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]

If you have a society with say a hundred people and one gives his life so that ten survive you still have 99 like-minded people left to survive and produce a new generation but if you have a society with a hundred people where one person let ten die you have 90 left to survive and procreate. Which means that the first society has a survival advantage.

Here is a better parallel to my point. If you have a society with say a hundred people and one is murdered so that ten survive you still have 99 like-minded people left to survive and produce a new generation. Which society has a survival advantage? They are equal, aren't they? This only speaks to different morals, not better.

Then it wouldn't be murder in the first place but a justified killing. Same morals. The loss of one life is better for the society than the loss of ten in both cases. Interesting article: https://www.historyextra.com/period/sec ... d-nuclear/

[2ndRateMind]

What accounts for us believing system C? Simply that we have defined it as the best of all possible moral systems, and that, barring catastrophe, humanity will work towards it for no other reason than that it is the best. And that goes for theists and atheists alike, whether we do or do not elide system C with the Will of God.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Perhaps you are confusing epistemology with ontology here?

I don't think so. If I am, 'tis a grievous fault.

I'm not talking about why we believe that system C is the best, but why there is a system C outside of each human's head.

Well, where do the laws of logic, mathematics and physics subside? Seems to me they are woven into the very fabric of the universe. I do not see why system C should be any different. In this scenario, ethics are discovered, not created, by humanity. This makes sense to me, because what is moral is moral whether we want it so or not.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

You seem to think the example of punishing the innocent for the crimes of another is the best counter example to my point. I assume you are referring to God punishing Jesus for our sins. If so, that's not what I think is actually going on with the Atonement, at least not in the way many people think it is.

Yep, that's what I had in mind.

So, let's focus on same-sex marriage (because I'm not really sure what you mean about "refraining from collectively punishment").

I was referring to the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons.

But, if the theory I espoused is true... [then] same-sex marriage is analogous to using the screwdriver as a remote control.

But doesn't that assume there is some objectively right way of going about things? When such an assumption is part of an argument for objective morality, you have a circular argument.

[The Tanager]

Then it wouldn't be murder in the first place but a justified killing. Same morals. The loss of one life is better for the society than the loss of ten in both cases. Interesting article: https://www.historyextra.com/period/sec ... d-nuclear/

Why is it a justified killing? The person being killed is innocent.

[The Tanager]

Well, where do the laws of logic, mathematics and physics subside? Seems to me they are woven into the very fabric of the universe. I do not see why system C should be any different. In this scenario, ethics are discovered, not created, by humanity. This makes sense to me, because what is moral is moral whether we want it so or not.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I absolutely agree. I'm asking how they get into the universe to begin with. Theism answers this question coherently. I think the other things you mentioned are in the same boat. From many atheistic worldviews, it seems to me, we have no idea why the universe is like this and they may even be inconsistent with these features. At best, the atheistic views seem to be saying "we don't know why, but we take it by faith that there is something that explains it" which is a knock against atheism's explanatory scope, at the very least.

[The Tanager]

But, if the theory I espoused is true... [then] same-sex marriage is analogous to using the screwdriver as a remote control.

But doesn't that assume there is some objectively right way of going about things? When such an assumption is part of an argument for objective morality, you have a circular argument.

Yes. But the OP is not about arguing for the truth of moral realism over against the alternative. In this thread, moral realism is assumed true and we are looking at possible groundings of that view. We are checking out the logical coherence of certain theistic and atheistic answers to that issue.

[Artie]

Then it wouldn't be murder in the first place but a justified killing. Same morals. The loss of one life is better for the society than the loss of ten in both cases. Interesting article: https://www.historyextra.com/period/sec ... d-nuclear/

Why is it a justified killing? The person being killed is innocent.

If he was innocent it wouldn't be a justified killing. All killings are justified if the consequences of not killing are worse than killing.

[Artie]

Well, where do the laws of logic, mathematics and physics subside? Seems to me they are woven into the very fabric of the universe. I do not see why system C should be any different. In this scenario, ethics are discovered, not created, by humanity. This makes sense to me, because what is moral is moral whether we want it so or not.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I absolutely agree. I'm asking how they get into the universe to begin with. Theism answers this question coherently.

No it doesn't. It doesn't even answer why a god would exist to begin with.

I think the other things you mentioned are in the same boat. From many atheistic worldviews, it seems to me, we have no idea why the universe is like this and they may even be inconsistent with these features. At best, the atheistic views seem to be saying "we don't know why, but we take it by faith that there is something that explains it" which is a knock against atheism's explanatory scope, at the very least.

Theism doesn't have any explanatory scope. Does Poseidon explain earthquakes? Or Thor thunder? Not in the history of the universe has it ever been shown that claiming "a god did it" has explained anything.

[The Tanager]

Why is it a justified killing? The person being killed is innocent.

If he was innocent it wouldn't be a justified killing. All killings are justified if the consequences of not killing are worse than killing.

So, how do you compare the two situations? (1) A society with 100 people where one gives his life so that ten survive which results in 99 like-minded people left to survive and produce a new generation versus (2) A society with 100 people where an innocent person is killed against their will so that ten survive which results in 99 like-minded people left to survive and produce a new generation. Neither society has a survival advantage. Their morals are different, not better, on functionally objective morality, right?

No it doesn't. It doesn't even answer why a god would exist to begin with.

What do you mean? That the case for theism is weak? Something like it doesn't explain where God comes from? Something else?

Theism doesn't have any explanatory scope. Does Poseidon explain earthquakes? Or Thor thunder? Not in the history of the universe has it ever been shown that claiming "a god did it" has explained anything.

I think you may be talking about explanatory power rather than explanatory scope. Saying Thor is responsible for thunder does explain it. It is a piece of data explained by Norse theology. Scope is about how much data is explained. We agree that it is not a strong explanation.

Now, I'm not making an overall argument between theism and atheism here. There is a lot of things various worldviews have to take into account when we are looking at the inference to a best explanation there.

I'm talking specifically about moral realism. If one believes moral realism is true, I think theism provides a coherent answer (if the view is assumed true). I can understand you saying it is coherent, but weak. I can understand you saying it has explanatory scope, but not explanatory power. I've been talking more about scope in this discussion.

I don't think your atheistic view has provided a coherent way to account for moral realism (if your view is assumed true). I think moral platonism does provide a coherent way to account for moral realism, if it is assumed true, but I think the case for its truth is extremely weak (i.e., it has explanatory scope, but not power). When comparing atheistic views, I think there is better explanatory scope and power for the view that says moral realism is false than one that says moral realism is true.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 279 by The Tanager]

Hmmm. I am still not persuaded that shifting the creation of morals to God does anything more than kick the can down the road one level.

The atheist may not be able to explain why moral laws subsist in the universe, and in the nature of man, specifically; as far as he is concerned, they just do.

The theist simply contends that they are there because God put them there, but unless he can explain where God came from, and why God created rules of morality, and why God decided to install them into His creation, I am not convinced we are that much further forward.

At some point we must confront our ignorances, and admit of them. Positing God, or no God, does not either way remove them. My own theory of salvation does not require belief, only the goodness derived out of love, so I am quite happy to let atheists be atheists, and theists, theists, just so long as they both:
1) love widely and deeply,
2) express that love by the impartial pursuit of the good.

Best wishes, 2RM.