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.

[The Tanager]

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

I don't know why you think that. I'm not saying that (assuming I understand your phrasing). This thread assumes morality is objective. It's about whether an atheist worldview would cohere with that or necessarily lead to morality being subjective.

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

Here is what I wrote a few posts back: "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)." Thus, objective morality is when morality is true independent of one's mind. Nothing at all about God in that definition.

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

One might entail the other, but that isn't equating them as the same thing.

[William]

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

This thread assumes morality is objective.

Has the assumption been shown to be correct?

It's about whether an atheist worldview would cohere with that or necessarily lead to morality being subjective.

An atheist world veiw assumes that there is no God. If God is not equated with this supposed "objective morality" then what is?
In what way does theism account for why humans would be obligated to choose Good over Evil, other than "God"?

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

Here is what I wrote a few posts back: "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)." Thus, objective morality is when morality is true independent of one's mind. Nothing at all about God in that definition.

Then what is the point of the question specifically asked of atheists/atheism?

Can you show any objective morality that is evident (like the shape of the earth)?
Or is it simply fact that all morality is (like whether chocolate ice cream is delicious and it will be to some and not others) a matter of subjectivity?

Nothing at all about God in that definition.

Wouldn't one have to agree then, that morality could therefore simply be a natural extension of subjective evolution (of humanity)?

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

Thus, you are at least insinuating that 'objective morality' entails 'God' (theism) if you also think that morality can be objective if theism is true.

[The Tanager]

Has the assumption been shown to be correct?

No, and it doesn’t need to for this thread. You may want to ask that previous question, but this thread isn’t asking that question. If I was trying to say objective morality has therefore been proven, that would be a problem, but I’m not saying that.

In what way does theism account for why humans would be obligated to choose Good over Evil, other than "God"?

This isn’t the thread for that. This is about atheism and morality, not theism and morality.

An atheist world veiw assumes that there is no God. If God is not equated with this supposed "objective morality" then what is?

Again, I don’t think “equated” is the right word, but this is basically the question of this thread. Are there any atheistic worldviews that, if true, would rationally ground objective morality or do all atheistic worldviews lead to subjective morality?

Wouldn't one have to agree then, that morality could therefore simply be a natural extension of subjective evolution (of humanity)?

As far as I can see, socio-biological evolution would give us subjective morality, not objective morality.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #13]

Wouldn't one have to agree then, that morality could therefore simply be a natural extension of subjective evolution (of humanity)?

As far as I can see, socio-biological evolution would give us subjective morality, not objective morality.

Indeed. There is evidence for such. There is none (at least none you have offered by way of example) for this assumed existence of "objective morality."

As an example of the natural extension of subjective morality, the teacher known as "Jesus" is attributed (biblically) to have taught to "do to others as one would have others do to them" which is evidence of morality being a natural extension of subjective evolution.

Also (in regard to "God" being entailed with morality) the teacher known as "Jesus" is attributed (biblically) to have taught that "God" is within, further contributing to the notion of subjective morality, rather than having us believe (as you obviously do) in the existence of any such thing as objective morality.

But since "this thread" isn't "about" that...

[Dimmesdale]

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.

In my view morality is fundamentally relational. It is not just about one subject, but bears on all subjects. There is the subject, the act, and the impact of said act by said subject on the other. We live, so to speak, in a kind of nexus where things reverberate.

There was a Catholic philosopher by the name of John Henry Newman who said something to the effect of conscience being the "original vicar of Christ." In other words, our conscience, which declares an "ought" rather than a mere pragmatic or utilitarian calculation, stems from a Law-giver to whom we must render obedience. In a way, we know or can at least sense that such an authority lies over and above us. If that authority was hollow or vacant, then the 'ought' would be rendered moot. It is not just that the authority can impose a sanction or punishment. It is that the authority merits respect, by virtue of being able to enact justice, among other things.

If God was like the Pilsbury dough boy and could only cry and weep if we abused him, the act might still be wrong, but we would definitely have a lot less respect for him than if he could retaliate and show us the error of our ways. More people would then be inclined to abuse him. But God is no Pilsbury dough boy. If he were then existence would be a joke, and so would virtue, and so would all things that presumably emanate from an infinite source.