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?

[wiploc]

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.

That's why I said I would argue it, "perhaps temporarily." It seems to me that the moral argument--not yours, just generally--is based entirely on equivocating between two definitions of "objective morality."

So I will now argue that rape is objectively wrong because it objectively has a strong tendency to make people unhappy.

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.

Yes, one could theoretically say that. But how many people would espouse a morality that reduced happiness?

They won't say that obeying god will ruin everybody's life. They may say that the increased happiness is incidental, that it isn't the essence of morality but is rather a side effect, but they won't deny any relationship.

Often times the moral choice is seen to make the agent very unhappy, isn't it?

Yes, morality is about happiness in bulk. The net effect. Morality has two kinds of rules. One kind ("Brush your teeth") has you give up a little happiness now to get more happiness later. The other kind ("Pay your taxes") has you give up some of your own happiness to get more happiness for other people.

So, yes, the person doing the moral act may die in a fire while trying to save a child, but the rule being obeyed still tends to increase happiness on average.

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?

Happy about the wrong things? Certainly. Think how happy some people might be at the thought of Hitler in Hellfire.

This is where desire utilitarianism comes in. Some desires are more moral than others.

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.

Also, The Righteous Mind: Why People Disagree About Politics and Religion by Haidt. Not about utilitarianism, but wonderfully illuminating nonetheless.

[The Tanager]

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.

But I would have the same question concerning math (although that would be another thread). What you seem to offer here is that an atheistic worldview has no explanation for why mathematics is applicable to our world. And that you just want to cut off that question as unimportant. Why stop the reasoning at this level? I think we should try to see if an explanation can be given at a deeper level.

[The Tanager]

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.

Are you saying everyone does care about these things or just that they should care about these things?

[The Tanager]

Happy about the wrong things? Certainly. Think how happy some people might be at the thought of Hitler in Hellfire.

This is where desire utilitarianism comes in. Some desires are more moral than others.

And why do you think that is the case? How do we determine which desires are misguided? Why is our desire to see no one in the world raped a good desire to have, while the rapist's desire for personal pleasure an immoral desire to have? If you believe it results in the most happiness for the most people, why it that desire better than a desire to go with the result that gives the individual the most happiness, whatever it means for the most people?

[Bust Nak]

But I would have the same question concerning math (although that would be another thread). What you seem to offer here is that an atheistic worldview has no explanation for why mathematics is applicable to our world. And that you just want to cut off that question as unimportant. Why stop the reasoning at this level? I think we should try to see if an explanation can be given at a deeper level.

What is the foundation of the foundation of mathematics? None of the horns of the Münchhausen trilemma is all that satisfying. We stop the reasoning at this level because it's not useful to go deeper, since 1+1=2 is trivially true. (Yes, I am aware of the proof in Principia Mathematica from more fundamental axioms.)

[wiploc]

Happy about the wrong things? Certainly. Think how happy some people might be at the thought of Hitler in Hellfire.

This is where desire utilitarianism comes in. Some desires are more moral than others.

And why do you think that is the case?

Because some desires tend to reduce happiness.

How do we determine which desires are misguided?

We ask whether the desire causes unhappiness.

Why is our desire to see no one in the world raped a good desire to have,

Because people don't want to be raped. Rape makes people unhappy.

while the rapist's desire for personal pleasure an immoral desire to have?

Because rape makes people unhappy.

If you believe it results in the most happiness for the most people, why it that desire better than a desire to go with the result that gives the individual the most happiness, whatever it means for the most people?

I don't follow that, so I'm not sure this is responsive: One rapist can make a whole community unhappy. He may please himself while causing a huge net decrease in happiness.

[The Tanager]

What is the foundation of the foundation of mathematics? None of the horns of the Münchhausen trilemma is all that satisfying. We stop the reasoning at this level because it's not useful to go deeper, since 1+1=2 is trivially true. (Yes, I am aware of the proof in Principia Mathematica from more fundamental axioms.)

Perhaps I'm missing your point. We both agree mathematics is knowable and applicable to reality. The question is: why is that so? On atheism, it seems to be coincidence. Theism provides an intelligence behind creation that explains that. But then, of course, that just pushes the theistic answer back to ask why the intelligence is there. Eventually we have a brute fact in both explanations. In the atheistic view we have a brute fact coincidentally leading to the applicability of math and in the theistic view we have a brute fact (GOD) leading to the applicability of math. And to bring it back to morality, we have the same kind of answer.

[The Tanager]

We ask whether the desire causes unhappiness.

But they create happiness in some and unhappiness in others.

I don't follow that, so I'm not sure this is responsive: One rapist can make a whole community unhappy. He may please himself while causing a huge net decrease in happiness.

Do you think it's the overall amount of happiness that matters or that it's the overall number of people that are happy that matters?

[wiploc]

Do you think it's the overall amount of happiness that matters or that it's the overall number of people that are happy that matters?

The overall amount. If two people each give up an ounce of happiness in order to give a third person a pound of happiness, that's a good thing.

[2ndRateMind]

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.

Are you saying everyone does care about these things or just that they should care about these things?

I am saying that if anyone doesn't care about these things, then they have lost the right to consider and claim themselves to be in any way 'moral'.

Best wishes, 2RM.