Can Atheism ground objective morality?

[The Tanager]

In my exploration and discussions, I have not seen an atheistic worldview be able to logically account for morality being objective. The closest I've seen is an atheistic platonic kind of moral system, but while that seems to be able to account for the existence of 'good' and 'evil', it still doesn't seem to account for why humans would be obligated to choose Good over Evil. I'd love to hear cases from those who think atheism can account for objective morality to make sure I haven't missed (or misunderstood) thoughts in my exploration.

[Difflugia]

The closest I've seen is an atheistic platonic kind of moral system, but while that seems to be able to account for the existence of 'good' and 'evil', it still doesn't seem to account for why humans would be obligated to choose Good over Evil.

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between the existence of good and an obligation to be good. Does your view of morality require an intrinsic means of enforcement? If God were real and decreed right and wrong, but refused to enforce it, would it still be an objective morality? If so, I'd argue that the corresponding atheist morality is exactly as binding. If such a universal good and evil can be defined, then anyone made aware of it (and perhaps even those that aren't) would be obligated to do good.

My understanding of an objective morality is that what makes it "objective" is an ability to derive the moral code, whatever it is, from some set of first principles. Utilitarianism fits the bill in principle, even if it ends up being impractical. If we accept a priori that Christianity in some form can be responsible for an objective morality, we could also derive an equivalent atheist morality by simply adopting that moral code as though that Christianity were true. It would be exactly as objective for the same reasons, but would be atheist in the sense that it wouldn't rely on the decree of a god. It could be derived in principle by anyone with access to the agreed-upon set of Christian traditions and holy books.

My guess is that you're using "objective" to mean that there's some putative source outside of any person or people. An unambiguous and universal moral code written down at the behest of a real god is objective. If that god isn't real, though, even if our interpretation and application of the moral code itself wouldn't change, that would mean to you that the moral code is no longer objective. Is that right?

[The Tanager]

I'm not sure what distinction you're making between the existence of good and an obligation to be good. Does your view of morality require an intrinsic means of enforcement? If God were real and decreed right and wrong, but refused to enforce it, would it still be an objective morality? If so, I'd argue that the corresponding atheist morality is exactly as binding. If such a universal good and evil can be defined, then anyone made aware of it (and perhaps even those that aren't) would be obligated to do good.

I think I was making more of a distinction between the nature of the act itself and the nature of the one committing the act, rather than bringing the additional issue of enforcement into it. For instance, the act of forcible copulation (rape) by a shark would not be immoral if the shark’s nature doesn’t include moral agency.

So, in an atheistic moral platonism, saying that rape participates in the Form of ‘the Bad’ doesn’t, in itself, give us that we shouldn’t be doing things that participate in the Form of ‘the Bad’.

My understanding of an objective morality is that what makes it "objective" is an ability to derive the moral code, whatever it is, from some set of first principles. Utilitarianism fits the bill in principle, even if it ends up being impractical.

There are other sets of first principles, though, that could derive different moral codes. This seems more like rational ways to get different subjective moral positions, not to decide between them as to which one is true.

If we accept a priori that Christianity in some form can be responsible for an objective morality, we could also derive an equivalent atheist morality by simply adopting that moral code as though that Christianity were true. It would be exactly as objective for the same reasons, but would be atheist in the sense that it wouldn't rely on the decree of a god. It could be derived in principle by anyone with access to the agreed-upon set of Christian traditions and holy books.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly here or not. Are you saying that if (Christian) theism can ground it, then atheism should be able to ground it for the exact same reasons?

My guess is that you're using "objective" to mean that there's some putative source outside of any person or people. An unambiguous and universal moral code written down at the behest of a real god is objective. If that god isn't real, though, even if our interpretation and application of the moral code itself wouldn't change, that would mean to you that the moral code is no longer objective. Is that right?

I don’t think ‘putative’ has any place in the definition, and I’m not closed off to other rational ways to get objectivity, but I do think having a source outside of humans that controls the nature and purpose of humans is one way to get there.

[Difflugia]

I think I was making more of a distinction between the nature of the act itself and the nature of the one committing the act, rather than bringing the additional issue of enforcement into it. For instance, the act of forcible copulation (rape) by a shark would not be immoral if the shark’s nature doesn’t include moral agency.

So, in an atheistic moral platonism, saying that rape participates in the Form of ‘the Bad’ doesn’t, in itself, give us that we shouldn’t be doing things that participate in the Form of ‘the Bad’.

A proof of moral agency isn't somehow more necessary within an atheist moral framework than a theist one. If human beings have no moral agency, then there can be no moral framework that's meaningful. That's no more a problem for atheism than theism.

There are other sets of first principles, though, that could derive different moral codes. This seems more like rational ways to get different subjective moral positions, not to decide between them as to which one is true.

That's not what moral philosophers mean by the distinction between subjective and objective. If you're trying to argue that a theistic morality is true, you're going to have to include the argument that the source god is real and that might be a much harder row to hoe; while I've actually seen convincing arguments that certain moral frameworks are valid, I've never seen a convincing argument for a god.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly here or not. Are you saying that if (Christian) theism can ground it, then atheism should be able to ground it for the exact same reasons?

Yes. In a philosophical sense, an objective morality is one that is independent of anyone's perception of right and wrong. "God has decreed thus" is exactly as objective as "the unknown author of this document has decreed thus." In either case, the argument about whether or not it's true is just an assertion.

I don’t think ‘putative’ has any place in the definition,

Show me a god that's more than putative and I might agree with you.

and I’m not closed off to other rational ways to get objectivity, but I do think having a source outside of humans that controls the nature and purpose of humans is one way to get there.

Rational and objective aren't the same thing. Arbitrary is also objective. If you think you can argue that the moral code originated with a provable (or even plausible) god, that might be a good reason for accepting it's truth or applicability. The claimed source of the moral code isn't what makes it objective in a philosophical sense, however.

[The Tanager]

A proof of moral agency isn't somehow more necessary within an atheist moral framework than a theist one.

I agree. Do you think atheism can ground moral agency?

That's not what moral philosophers mean by the distinction between subjective and objective. If you're trying to argue that a theistic morality is true, you're going to have to include the argument that the source god is real and that might be a much harder row to hoe; while I've actually seen convincing arguments that certain moral frameworks are valid, I've never seen a convincing argument for a god.

I’m not trying to argue theistic morality is true, but seeing what kind of morality follows from atheistic worldviews being true.

Objective means that something is the truth independent of one’s mind (like the shape of the Earth), while subjectivity is when the truth of something is dependent on the subject being discussed (like whether chocolate ice cream is delicious and it will be to some and not others).

Utilitarianism (among other systems) don’t fit the bill here because they are just principles applied to whatever goal one thinks worth pursuing. The question of objective/subjective is about the goal chosen. That's where the subjectivity lies.

Yes. In a philosophical sense, an objective morality is one that is independent of anyone's perception of right and wrong. "God has decreed thus" is exactly as objective as "the unknown author of this document has decreed thus."

As a theist, I don’t ground morality in God’s decree as a decree, but in the act of creation that gives us a specific nature which includes an objective purpose to be moral agents. How do you see an atheistic worldview giving us objective purpose or some other way to get overall objectivity?

Show me a god that's more than putative and I might agree with you.

Why should God be a part of the definition of ‘objective’?

Rational and objective aren't the same thing. Arbitrary is also objective. If you think you can argue that the moral code originated with a provable (or even plausible) god, that might be a good reason for accepting it's truth or applicability. The claimed source of the moral code isn't what makes it objective in a philosophical sense, however.

I agree that rational and objective aren’t the same thing and didn’t argue or imply they were. I talked about a rational way to reach objectivity as opposed to a non-rational way to try to conclude objectivity exists. And again, this thread isn’t about proving God or proving morality is objectively true or subjectively true, but about atheistic worldviews and what kind of morality they can give us.

[Diogenes]

In my exploration and discussions, I have not seen an atheistic worldview be able to logically account for morality being objective. The closest I've seen is an atheistic platonic kind of moral system, but while that seems to be able to account for the existence of 'good' and 'evil', it still doesn't seem to account for why humans would be obligated to choose Good over Evil. I'd love to hear cases from those who think atheism can account for objective morality to make sure I haven't missed (or misunderstood) thoughts in my exploration.

"Morality being objective?" 'Objective morality" is a theist 'worldview' not an atheist. There are universal themes in morality that are shared by all cultures and even by social animals; reciprocity and fairness. These can, and have, been easily explained by sociology and evolution. Societies that survive function best when these basic principles of respect for others and their property are shared by the group. This allows for cooperation and a thriving society.

There is no need to invoke some artificial 'god' concept to account for these virtually universal principles. For them to be "objective" one would have to have a universal judge to decide what is objective, and this is in the realm of religious fiction.
***
Your latest

As a theist, I don’t ground morality in God’s decree as a decree, but in the act of creation that gives us a specific nature which includes an objective purpose to be moral agents.

clouds the issue further. I understand why you would say "I don’t ground morality in God’s decree as a decree," but "... the act of creation that gives us a specific nature which includes an objective purpose to be moral agents, interjects more additional issues that confuse me. If the 'act of creation' gave us a 'nature' that compelled morality, than why wouldn't all people be moral, and also agree on what morality is? The model of morality emerging as society evolved is much more persuasive than the "God Did It" model.

[The Tanager]

"Morality being objective?" 'Objective morality" is a theist 'worldview' not an atheist. There are universal themes in morality that are shared by all cultures and even by social animals; reciprocity and fairness. These can, and have, been easily explained by sociology and evolution. Societies that survive function best when these basic principles of respect for others and their property are shared by the group. This allows for cooperation and a thriving society.

There is no need to invoke some artificial 'god' concept to account for these virtually universal principles. For them to be "objective" one would have to have a universal judge to decide what is objective, and this is in the realm of religious fiction.

I agree (besides the religious fiction part of course), but some atheists disagree and I’m trying to understand why and if I should change my mind on whether they are being rationally consistent or not.

clouds the issue further. I understand why you would say "I don’t ground morality in God’s decree as a decree," but "... the act of creation that gives us a specific nature which includes an objective purpose to be moral agents, interjects more additional issues that confuse me. If the 'act of creation' gave us a 'nature' that compelled morality, than why wouldn't all people be moral, and also agree on what morality is? The model of morality emerging as society evolved is much more persuasive than the "God Did It" model.

This thread isn’t about which moral view is true. This thread isn’t about theistic moralities, either. If you want to talk about that, start a thread, let me know about it, and I’ll answer any question you have of my view there, including this one.

[William]

In my exploration and discussions, I have not seen an atheistic worldview be able to logically account for morality being objective. The closest I've seen is an atheistic platonic kind of moral system, but while that seems to be able to account for the existence of 'good' and 'evil', it still doesn't seem to account for why humans would be obligated to choose Good over Evil. I'd love to hear cases from those who think atheism can account for objective morality to make sure I haven't missed (or misunderstood) thoughts in my exploration.

You appear to be saying that you have seen no evidence from atheists that morality is objective. Therein you appear to also be saying that without a theist view an atheist personality has no objective answer as to why they might choose good over evil.
It also appears that you equate the phrase "objective morality" with "God", given that your question is to atheists, and so asking atheists to account for "God (objective morality) in their world view would seem rather redundant.

[The Tanager]

You appear to be saying that you have seen no evidence from atheists that morality is objective. Therein you appear to also be saying that without a theist view an atheist personality has no objective answer as to why they might choose good over evil.
It also appears that you equate the phrase "objective morality" with "God", given that your question is to atheists, and so asking atheists to account for "God (objective morality) in their world view would seem rather redundant.

I am not saying an atheist has no objective answer as to why they might choose good over evil. I'm not equating 'objective morality' with God; those are different concepts. I'm saying that I have seen no evidence from atheists that morality can be objective if atheism is true.

[William]

You appear to be saying that you have seen no evidence from atheists that morality is objective. Therein you appear to also be saying that without a theist view an atheist personality has no objective answer as to why they might choose good over evil.
It also appears that you equate the phrase "objective morality" with "God", given that your question is to atheists, and so asking atheists to account for "God (objective morality) in their world view would seem rather redundant.

I am not saying an atheist has no objective answer as to why they might choose good over evil.

You appear to be saying that you have seen no evidence from atheists that morality is objective.

I'm not equating 'objective morality' with God; those are different concepts.

What then are you saying that 'objective morality' is?

I'm saying that I have seen no evidence from atheists that morality can be objective if atheism is true.

Thus, you are 'equating 'objective morality' with God' if you also think that morality can be objective if theism is true.