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]

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.

And they would be functionally objectively wrong.

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.

If you live in a society and live selfishly you reduce your own chances of well-being and survival. People will be less likely to help if you are in need. Reciprocal altruism.

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.

Because that general example shows that what is moral is functionally objective and not subjective. So your specific examples must be wrong if they contradict my general example.

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.

An argument could be made that it could be beneficial for society as a whole.

Society as a whole includes minority groups. Could you make an argument that every single member of a minority race has such a detrimental effect on the society that the well-being and survival of the society is threatened to such an extent that the only option is to kill them?

People do make those arguments and choices. Society could survive with such a rule. That shows that functional objectivity does not explain all of your moral sense.

Under functional objective morality you would have to justify that every single member of that minority race has such a detrimental effect on the well-being and survival of the society that it was necessary to kill them.

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?

Nonsense! Just because a society could survive an act doesn't make the act functionally objectively moral! It just means the act isn't detrimental enough to cause non-survival but it's still functionally objectively immoral!

[Bust Nak]

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.

That's the same way a person should use a screwdriver to drive screws, yet they function just fine as pry bars. There is still no objectivity there.

[The Tanager]

And they would be functionally objectively wrong.

Okay, but that is defining functional objectivity, not morality. There is an additional step needed to say that those two are the same thing.

If you live in a society and live selfishly you reduce your own chances of well-being and survival. People will be less likely to help if you are in need. Reciprocal altruism.

One could also say that if you help others you open yourself up to being taking advantage of and can lessen your own chances of well-being and survival.

Because that general example shows that what is moral is functionally objective and not subjective. So your specific examples must be wrong if they contradict my general example.

General and specific do not always work that way, logically. I am a theist. There are a lot of specific theisms that I reject as true, though. You've got to assess every rule separately in this case.

Society as a whole includes minority groups.

It includes every individual. That doesn't mean doing something detrimental to an individual is the same thing as doing something detrimental to the society as a whole (i.e., as a society). Functional objectivity talks about society as a society surviving, not what is good for every single individual member.

Nonsense! Just because a society could survive an act doesn't make the act functionally objectively moral! It just means the act isn't detrimental enough to cause non-survival but it's still functionally objectively immoral!

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if genocide of a minority race was the moral rule of a society as a society, that society could survive. Therefore, functional objectivity does not tell us that such a rule is immoral. The immorality of a rule, according to functional objectivity, is that it would keep society from surviving, so that we could not have evolved such a rule since those societies with those rules would have died out previously. Functional objectivity is true concerning some basic rules like "don't murder everyone" but it cannot explain why we think it is immoral to commit genocide on a minority race to ease racial tensions since such a rule could allow society to continue to function.

[The Tanager]

That's the same way a person should use a screwdriver to drive screws, yet they function just fine as pry bars. There is still no objectivity there.

Could you help me connect the analogy?. God says there are certain goods for humans (you'll be happier if you help others instead of just being self-centered and stuff like that)...that is the screwdriver driving screws. What is analogical to the screwdriver being a pry bar?

[Artie]

And they would be functionally objectively wrong.

Okay, but that is defining functional objectivity, not morality. There is an additional step needed to say that those two are the same thing.

I don't follow.

If you live in a society and live selfishly you reduce your own chances of well-being and survival. People will be less likely to help if you are in need. Reciprocal altruism.

One could also say that if you help others you open yourself up to being taking advantage of and can lessen your own chances of well-being and survival.

But statistically in general helping others increases your chances even though there are examples of the opposite.

Society as a whole includes minority groups.

It includes every individual. That doesn't mean doing something detrimental to an individual is the same thing as doing something detrimental to the society as a whole (i.e., as a society).

That is correct. What you do to an individual might be very detrimental to the individual but very beneficial for the rest of the society and therefore moral.

Functional objectivity talks about society as a society surviving, not what is good for every single individual member.

Correct. You must in each case weigh what is beneficial or detrimental for an individual member up against what is beneficial or detrimental to the society and the other members. Often you can hear "heroes" who put themselves in harms way for others saying "I did it without thinking" or "it was just a reflex" or "it was just instinct". Our brains are just so wired by evolution and natural selection.

Nonsense! Just because a society could survive an act doesn't make the act functionally objectively moral! It just means the act isn't detrimental enough to cause non-survival but it's still functionally objectively immoral!

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if genocide of a minority race was the moral rule of a society as a society, that society could survive. Therefore, functional objectivity does not tell us that such a rule is immoral. The immorality of a rule, according to functional objectivity, is that it would keep society from surviving,

The morality of a rule is determined by whether it's beneficial or detrimental to the flourishing and thriving and well-being of the society not just beneficial or detrimental to its survival. A society could survive many immoral rules but it would per definition not be as well off as without them. That's what makes them immoral in the first place.

so that we could not have evolved such a rule since those societies with those rules would have died out previously. Functional objectivity is true concerning some basic rules like "don't murder everyone" but it cannot explain why we think it is immoral to commit genocide on a minority race to ease racial tensions since such a rule could allow society to continue to function.

African Americans are a minority race in the US. What do you think would happen to the US society if we started killing African Americans to ease racial tension or even proposed such a strategy? Can you see the bigger picture and all the variables you would have to consider before you declare or evaluate something to be moral or immoral?

[Artie]

I'm saying that if genocide of a minority race was the moral rule of a society as a society, that society could survive.

Correct.

Therefore, functional objectivity does not tell us that such a rule is immoral. The immorality of a rule, according to functional objectivity, is that it would keep society from surviving

Wrong. The immorality of a rule is determined by, according to functional objectivity, whether it is detrimental to the survival of the society. On a scale from thriving and flourishing society to barely surviving, if having such a rule gets you even just a tiny fraction closer to the barely surviving end the rule is immoral. If you could show beyond a doubt that the removal of this minority race from the society was beneficial for the society including the members of the minority race the act would be moral. We provide simple rules like the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule for simple people, and the moral rest of us use our logic, reason and common sense to act in ways that get us closer to the thriving and flourishing end of the scale.

[The Tanager]

The Tanager wrote:

Artie wrote:
And they would be functionally objectively wrong.

Okay, but that is defining functional objectivity, not morality. There is an additional step needed to say that those two are the same thing.

I don't follow.

You defined morality in a way that made it identical to functional objectivity. People disagree that morality should be defined that way. You need to support why they are identical, not just define them that way.

But statistically in general helping others increases your chances even though there are examples of the opposite.

But individuals are specific. Why should one care what actually increases the well-being of the average person, if they determine that in their specific circumstances their well-being will be gained by other means?

That is correct. What you do to an individual might be very detrimental to the individual but very beneficial for the rest of the society and therefore moral.

And so with the individuals that make up a minority race.

The morality of a rule is determined by whether it's beneficial or detrimental to the flourishing and thriving and well-being of the society not just beneficial or detrimental to its survival. A society could survive many immoral rules but it would per definition not be as well off as without them. That's what makes them immoral in the first place.

You believe that is so, but where is the support for it? Why is morality attached to the well-being of society as opposed to one's self? You have said that we seek the good of society because it leads to the well-being of one's self. So, is morality actually primarily attached to the well-being of one's self? If so, what about the specific cases where a self's well-being goes against the averages?

Or is morality just a statement on what usually leads to the well-being of most individuals? It's just a statistical observation? We could also make statistical observations on which ice cream flavor brings happiness to most people. Say it is chocolate. Therefore, chocolate is the "right" ice cream choice, because it leads to happiness in general?

African Americans are a minority race in the US. What do you think would happen to the US society if we started killing African Americans to ease racial tension or even proposed such a strategy? Can you see the bigger picture and all the variables you would have to consider before you declare or evaluate something to be moral or immoral?

It would not have that affect. Why? Because of the subjective opinions of the rest of society, not because of functional objectivity. A society with different subjective opinions could come to different conclusions and still function. The members of that society could still thrive.

[wiploc]

But individuals are specific. Why should one care what actually increases the well-being of the average person, if they determine that in their specific circumstances their well-being will be gained by other means?

Why should one care what actually complies with a god's orders if one determines that, in her specific circumstances, her well being will be increased by other means?

[Artie]

The Tanager wrote:

Artie wrote:
And they would be functionally objectively wrong.

Okay, but that is defining functional objectivity, not morality. There is an additional step needed to say that those two are the same thing.

I don't follow.

You defined morality in a way that made it identical to functional objectivity.

Huh? It's called "functional objective morality."

People disagree that morality should be defined that way. You need to support why they are identical, not just define them that way.

It is called "functional objective morality". That is the whole expression.

But statistically in general helping others increases your chances even though there are examples of the opposite.

But individuals are specific. Why should one care what actually increases the well-being of the average person, if they determine that in their specific circumstances their well-being will be gained by other means?

Because it will be noticed that you don't care about the well-being of others only yourself and hence others will not care about your well-being which is detrimental to you. Reciprocal altruism.

The morality of a rule is determined by whether it's beneficial or detrimental to the flourishing and thriving and well-being of the society not just beneficial or detrimental to its survival. A society could survive many immoral rules but it would per definition not be as well off as without them. That's what makes them immoral in the first place.

You believe that is so, but where is the support for it? Why is morality attached to the well-being of society as opposed to one's self?

Because the society is a group of individuals and one of those individuals is me! Because my well-being depends on the well-being of the society! Living in a bad society is bad for me! Living in a society where everybody including me help each other is good for me! How can you even ask those questions?

You have said that we seek the good of society because it leads to the well-being of one's self. So, is morality actually primarily attached to the well-being of one's self? If so, what about the specific cases where a self's well-being goes against the averages?

Or is morality just a statement on what usually leads to the well-being of most individuals? It's just a statistical observation?

Yes. A moral choice is a choice that is most beneficial for the well-being and survival of the greatest amount of people and/or detrimental to as few people as possible.

We could also make statistical observations on which ice cream flavor brings happiness to most people. Say it is chocolate. Therefore, chocolate is the "right" ice cream choice, because it leads to happiness in general?

I don't follow. Which icecream you choose doesn't matter to the well-being of the society or the others in it.

African Americans are a minority race in the US. What do you think would happen to the US society if we started killing African Americans to ease racial tension or even proposed such a strategy? Can you see the bigger picture and all the variables you would have to consider before you declare or evaluate something to be moral or immoral?

It would not have that affect. Why? Because of the subjective opinions of the rest of society, not because of functional objectivity. A society with different subjective opinions could come to different conclusions and still function. The members of that society could still thrive.

The dead African American members of that society could still thrive? Wouldn't they be dead? See post number 236.

[The Tanager]

But individuals are specific. Why should one care what actually increases the well-being of the average person, if they determine that in their specific circumstances their well-being will be gained by other means?

Why should one care what actually complies with a god's orders if one determines that, in her specific circumstances, her well being will be increased by other means?

Remember on my view there is one way humans are supposed to be which will make them the happiest possible. God knows that way because God made it so. God's moral commands lead to that happiness. God cannot be wrong about that. So, even though she thinks her well being will be increased by other means, she would be wrong.

On an atheistic evolutionary view there is no intended, most happy state for every human. Different kinds of people reach their ultimate happiness in different even contradictory ways.