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?

[2ndRateMind]

OK, but there are certain biological, objective certainties about human well being. One needs enough to eat, such that one's diet (particularly important with children) actually nourishes one's physical development. One needs clean, unpolluted, water to drink, such that it causes no disease in the drinker. etc.

But there is still a disagreement about who needs these things. You and I say it should be extended to every human being. And, hopefully, we put some of our resources into actually bringing this about. [I'm not saying you aren't, I'm just trying to remind myself at least that this isn't just some intellectual exercise.] But others could care less about every human being well, caring only about a certain group (only themself, family, friends, tribe, country, whatever). Why is there an objective truth in this kind of disagreement we have with others?

I do not think there is disagreement about who needs clean water, and an adequate diet. It is undisputed biological fact that we all do. The moral disagreement arises out of whether these needs ought be met, or not, and whether those with plenty should succour those in want, irrespective of whether or not they know them, or have some kind of implied or real contract with them, and whether this duty to succour justifies or is defeated by the nation state implementing some kind of compulsory 'charitable' succouring through the medium of redistributive taxation.

I note, meanwhile, that the global production of food and clean water is quite adequate to meet the needs of the global population; and there is enough wealth in the world to offer everybody a reasonably dignified standard of living. It's just that 1% of the world has as much wealth as the remaining 99% put together.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

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?

if one nation should attack another is that immoral? not if there is no agreement or treaty between the two. if there's a agreement then there is a set of morals to hold each other to.

We do all, of course differ in detail on matters relating to ethics and morality. Humanity has yet to reach deciding conclusions on this topic.

But, nevertheless, I do not think a contractual interpretation of ethics to be altogether satisfying. Should I be moral only to those with which I have such a contractual relationship, or should I be moral towards everyone, everywhere?

So, I am inclined to the view that the good, and the right, take precedence over simple agreements. I think we should be ethical, not because there is some supposed contract to be ethical, (which I can't remember ever signing, anyway) but because we want to be ethical, and have found that to be what makes us happy.

Best wishes, 2RM.

but "good and right" isn't according to your judgement. telling me you are inherently good therefore your judgement is good.

I'm not telling you that. You can decide that perfectly well for yourself, to your own satisfaction. But we must all have the capacity to discriminate as to what, or who, we think to be right and good, or we would none of us have any basis as to make moral judgments. I merely contend that some of us are more accurate in this matter than others; bad people make bad choices, good people make good choices, better people make better choices, and the best people make the best choices.

...and all law, constitutions, governments and their people, social etiquette, households, friends, marriages, clubs, contracts, economic activity are in the context of an agreement, always. or transactions are by force, and violent.
there is no coexistence between people of any sort without an agreement. us and them are just a application thereof, there is not a natural law...

Actually, no. Sometimes a law, practice, agreement, convention or tradition can be a bad law, practice, agreement, convention or tradition. And we should dispose of it according to our best estimate of what the improvement should be. ie., we need to be able to stand outside of it, and make an ethical determination independent of it, and its proposed improving replacement. And what basis could we have for that ethical determination to be, if it wasn't some kind of an objective, moral, 'natural law'?

Best wishes, 2RM

[The Tanager]

I do not think there is disagreement about who needs clean water, and an adequate diet. It is undisputed biological fact that we all do. The moral disagreement arises out of whether these needs ought be met, or not, and whether those with plenty should succour those in want, irrespective of whether or not they know them, or have some kind of implied or real contract with them, and whether this duty to succour justifies or is defeated by the nation state implementing some kind of compulsory 'charitable' succouring through the medium of redistributive taxation.

I note, meanwhile, that the global production of food and clean water is quite adequate to meet the needs of the global population; and there is enough wealth in the world to offer everybody a reasonably dignified standard of living. It's just that 1% of the world has as much wealth as the remaining 99% put together.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Your post was much clearer and more in depth than mine, but I was talking about that same point. Why is it objectively true that everyone ought to have these needs met?

[2ndRateMind]

I do not think there is disagreement about who needs clean water, and an adequate diet. It is undisputed biological fact that we all do. The moral disagreement arises out of whether these needs ought be met, or not, and whether those with plenty should succour those in want, irrespective of whether or not they know them, or have some kind of implied or real contract with them, and whether this duty to succour justifies or is defeated by the nation state implementing some kind of compulsory 'charitable' succouring through the medium of redistributive taxation.

I note, meanwhile, that the global production of food and clean water is quite adequate to meet the needs of the global population; and there is enough wealth in the world to offer everybody a reasonably dignified standard of living. It's just that 1% of the world has as much wealth as the remaining 99% put together.

Best wishes, 2RM.

... I was talking about that same point. Why is it objectively true that everyone ought to have these needs met?

You have put your finger on a point that is currently exercising me. According to the English philosopher David Hume, one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Thus, no matter how deprived some are in economic terms, and how rich others are in economic terms, there is no way you can jump logically from these facts to the idea that the rich 'ought' to succour the poor.

Yet, any human's well-being seems to me to be a reasonably objective state, greatly affected by the ability to afford basic requirements, and a good state to be in. So the idea that as many as possible should enjoy it is a logical goal one can derive from that objective state and that value judgment. In other words, if you want to achieve maximum human well-being, then the rich should succour the poor.

If one wishes to dispute that conclusion, then one must either think that human well-being is an entirely subjective matter, or is unaffected by wealth, or that human well-being is not good. None of these alternatives appeal to me, and I do not think they would appeal to any rational, fair-minded individual.

Alternatively, one can look at your question from a negative perspective. If the needs of the poor are not met, then they are liable to suffer hunger, malnourishment and disease and starvation until death. These are all also objective realities, and I think our rational, fair-minded individual would tend to think of them as undesirable and a thoroughly 'bad' outcome.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[The Tanager]

Yet, any human's well-being seems to me to be a reasonably objective state, greatly affected by the ability to afford basic requirements, and a good state to be in. So the idea that as many as possible should enjoy it is a logical goal one can derive from that objective state and that value judgment. In other words, if you want to achieve maximum human well-being, then the rich should succour the poor.

That's the key here, I think..."if you want to achieve maximum human well-being, then..." but morality is about whether we ought to want such a thing. You've given a hypothetical imperative. It's on par with: "if you want to be a doctor, then you should study medicine at an instiution." Okay, but not everyone should become a doctor. There are other great pursuits, like being a stay at home parent, engineering, etc.

For morality to be objective we need a categorical imperative (not necessarily Kant's) that simply says "you should work towards achieving maximum human well-being" no matter what you want to do, don't we? I'm not sure how we rationally get that from an atheistic worldview.

If one wishes to dispute that conclusion, then one must either think that human well-being is an entirely subjective matter, or is unaffected by wealth, or that human well-being is not good. None of these alternatives appeal to me, and I do not think they would appeal to any rational, fair-minded individual.

Perhaps they wouldn't be fair-minded, but fair-minded being a good is one of the things that would be under question here. I do think they would be just as rational as you and me, if an atheistic worldview is correct. Rationality is about how we move from one statement to another; does the conclusion follow from the premises. I would see the disagreement being on the premises, not the rationality. But why is our agreed upon premise "you ought to work towards achieving maximum human well being" a true premise?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 45 by The Tanager]

I think that any moral system worthy of that name must eventually depend for its justification on some kind of value judgment; some kind of assessment as to what is 'good'. But that does not necessarily mean that it is not objective. The fact that we may all disagree about what is good does not necessarily mean that out there somewhere, subsisting in the philosophical aether inhabited by theories and notions and ideas and values, there is not a good that really is good, ideally and perfectly, and objectively better than all the other goods and bads we might countenance as goals. Nor does it mean that humanity should not labour away to discover it, this absolute and ultimate good, or at least discover why it cannot be discovered.

For the moment, for the sake of argument, I would merely contend that overall human well-being is a good candidate for the ultimate good, and note that (at least in the analytic tradition of Western Philosophy), all moral systems have this at their heart, whether they call it utility, or eudaimonia, or a healthy relationship with (their idea of) God.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

That's the key here, I think..."if you want to achieve maximum human well-being, then..." but morality is about whether we ought to want such a thing.

I don't think of morality as working out whether we want to be moral. I think we--the non-sociopaths, the great majority of us who do want the good outcome-- just take that as a given. Morality is about what to do next, about figuring out how to achieve the good outcome.

You've given a hypothetical imperative. It's on par with: "if you want to be a doctor, then you should study medicine at an instiution." Okay, but not everyone should become a doctor. There are other great pursuits, like being a stay at home parent, engineering, etc.

There may not be anything wrong with sociopaths, just like there isn't anything wrong with not wanting to be a doctor. But, just as doctors ought to control the influence of germs, moral people ought to control the influence of sociopaths.

For morality to be objective we need a categorical imperative (not necessarily Kant's) that simply says "you should work towards achieving maximum human well-being" no matter what you want to do, don't we? I'm not sure how we rationally get that from an atheistic worldview.

I have several problems with that. I don't know what you mean by "objective"; I think Kant was a nitwit; since doctors don't need a categorical imperative that says engineers and homemakers should be doctors, I don't see why should moral people need a categorical imperative that says sociopaths should be moral; and I can't imagine how a theist perspective could get you your categorical imperative better than an atheistic perspective.

[2ndRateMind]

For morality to be objective we need a categorical imperative (not necessarily Kant's) that simply says "you should work towards achieving maximum human well-being" no matter what you want to do, don't we?

I'm not quite sure why you think this. Unless you agree with Kant that morality is determined by fulfilling duty, and not by expressing sentiment. For my own part, I like to do what little good I can not just because I think I ought to, but also because I want to leave the world in a slightly better condition than I found it at birth, and because I derive satisfaction both from that ambition and my activities towards that end. I am not sure Kant is altogether correct in this matter. The moral should remain moral despite and whatever its motivation.

If you ask me, any proposed moral imperative should be a double hit: eg., You should at all times do what you believe to be good, and right, and just, and kind, etc, and you should at all times strive to understand what is good, and right, and just, and kind, etc, better than you do now. And I think that such would leave us all both free to do as we choose, motivated by our own conceptions of morality, and improve the world and human well-being incrementally, as well.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

But why is our agreed upon premise "you ought to work towards achieving maximum human well being" a true premise?

Thanks, buddy, for pushing me on this point. It is helping me clarify my thoughts.

So, I see this not so much as a premise, as a condensed argument.

Split it apart, and you get something like:

Premise 1: Human well-being is 'a good thing'.
Premise 2: The more human well-being, the better.
Premise 3: 'Good things' should be realised.
Conclusion 1: Therefore maximum human well-being should be realised.
Premise 4: One needs to work to realise 'good things'.
Final Conclusion: Therefore to realise the good that is maximum human well-being, one ought to work to that end.

I will readily admit that the bare bones of this argument do not do justice to the depth and complexity of the topic, but it will do for now. Which part of the logic might you like to dispute?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

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?

I think both philosophy and theology have been engaged for some time, many hundreds of years, in the search for a foundation for ethics, such that one can build, step by logical step, a systematic account and rationale for what one should think, say and do.

I suspect that there is no such foundation to be had. And this is fortunate, for those of us who love our freedom, and don't want to be dictated to by philosophers or theologians.

But I do think that one can build an ethical system, not from foundations, but from aspirations. I think that if one chooses to pursue the absolute ideals; the good, the right, the true, the just, the decent, the noble, the brave, the kind, the generous, the moral, the beauteous, etc, as best one comprehends these, one can have a perfectly adequate ethical system without ever invoking philosophy, theology or, indeed, God.

But as for us believers, then we tend to think that these ideals are neither more nor less than the character attributes of a perfect God. The pursuit of the ideals are therefore the approach of Him. But I do not think that one needs to believe that, to be moral.

Best wishes, 2RM.