Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality

Post by **The Tanager** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:35 pm

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?

Post by **The Tanager** » Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:27 pm

[Replying to post 280 by 2ndRateMind]

I definitely agree that we must admit our ignorances. Worldviews aren't like pure mathematics. One needs humility in that. And in humility, let there be vast amounts of love. There is much more than morality that one must take into account when assessing the strength of their current worldview. But that humility involves trying to confront the real differences that we need to take into account.

On this specific account I do think there is a key difference to take note of. Theism posits an intelligent source for the intelligibility of things like morals, math, and science while I don't see atheism doing that (at least not in an objective sense). On atheism, intelligibility seems to come from non-intelligence.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:12 am

The Tanager wrote:
Artie wrote:
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?

They have the same morals. Both results in what is most beneficial to the greatest number of innocent people.

I don't think your atheistic view has provided a coherent way to account for moral realism (if your view is assumed true).

It is not the job of atheism to account for moral realism. Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods. Theism is belief in the existence of one or more gods and doesn't account for anything either.

"Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them."

That a society would collapse if everybody went around murdering each other is an objective fact independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or attitudes or whether we are theists or atheists.

Post by **The Tanager** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:24 pm

Artie wrote:They have the same morals. Both results in what is most beneficial to the greatest number of innocent people.

I think I was assuming some things there you weren't. That's my fault. Let me better reflect what I had been thinking. Society A does not think it is always moral to do what is beneficial for the greatest number of innocent people. That is why they would only sacrifice one for ten if the one did so willingly. Society B does think we should always try to benefit society as a whole. That is why they are okay with killing one innocent person to save 10 if they get no sacrificial volunteers. You, it seems, are saying that Society B has a moral rule, while Society A does not.

Artie wrote:It is not the job of atheism to account for moral realism. Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods. Theism is belief in the existence of one or more gods and doesn't account for anything either.

I said your "atheistic view" not your atheism. It is the job of any worldview (theistic or atheistic) to account for things that exist. In this case we are talking about moral realism, assuming for the sake of analysis, that moral realism is true.

Artie wrote:"Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them."

That a society would collapse if everybody went around murdering each other is an objective fact independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or attitudes or whether we are theists or atheists.

You must stop going back to a less specific rule that I have always agreed with your assessment there.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:20 pm

The Tanager wrote:
Artie wrote:They have the same morals. Both results in what is most beneficial to the greatest number of innocent people.
I think I was assuming some things there you weren't. That's my fault. Let me better reflect what I had been thinking. Society A does not think it is always moral to do what is beneficial for the greatest number of innocent people.

Then they have some subjective morals not grounded in functionally objective morality.

You must stop going back to a less specific rule that I have always agreed with your assessment there.

But all specific rules have the same grounding... found an interesting article. http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-sev ... und-world#

Post by **The Tanager** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:38 pm

Artie wrote:Then they have some subjective morals not grounded in functionally objective morality.

But Society A still survives and even thrives.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:24 pm

The Tanager wrote:
Artie wrote:Then they have some subjective morals not grounded in functionally objective morality.
But Society A still survives and even thrives.

You said "That is why they would only sacrifice one for ten if the one did so willingly." Then you would end up with ten dead instead of one and those ten wouldn't thrive and the society would be worse off for losing many useful members.

Post by **The Tanager** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:12 pm

Artie wrote:But Society A still survives and even thrives.

You said "That is why they would only sacrifice one for ten if the one did so willingly." Then you would end up with ten dead instead of one and those ten wouldn't thrive and the society would be worse off for losing many useful members.[/quote]

And, so, are you saying that society B is (on functionally objective morality) moral and society A is immoral?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:26 pm

The Tanager wrote:
Artie wrote:But Society A still survives and even thrives.
You said "That is why they would only sacrifice one for ten if the one did so willingly." Then you would end up with ten dead instead of one and those ten wouldn't thrive and the society would be worse off for losing many useful members.

And, so, are you saying that society B is (on functionally objective morality) moral and society A is immoral?

No. It's moral according to functionally objective morality to give your life so that ten might live. It's also moral according to functionally objective morality to take a life so that ten might live. You end up with one dead and ten survivors in both cases.

Post by **The Tanager** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 7:38 am

[Replying to post 288 by Artie]

So, to clarify, let's say Society A does not have anyone volunteer to give their life and ten people die, while Society B also has no volunteers and so they kill an innocent person to save those ten people. You are saying Society B is moral and Society A is immoral, right because Society B has a better chance at survival.

Yet we have tons of Society A's in existence right now. We don't kill people against their will to harvest organs for those dying who need a transplant, for instance. My point is that I don't think you are accurately understanding functionally objective morality. I think it talks about morals being those features that must be in place for societies to survive. If so, then on that view what a society does for the 10 people is not a moral question because societies can exist with different answers to that question. Yet, people think it is a question of morality whether you kill an innocent person to give the society a better chance at survival or you won't do that. That is why I think functionally objective morality fails to explain all of our moral sense.

You seem to me to conflate functionally objective morality with a utilitarian ethic at times. The latest string of posts you have been talking about survival advantage of the species as a whole, which I think goes beyond what functionally objective morality claims into utilitarianism. But why should people be utilitarian? Why should a person choose in favor of the betterment of society when their own self-interest conflicts with the interest of society as a whole and can even be fulfilled without destroying society? If evolution has wired people with different answers there, then why is one wiring better than another?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:26 am

The Tanager wrote: [Replying to post 288 by Artie]

So, to clarify, let's say Society A does not have anyone volunteer to give their life and ten people die, while Society B also has no volunteers and so they kill an innocent person to save those ten people. You are saying Society B is moral and Society A is immoral, right because Society B has a better chance at survival.

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.

My point is that I don't think you are accurately understanding functionally objective morality. I think it talks about morals being those features that must be in place for societies to survive.

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

If so, then on that view what a society does for the 10 people is not a moral question because societies can exist with different answers to that question. Yet, people think it is a question of morality whether you kill an innocent person to give the society a better chance at survival or you won't do that. That is why I think functionally objective morality fails to explain all of our moral sense.

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. Doesn't matter if the society could continue to exist in both cases.

Why should a person choose in favor of the betterment of society when their own self-interest conflicts with the interest of society as a whole and can even be fulfilled without destroying society? If evolution has wired people with different answers there, then why is one wiring better than another?

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.