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?

[The Tanager]

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

Fine. People disagree morality is the same thing as "functional objective morality". You need to support why they are identical, not just define them that way.

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.

People aren't always that aware. People are trusting. One can take advantage of that.

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?

Because people get great benefits all the time by taking selfish advantage of the rest of society. People get rich off of it.

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

Why not? Ice cream increases the well-being of society. If I had to choose between a society that has ice cream available and one that doesn't, I'm choosing the former. It's a better society. Chocolate ice cream brings the most happiness, statiscally speaking, so that gives people the best chance of happiness, just like keeping your promises, statiscally speaking, will bring the most happiness, even though it may not in specific cases.

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

So, because it goes against the wishes of some member(s) of society, it can't be good for society as a whole? Okay, then, what about having prisoners? We go against their wishes.

[Artie]

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

Fine. People disagree morality is the same thing as "functional objective morality". You need to support why they are identical, not just define them that way.

This article supports it. https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/

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?

Because people get great benefits all the time by taking selfish advantage of the rest of society. People get rich off of it.

And a lot of people end up in jail or worse and don't get rich off of it.

Ice cream increases the well-being of society.

Not necessarily. The calories in ice cream can contribute to health problems and obesity which is detrimental for society.

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

So, because it goes against the wishes of some member(s) of society, it can't be good for society as a whole? Okay, then, what about having prisoners? We go against their wishes.

Never said that. I said that the functionally objective moral thing to do is always what is beneficial to the society and the most people and at the same time detrimental to as few as possible. Even if it means having to take prisoners. If you can prove that killing all African American members of the society is the most beneficial act the government can do for the well-being and survival of your society and at the same time the least detrimental to as few as possible including African Americans feel free to proceed.

[Artie]

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.

Fascinating how many of the Ten Commandments just by chance happen to coincide with what is immoral according to functional objective morality. One might almost think that somebody just made a list of what's bad for the well-being and survival of a society and the people in it and added a god for emphasis... but who but a god could possibly have been smart enough to figure out that stealing and murdering and so forth isn't good...?

[The Tanager]

This article supports it. https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/

I don't think it does. I asked you earlier why you think it does, but I think you said you wanted to let the article speak for itself or that you wouldn't improve upon it or something like that. I'm fine if you want to leave it there and what we've said on our posts to each other.

And a lot of people end up in jail or worse and don't get rich off of it.

But not all do. Doing good for the society makes perfect practical sense for those who will benefit more because of that. It doesn't make sense for those who will benefit more by other means. That doesn't change just because the majority of people, or the statiscally average person, will benefit themselves by helping society.

Not necessarily. The calories in ice cream can contribute to health problems and obesity which is detrimental for society.

Either way you want it to go, the problem is still there. Here are the parallels:

(1a) Eating ice cream increases the well-being of society. Therefore, it is moral. Therefore, even those who may have serious health problems from eating it should still eat ice cream.

(1b) Ice cream decreases the well-being of society. Therefore, it is immoral. Therefore, even those who would not experience health problems from eating it should not eat ice cream.

(2) Keeping your promise increases the well-being of society. Therefore, it is moral. Therefore, even those who would not benefit from keeping a specific promise should still keep that promise.

Never said that. I said that the functionally objective moral thing to do is always what is beneficial to the society and the most people and at the same time detrimental to as few as possible. Even if it means having to take prisoners. If you can prove that killing all African American members of the society is the most beneficial act the government can do for the well-being and survival of your society and at the same time the least detrimental to as few as possible including African Americans feel free to proceed.

I will provide a thought experiment not centered on any one specific race. Assume there are two races in a society: 10 million of the majority race and 200,000 minorities. For some historical reason, the minority race largely hates the majority race. The majority race has been trying to change things without resorting to force as much as possible, but nothing is working except on a few. Riots break out all the time, putting innocent lives on both sides in danger. If this is allowed to continue, the estimates say it will cost the lives of 150,000 lives from each side over the next 15 years for a total of 300,000 lives, not to mention the other damage that will occur, the lack of trust the people will have in the government to maintain control and everything else. Should this country just kill the minority race? That would be less lives lost, less damage, and give the remaining people plenty of time to get over it, especially if they never really interacted with those of the other race anyway. This appears to be what is best for the well-being and survival of this society and is detrimental to as few as possible.

Fascinating how many of the Ten Commandments just by chance happen to coincide with what is immoral according to functional objective morality. One might almost think that somebody just made a list of what's bad for the well-being and survival of a society and the people in it and added a god for emphasis...

I didn't say anything about the Ten Commandments, but I don't even understand what you mean about them being immoral according to "functional objective morality".

[Artie]

(1a) Eating ice cream increases the well-being of society. Therefore, it is moral. Therefore, even those who may have serious health problems from eating it should still eat ice cream.

Whether eating ice cream is beneficial or detrimental to society must be checked for each person.

(1b) Ice cream decreases the well-being of society. Therefore, it is immoral. Therefore, even those who would not experience health problems from eating it should not eat ice cream.

Whether eating ice cream is beneficial or detrimental to society must be checked for each person.

(2) Keeping your promise increases the well-being of society. Therefore, it is moral. Therefore, even those who would not benefit from keeping a specific promise should still keep that promise.

Whether keeping a promise or not is moral must be determined for each individual case.

Never said that. I said that the functionally objective moral thing to do is always what is beneficial to the society and the most people and at the same time detrimental to as few as possible. Even if it means having to take prisoners. If you can prove that killing all African American members of the society is the most beneficial act the government can do for the well-being and survival of your society and at the same time the least detrimental to as few as possible including African Americans feel free to proceed.

I will provide a thought experiment not centered on any one specific race. Assume there are two races in a society: 10 million of the majority race and 200,000 minorities. For some historical reason, the minority race largely hates the majority race. The majority race has been trying to change things without resorting to force as much as possible, but nothing is working except on a few. Riots break out all the time, putting innocent lives on both sides in danger. If this is allowed to continue, the estimates say it will cost the lives of 150,000 lives from each side over the next 15 years for a total of 300,000 lives, not to mention the other damage that will occur, the lack of trust the people will have in the government to maintain control and everything else. Should this country just kill the minority race? That would be less lives lost, less damage, and give the remaining people plenty of time to get over it, especially if they never really interacted with those of the other race anyway. This appears to be what is best for the well-being and survival of this society and is detrimental to as few as possible.

I need more details. Who would do the killing? How many would do the killing? How exactly would they go about doing the killing? How much would the bureaucracy alone cost? What would you do with the houses and land and other property of these people? How much would retaliation cost the society when they defend themselves? How would you go about verifying that the correct people have been killed? DNA tests? Do you have any age limits? Do you kill the children or organize adoptions? How would the society deal with all the people showing up to support the minority from abroad? What about the political and economic situation while all this is going on? How would the neighboring states react to such a genocide given that surely a lot of people would try to cross the borders? What do you do with all the dead bodies do you have infrastructure in place to deal with them? How do you deal with all the relatives coming from abroad to the funerals if you are going to have any and how would you compensate them for their loss? How would the society deal with the mental problems one would expect the executioners would get? How many of the majority race do you expect to go along and how many do you expect will be against the genocide and oppose the government? How would the religious communities react to genocide?

Fascinating how many of the Ten Commandments just by chance happen to coincide with what is immoral according to functional objective morality. One might almost think that somebody just made a list of what's bad for the well-being and survival of a society and the people in it and added a god for emphasis...

I didn't say anything about the Ten Commandments, but I don't even understand what you mean about them being immoral according to "functional objective morality".

According to both the Ten Commandments and "functional objective morality" it's wrong to murder. But if you didn't get that you missed my point completely...

[Bust Nak]

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?

humans doing something against God's guidelines for the greater good, (refraining from say, making war on other nations.)

[The Tanager]

Whether keeping a promise or not is moral must be determined for each individual case.

But I thought you were arguing that functional objectivity explained our sense of morality completely. What morals are included in "functional objective morality" for you? Why is keeping a promise situational, but not other moral rules?

I need more details. Who would do the killing? How many would do the killing? How exactly would they go about doing the killing? How much would the bureaucracy alone cost? What would you do with the houses and land and other property of these people? How much would retaliation cost the society when they defend themselves? How would you go about verifying that the correct people have been killed? DNA tests? Do you have any age limits? Do you kill the children or organize adoptions? How would the society deal with all the people showing up to support the minority from abroad? What about the political and economic situation while all this is going on? How would the neighboring states react to such a genocide given that surely a lot of people would try to cross the borders? What do you do with all the dead bodies do you have infrastructure in place to deal with them? How do you deal with all the relatives coming from abroad to the funerals if you are going to have any and how would you compensate them for their loss? How would the society deal with the mental problems one would expect the executioners would get? How many of the majority race do you expect to go along and how many do you expect will be against the genocide and oppose the government? How would the religious communities react to genocide?

A handful of people will do the killing by some remote measure. It will not cost more than the damage that would have been caused through the riots (including retaliation cost). The houses and land would be distributed to the poorest of the majority race. You can have DNA tests, no age limits, kill the children. The other societies are also indifferent to this minority race so there is no international outrage or smuggling across borders to save them. It's an island country. You can dispose of the bodies in a healthy way. There are no relatives abroad, this race stayed in the one location. The cost of dealing with any mental problems is minimal and included in the overall cost calculation already. The whole majority race is of the subjective opinion that this is a good thing. The religious communities are as well. Add whatever extra details that you want, unless you can prove that any of these are logically impossible, then it's not going to matter for the thought experiment. This appears to be what is best for the well-being and survival of this society and is detrimental to as few as possible. I would still say it is immoral.

According to both the Ten Commandments and "functional objective morality" it's wrong to murder. But if you didn't get that you missed my point completely...

I admitted I missed your point completely. I would still like to know what it is. I'm obviously missing something obvious, but I'm fine admitting that.

[The Tanager]

humans doing something against God's guidelines for the greater good, (refraining from say, making war on other nations.)

I'm still not seeing what could go in that category. If the guidelines are formed by mirroring what results in the greatest good for humans, then how could one go against those guidelines and achieve the greater good?

[Artie]

Whether keeping a promise or not is moral must be determined for each individual case.

But I thought you were arguing that functional objectivity explained our sense of morality completely. What morals are included in "functional objective morality" for you? Why is keeping a promise situational, but not other moral rules?

It depends on the situation and the rule whether obeying the rule would be the moral thing to do. In every situation, use logic, reason and common sense to evaluate what would be the most beneficial and/or least detrimental course of action. When you are doing that, you are automatically using "functional objective morality" as the standard.

I need more details. Who would do the killing? How many would do the killing? How exactly would they go about doing the killing? How much would the bureaucracy alone cost? What would you do with the houses and land and other property of these people? How much would retaliation cost the society when they defend themselves? How would you go about verifying that the correct people have been killed? DNA tests? Do you have any age limits? Do you kill the children or organize adoptions? How would the society deal with all the people showing up to support the minority from abroad? What about the political and economic situation while all this is going on? How would the neighboring states react to such a genocide given that surely a lot of people would try to cross the borders? What do you do with all the dead bodies do you have infrastructure in place to deal with them? How do you deal with all the relatives coming from abroad to the funerals if you are going to have any and how would you compensate them for their loss? How would the society deal with the mental problems one would expect the executioners would get? How many of the majority race do you expect to go along and how many do you expect will be against the genocide and oppose the government? How would the religious communities react to genocide?

A handful of people will do the killing by some remote measure. It will not cost more than the damage that would have been caused through the riots (including retaliation cost). The houses and land would be distributed to the poorest of the majority race. You can have DNA tests, no age limits, kill the children. The other societies are also indifferent to this minority race so there is no international outrage or smuggling across borders to save them. It's an island country. You can dispose of the bodies in a healthy way. There are no relatives abroad, this race stayed in the one location. The cost of dealing with any mental problems is minimal and included in the overall cost calculation already. The whole majority race is of the subjective opinion that this is a good thing. The religious communities are as well. Add whatever extra details that you want, unless you can prove that any of these are logically impossible, then it's not going to matter for the thought experiment. This appears to be what is best for the well-being and survival of this society and is detrimental to as few as possible. I would still say it is immoral.

Sure. The moral solution is the one that is most beneficial and least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society including the minority race. Hence instead of killing them it would be better to use tranquilizer darts or gas and ship them off the island alive and well with no return option. Can you think of more moral scenarios not involving their deaths? What makes your solution immoral is that it isn't the solution that is most beneficial and least detrimental to everybody including the minority race.

According to both the Ten Commandments and "functional objective morality" it's wrong to murder. But if you didn't get that you missed my point completely...

I admitted I missed your point completely. I would still like to know what it is. I'm obviously missing something obvious, but I'm fine admitting that.

OK.

[Bust Nak]

If the guidelines are formed by mirroring what results in the greatest good for humans, then how could one go against those guidelines and achieve the greater good?

Well, that's a big if, isn't it? That's the point of the analogy: the guidelines for screwdrivers is to drive screws, yet it can achieve the "greater good" of opening paint cans.