their case. Rule utilitarians seem to see morality as more objective to me than act utilitarians, but maybe I'm wrong there. Do you think people can be happy about the wrong things?

I'm a rule utilitarian.

I've been exposed to desire utilitarian, and found it appealing, but I never read the book. For that matter, I never read a book on any kind of utilitarianism.

Well, I did read _The Moral Landscape_ by Sam Harris. I recommend it. It's not about utilitarianism exactly ...
Okay, maybe it is.

In any case, I found its arguments compelling. Because of this book, I began calling myself a moral realist.

One of the many books I need to find time to read.

[2ndRateMind]

2ndRateMind, what do you mean by human well-being? What kinds of things are included?

An interweb connection, that allows us all to discuss the meaning of life, would be a good start!

But seriously, human flourishing along the lines of the way the virtue ethicists interpret eudaimonia would be ideal. Or, at a more fundamental level, at least let all of humanity enjoy clean water, enough food, sanitation, adequate clothing, secure shelter, and primary health-care and education. Given these basics, it would be up to them to contribute to, and benefit from, the global economy. But without them, I do not see how or why the absolutely poor (1.2 billion people on income less than $1.25 per day) can realistically be expected to compete and cooperate.

Best wishes, 2RM.