YHWH666

well? I'm an atheist and am currently unsure wether or not there is a knowable system of objective ethics. in my want to adhere to morality I've been a strict vegetarian for almost five years, am I just wasting my time? Is there a reason one should give a crap about others?
i don't see how one can get along with out a system of altruistic ethics. how can an egoist be consistent? the "ego" is just a temporary brain state. the next brain state that occurs is a totally diffrent self. if you would suffer for your future brain states, why not the brain states of others? we are all made of the same stuff ,neural network that feel happiness and suffering.
here is a nifty paper on atheist objective ethics.
<a href="http://members.aol.com/okhutor/essay/morals.html" target="_blank">objective morals</a>
you should read it.

Pomp

YHWH666,

I hope I can finish typing before a passing mod moves this to MFP...

well?

Yes, an atheist can subscribe to an objective moral theory. I'm a subjectivist myself, but we have several atheist moral objectivists who post here.

Is there a reason one should give a crap about others?

From a subjectivist standpoint, yes, there certainly is such a reason, usually called reciprocal altruism. Other people tend to cooperate with you when you cooperate with them. In most cases, you are better off when you act ethically.

how can an egoist be consistent? the "ego" is just a temporary brain state. the next brain state that occurs is a totally diffrent self. if you would suffer for your future brain states, why not the brain states of others? we are all made of the same stuff ,neural network that feel happiness and suffering.

This is an interesting question. As a subjectivist, I take an agent's values as a a given. If you value the happiness of the brian-state that you will have turned into by tomorrow, then you ought to act so as to make that brain-state happy. Most of us do, in fact, value the happiness of our future "incarnations," so it makes sense to say that we ought to look out for their interests. For what it's worth, there are good evolutionary reasons why we do identify with our future selves.

tronvillain

As a subjectivist, I doubt that there is a knowable system of objective ethics. There are probably many reasons one should care for others (at least occasionally), two significant examples of which are reciprocal altruism and empathy.

Wait, is that you hedonologist?

tronvillain

Well, maybe not.

bd-from-kg

The question you should be asking is whether it is possible for an objective morality to exist that does not derive from God. As Pompous Bastard and others are well aware, I think the answer is "yes". In fact, I think that even if God exists, any objective morality cannot be derived from Him.

Unfortunately I don't have time to discuss this at the moment. I'll get back to you ASAP.

In the meantime you might try laying a foundation by defining what you mean by an "objective morality". While you're at it, you might try defining what you mean by "knowable". Under what conditions would you be willing to say that you "know" something in general, and the truth of a moral proposition in particular?

Not Prince Hamlet

I believe in two kinds of morals: subjective and conditional morals.

Subjective morals, you all understand, and most of you subscribe to.

Conditional morals means that good and evil are tied to an intended result.

For instance, with conditional morals you would not say: "It is wrong to beat a child every day."

Instead, you would say, "If you wish a child to grow up to be a happy and well-adjusted member of society, then it is wrong to beat him or her every day."

Similar conditional moral statements:

If you want a society where people work together and, for the most part, trust one another, then it is wrong to permit murder.

If all people have equal value and equal rights to happiness, then it is wrong to steal from another just to make yourself happy."

And so on.

Jeff

Pomp

bd-from-kg said:

In the meantime you might try laying a foundation by defining what you mean by an "objective morality". While you're at it, you might try defining what you mean by "knowable". Under what conditions would you be willing to say that you "know" something in general, and the truth of a moral proposition in particular?

I'll second his suggestions here. This is all foundation level thinking for any moral theory.

Not Prince Hamlet said:

I believe in two kinds of morals: subjective and conditional morals.

Subjective morals, you all understand, and most of you subscribe to.

Conditional morals means that good and evil are tied to an intended result.

Actually, if I understand you correctly, what you're calling conditional morals are an intrinsic part of what I mean when I talk about subjective morality. Each of us has subjective values that we wish to fulfill and any prescriptive statement, to have meaning, must reference one or more of these values in the if-then manner you describe.

Edit: BTW, I tried the link in the OP and it doesn't work.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Plump-DJ

Hmmm...

Well if i were non-thiesticly inclined i would have to say No. At some point i think we have to assign values to things so i'd be unlikely to think that objective morals do in fact exist.

And if God exists and there is some non-human, objective basis or grounding for moral values i think it would be quite difficult (I won't say impossible because i don't really know either way) to know wether or not you are in fact in possesion of such a value.

DMB

The existence/non-existence of god is massively irrelevant to discussions of morality.

Let us suppose for a moment that a god exists. You would then have an enormously difficult job to demonstrate conclusively that:

<ol type="1">[*]This entity had any interest in human morality[*]You could determine what its views on such morality were[*]That it was necessary for humans to acept and conform to the entity's moral code.[/list=a]

Theistic religions don't bother about most of this. It's this way because the bible/koran says so. You will fry in hell if you don't come on board, etc.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: DMB ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

Pompous Bastard,

(And I really have trouble with that nickname, since you've shown yourself to be anything but)

Basically, you could look at it this way:

Conditional Morality + moral axioms = Subjective Morality


In other words, the conditional morality consists of a set of if-then statements. So, once you add your assertions to the collection you now can apply those if-then statements to your axioms and yield what are essentially subjective morality.

The difference is this. The conditional part is moderately easy to prove, and can be designed to be OBJECTIVE. This reduces the subjective part to only the axioms.

By dividing the problem into two pieces, a subjective and objective part, you narrow the gap in discussions. Both sides can negotiate the objective part until they're condfident they're accurate, and then that leaves only the subjective axioms to disagree on.

If you design your objective conditionals correctly, you can work to a common understanding of the what, even if you can't come to an agreement on the why.

Jeff