Minnesota Joe

I have a couple of questions for all those atheistic (or not) ethicists out there; these questions have been confusing me so please excuse the fact that they seem disparate. Consider atheistic morality.

1. What is the difference between moral subjectivism and moral relativism?
2. How can there be moral realism on atheism without appealing to some sort of Platonic supernaturalism?
3. What is the difference between a normative value and an objective value?
4. What are the criteria for avoiding G. E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy?

Thanks in advance!

Joe

Alter

Athiest morality is based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Call it altruism, common courtesy, or sympathy, whatever you like. No supernatural deity is required.

If your home was knocked down, would you like it if your neighbors would help you get back on your feet again? Then you should give to help people whose homes got knocked down.

Notice that this set of morality allows for a lot of leeway, but has some definite bounds. For example, in an extreme case (none of us would ever take such a case, and it denies biological facts), you might outlaw homosexuality if you saw it as being such a danger to society that fining homosexual activity would be appropriate. You would (improperly) weigh the value of a homosexual-free society as being high enough that you might fine a person for it.

However, unlike in the bible, an atheist would never condemn a homosexual to death for the same offense. The bible says "kill them", but even the most ardent anti-homosexual atheist would check instead with the "do unto others" clause and say "oh, this is a misguided person who needs help, and they haven't kiled or seriously harmed any other people."

See how it works?

Minnesota Joe

Thank you for your response!

I understand and agree with this fairness principle, but isn't this really an ethical consistency principle and not a moral principle at all?

I mean, couldn't one ask, "Why do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" I think the answer to this might be because you desire profound and enduring happiness, but I'm confused as to whether or not this is an objective statement or a subjective one.

Also, I don't think a supernatural deity or anything supernatural is required. My question was ill-posed. Perhaps I should have asked, how can a naturalist believe that morality is objective instead of subjective like me liking a work of art might be?

DreamExtreme

Morality and ethics, as a social dynamic, are more so like a system of naturally selected behaviours that are conducive to the survival of groups, than they are like liking a work of art.

Lógos Sokratikós

Wow! Who established that? The Great Prophet of Atheism? Wonder where you souped that one out.

Atheism is an ethically empty philosophical stance. To support this, I will submit the "Complete List of the Tenets and Standards of Atheism" (loud cheers):

There is nothing ethically admirable, and likewise nothing ethically denounceable in atheism. It is an ethical void.

Minnesota Joe

Yes, in my comments to Alter, I restated it in terms of naturalism.

Lógos Sokratikós

Good point, relating atheism with naturalism.

Nevertheless, neither naturalism nor atheism provide an ethical framework. An atheist can either be a humanist or a social darwinist or Stalinist. Just like a theist could be a peaceful Quaker or an Islamic yihadist.

Wiploc

Just tossing this out, not based on anything, and not claiming to represent any established position---this is just what the terms sound like to me. I'm gonna make legal analogy. If the drinking age is 21 in Kansas and 18 in Colorado, that's legal relativism. If you can't shoot someone in self defense unless you actually believe you are in danger and a resonable person in that circumstance could have believed himself to be in danger, then the part about having to actually believe it yourself is legal subjectivism.



I think most moral claims are of two kinds. One kind has to do with delaying gratification. Example: Even though it's fun, you shouldn't get drunk every night or you will have less fun in the long run. The other kind has to do with making personal sacrifices to benefit group welfare. Example: You shouldn't wiretap your teacher's phone conversations, because even though you might enjoy doing so yourself, we will be better off as a group if nobody does that.

Claims like those are not always right, not in every specific case (instance: someone who'll be hit by a bus in two weeks might arguably be better off getting drunk every night that remains to him if he loves getting drunk) but I think it's fair to say that they are generally necessary to the health and pleasantness and success of any society.

I posit that rules of this nature are what we mean by morality. To the extent that they work (that is, to the extent that they accomplish what they intend, by increasing happiness and making societies more healthy, pleasant, and successful) then they could be said to be "real." Thus, moral realism.

So long as that is all you mean by moral realism, then moral realism is true.

crc

Minnesota Joe

This is nit-picking a bit I think. The point is that many naturalists (and atheists too) do make arguments for morality whether it be subjectivism, relativism, or realism. Moreover, metaphysical naturalism is a world-view that is richer than atheism. I'm interested in understanding their arguments.

Minnesota Joe

Let me see...so if what I ought to do isn't necessarily what you ought to do then we are talking about moral relativism. On the other hand, if what I ought to depends upon what I believe I ought to do, then we are talking about moral subjectivism. Sound right?

Yes, I was reading about morality in Richard Carrier's new book (J.L. Mackie's book proved to difficult for this beginner) and he points out some of the implications of what you are saying that I found very interesting. Ought statements aren't antecedents, but consequents. So, "You ought not wiretap your teacher's phone conversations" really means "If want us to be better off as a group, then you ought not wiretap your teacher's phone conversations". And you do want to be better off as a group because it makes your profound and enduring happiness much more likely (as an aside, this secular view of morality really lines up nicely with your formulation of the logical problem of evil).

Yeah, my problem is that it seems like people use moral realism to mean completely different and superstitious things--like good laws built into the fabric of the universe or something.

But if all we are saying is that there are these tendencies because there are certain strategies that make group cooperation more or less successful, then I guess one could call it "real", in the sense that it really is a pattern we see.