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]

I say that if a person from society A gives his life to save ten he's doing the moral thing. I say that if a person from society B takes a life to save ten he's doing the moral thing. I'm not talking about government policies.

But if no one in the society volunteers and no one in the society kills the one person to save the ten, then they are all acting immorally in your view, correct? That is the situation I'm saying is taking place in Society A.

A functionally objective moral act is an act done by an individual that is beneficial for the well-being and chances of survival for the society and the citizens. A functionally objective immoral act is an act done by an individual that is detrimental to the well-being and chances of survival for the society and the citizens.

I don't think it is, but terminology is not as important as dealing with the issue(s) being talked about, so I won't belabor the point further.

It's immoral to let 10 people die and one person live if your other option is to let one person die and 10 people live. Obviously.

It's not obvious. You need to provide rational support. If it was obvious, then why isn't everyone okay with openly killing enough people to perform all of the transplants needed by people in their society? You could save multiple lives by killing a healthy individual.

Evolution and natural selection selected for the wiring that made people act in ways most beneficial to the well-being and survival of the society. That doesn't mean that everybody are wired in exactly the same way from conception and bad genes and disease and injury and bad upbringing can also make people do immoral things.

Both wirings exist, so natural selection isn't just selecting one wiring over the other. Evolution has equally lead to the existence of both. To say that the selfish wiring is due to natural defects or an upbringing by a naturally defective individual or group seems to beg the question in favor of our wiring over another person's wiring unless you have support for that claim rather than just a claim that it has happened that way.

[Artie]

I say that if a person from society A gives his life to save ten he's doing the moral thing. I say that if a person from society B takes a life to save ten he's doing the moral thing. I'm not talking about government policies.

But if no one in the society volunteers and no one in the society kills the one person to save the ten, then they are all acting immorally in your view, correct? That is the situation I'm saying is taking place in Society A.

They aren't acting at all. Allowing harm to happen through inaction is immoral.

It's immoral to let 10 people die and one person live if your other option is to let one person die and 10 people live. Obviously.

It's not obvious. You need to provide rational support.

Are you actually telling us that you wouldn't lift a finger to save ten people if it meant hurting one?

[marco]

Are you actually telling us that you wouldn't lift a finger to save ten people if it meant hurting one?

There are so many unknown factors in this situation that one can act only when one is given the details. Of course one can kill ten evil people in order to save one person. Given there is no question of guilt it is certainly not clear that we should kill one person to save ten; counting heads isn't, I should have thought, a basis for making moral decisions.

Having said this I don't regard morality as being objective; what is right in one situation may be wrong in something of a similar situation.

[Artie]

Are you actually telling us that you wouldn't lift a finger to save ten people if it meant hurting one?

There are so many unknown factors in this situation that one can act only when one is given the details. Of course one can kill ten evil people in order to save one person. Given there is no question of guilt it is certainly not clear that we should kill one person to save ten; counting heads isn't, I should have thought, a basis for making moral decisions.

What basis do you have for making moral decisions? What makes a decision moral or immoral? Have you heard of the Trolley Problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[marco]

What basis do you have for making moral decisions? What makes a decision moral or immoral? Have you heard of the Trolley Problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Morality, as the artificial problem shows, depends on the analysis of a situation. The more we are restricted by circumstance, education, health, age the less we can attach a moral value to a decision. Obviously there are situations where all our decision making has been removed and we simply react.

The trolley example is a playful look at decision making and though moral values are attached to the decision made as to who should be saved, effectively we have constrained the subjects so that they are controlled by the apparatus imposed on them. We could rightly say that the decision made does not reflect properly on moral decisions; rather we are artificially made to count heads. Thus our decision should not be used to assess anything about morality, which presumably requires complete responsibility.

[Artie]

What basis do you have for making moral decisions? What makes a decision moral or immoral? Have you heard of the Trolley Problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Morality, as the artificial problem shows, depends on the analysis of a situation. The more we are restricted by circumstance, education, health, age the less we can attach a moral value to a decision. Obviously there are situations where all our decision making has been removed and we simply react.

The trolley example is a playful look at decision making and though moral values are attached to the decision made as to who should be saved, effectively we have constrained the subjects so that they are controlled by the apparatus imposed on them. We could rightly say that the decision made does not reflect properly on moral decisions; rather we are artificially made to count heads. Thus our decision should not be used to assess anything about morality, which presumably requires complete responsibility.

So it doesn't matter how many people you kill? One or five doesn't matter? You feel no responsibility to limit the harm you do to people and their family and friends as much as possible?

[The Tanager]

Are you actually telling us that you wouldn't lift a finger to save ten people if it meant hurting one?

I gave a specific example against such a general rule. I think it is immoral to kill an innocent healthy person to save the lives of even ten others who need transplants. Do you think it is immoral to refrain from killing that healthy person?

[Artie]

Are you actually telling us that you wouldn't lift a finger to save ten people if it meant hurting one?

I gave a specific example against such a general rule. I think it is immoral to kill an innocent healthy person to save the lives of even ten others who need transplants. Do you think it is immoral to refrain from killing that healthy person?

Why don't you answer my question first instead of making up new different ones? Would you hurt or kill one person if that was necessary to save ten?

[The Tanager]

Are you actually telling us that you wouldn't lift a finger to save ten people if it meant hurting one?

I gave a specific example against such a general rule. I think it is immoral to kill an innocent healthy person to save the lives of even ten others who need transplants. Do you think it is immoral to refrain from killing that healthy person?

Why don't you answer my question first instead of making up new different ones? Would you hurt or kill one person if that was necessary to save ten?

I was answering it. I gave a specific example where I wouldn't kill a person to save ten, thereby saying that I am actually telling you I think it is sometimes immoral to kill one person even though it be necessary to save ten. There are other situations where I would say it is right to kill one for the ten (e.g., where the one is a gunmen and the ten are my students). Do you think this is an immoral position for me to take?

[Artie]

Are you actually telling us that you wouldn't lift a finger to save ten people if it meant hurting one?

I gave a specific example against such a general rule. I think it is immoral to kill an innocent healthy person to save the lives of even ten others who need transplants. Do you think it is immoral to refrain from killing that healthy person?

Why don't you answer my question first instead of making up new different ones? Would you hurt or kill one person if that was necessary to save ten?

I was answering it. I gave a specific example where I wouldn't kill a person to save ten, thereby saying that I am actually telling you I think it is sometimes immoral to kill one person even though it be necessary to save ten. There are other situations where I would say it is right to kill one for the ten (e.g., where the one is a gunmen and the ten are my students). Do you think this is an immoral position for me to take?

No. Whether some action is moral or immoral depends on the circumstances and sometimes we just don't have enough information to make an informed decision. In your gunman example it's pretty clear what the moral action is but in other situations we do nothing because we can't tell what the moral action is so we figure inaction is better than the wrong action. In your transplant example I can't imagine it could be good for a society if random people started killing other random healthy people and took them to hospitals to harvest their organs.