Samhain

As I'm sure, many of you know me as an atheist, but I feel the need to play devil's advocate on this one to try and understand this a bit better.

Does morality require religion? Is it possible for atheists to have an objective set of morals? Is there something which "causes" an atheist to desire to do good rather than evil? I'm more of a relativist when it comes to morality, but I still feel that many heinous acts are just not acceptable (in any society, time, place, or situation {ie. rape, pedophilia, etc}); how do these objective morals interfere with my relativist views, when it comes to, say, abortion?

I'm a firm believer in the idea that all acts have a balance of good and evil (in other words, there is always some "good" to an evil act, whether it be pleasure, relief, or something else; and there is always "evil" to a good act). I feel there is no way to get around the idea that in someway, no matter how "good" you are, it will effect someone negatively (or perhaps yourself negatively, for that matter), and vice versa. Some acts are just unacceptable in this sense, though, as I stated above. I know there are a whole lot of atheists who have objective morals, what I'm more concerned with is how does one know which are "good" and which are "bad" regardless of any kind of social or religious law? With religion there are set morals to follow, how does atheism compare in that respect if we choose all of our morals for ourselves based on relative situations?

I know many of you will say that theists can be "evil" as well as good, and the laws of religion do not hold many back from doing "evil" acts, but that's not the question at hand (just to point it out now, so there will be no confusion later). How does an atheist know that there are some objective morals, or morality at all? Is there anyway around this? Since our morals are not dictated by a higher power, but only dictated by ourselves, how can one say that there is good or bad in the world if everyone has a different opinion of which is good or bad? Who has the right to choose morals for others if the highest form of life is man? I'm not sure if governmental or societal laws are a good example, but if it can be proven that they are devoid of religious influence, then I'll consider them.

Also, I don't really want to discuss Utilitarian ethics either, I don't really feel this is a good example of morality for many reasons (mainly because it's too strict in many situations), so I'd like to keep that out of the discussion.

Theists welcome, atheists preferred

Jamie_L

First, you don't have to have objective morals to have morals.

Second of all, some atheists do propose certain objective morals. I don't know much about that, so they'll have to respond in more detail.

Lastly, I say religion doesn't really present objective morals. Religions are based on ancient texts and on preachings/teachings. Every sect, every generation, and every individual has their own interpretations, views and opinions. Really, I think people mold their religion to their morals, not the other way around. Why is it Jews and Christians generally don't stone people to death over things like adultery or working on the sabbath, as instructed in their scriptural "objective morality"? Because they think it's wrong. They have all these excuses, but basically they have their own morals, and when their religion conflicts, they choose their personal morals.

Jamie
Jamie

Samhain

Almost every religion has a set of commandments of things that "Thou shalt not do" such as the ten commandments in the Bible, etc., etc. Most religions have things like this that you should not stray upon and these things are dictated through religious text; these would be what I consider objective morals (the point of whether or not theists stray from these morals is not the point, the morals are there regardless). How can an atheist compare to something like this?

As far as not needing objective morals...If we consider everything as somehow relative to time, place, situation, etc. then we would basically be able to allow anything. "If a person can justify the act reasonably, then it is permitted." How does this effect morality? Shouldn't there be something madating what is "right" and what is "wrong" in a universal sense? How does an atheist realize these universals and reasonably justify their existence, without the conclusion that these things have been "passed down" by some higher authority than themselves?

P.S. - "Majority Rule" is not an acceptable answer.

Sojourner553

Actually, that statement is not always true. There are conservative Christian groups that would like to execute gays as one example. The only thing that deters them is the existance of SECULAR laws that would punish them with a high degree of certainty.

Sojourner

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

Samhain

So do secular ethical philosophies.

Atheist hold their moral beliefs without reference to a divine authority. Atheist objectivists hold moral beliefs on the authority of actual existence, the same basis that they hold scientific beliefs.

Actually circumstantial relativism is compatible with both objectivism and subjectivism. Indeed, it is difficult to distinguish between, for instance, killing in self-defense, and killing for fun or profit without referencing the circumstances.

This is not a subjectivist statement, it is an objectivist statement, and is ambiguous with regard to what constitutes "justification". The subjectivist statement is that "It is a fact that I object to particular actions and/or outcomes." Objections are not conclusions, they are moral facts, albeit subjective facts.

Generally speaking, the skeptic does not consider what "should be" objectively true to be an interesting question. Rather, the skeptic wishes to know what actually is objectively true. By the definition of "objectivity", objective (and possibly universal) moral either do or do not exist, regardless of one's opinion.

Atheist subjectivists merely deny the existence of their universals. Atheist objectivists claim that the universals just exist, needing no divine authority.

And atheists in generaly do not bother to "justify" their own existence. It is simply a fact that we exist.

Majority rule is an answer to many (although not all) ethical questions, and a darn good one. Majority rule is foundation of political democracy.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

99Percent

Samhain: You might want to check on a <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000091" target="_blank">recent opening post</a> I made arguing for objective atheistic morality.

Godless Dave

My answer is "no", based solely on this evidence: I'm an atheist, and I have it on good authority that I'm a pretty good guy.

I'm not all that introspective, so I can't really tell you where my morals come from, or why I consider certain things right and certain things wrong. There might be a good explanation, but I don't need to know what it is to know what's right and what's wrong. If I hold a door open for an elderly lady, I don't stop to think "Why should I do this?" If I'm in a store, I don't think "Why shouldn't I steal this digital camera?"

I disagree that the moral strictures found in religious scripture are objective morals. They were written by people, so they are still subjective. The people who follow them act as if they are objective and universal, and follow a set of written rules instead of coming up with their own. But they are still subjective. Even if a deity had written them, you are still trusting the subjective judgment of that deity.

You're right, if morals are invented by humans, we could come up with anything and call it morality. I don't have a pat answer for this. I don't think there is one. Nature is amoral. The concept of morality is part of human nature. It might be motivated by self interest, or collective self interest - we're social animals, and can identify with other humans; even with other animals to a certain extent. But I do know what I think is right and wrong, and I have a lot of faith in my own judgement.

Samhain

Malaclypse the Younger,

On what authority can these be claimed to be true in a universal sense, though? I do not believe in any god(s), but I can understand the authority derived from a divine being. While this is extremely comforting, it is not true, but for some people it is (in their minds) and if it makes people "good" because of this idea of universal laws set down by a higher power, then I say it can be a good thing. So how does the atheist justify that they can have the same set of morals on an objective standing ground as strong as the ground that theists derive from their god(s)?

Morals are not science/scientific. They cannot be measured, there is no real way to know if morals are true or not, scientifically, it's, well, a feeling would be the best way to describe it. Socrates' dilemma - "How ought I to live?"

Granted. In many cases it is.

True, what "should be" is not always the way it is, or even the way that it could be, in a realistic sense.

Ok, so which is it? And how can we know? If we cannot know, doesn't the atheist-objectivist argument fail?

How can one know what is truly right or wrong? Is it possible for things like rape and pedophilia to be acceptable at some point then?

Is this scientifically provable? I mean, I'm an atheist objectivist myself, but in trying to determine where the line is drawn between objective and subjective morals it becomes kind of fuzzy. For what reason do I feel that some things are just immoral and generally unacceptable? Are my morals feasible in a universal sense at all, or is it just how I feel? Where is the line drawn, and who draws it or where is it drawn from?

You misread my statement. I was saying how can we justify the existence of universal morals being atheists?

I also see it as extremely utilitarian (a partially correct, but flawed {I feel} philosophy which I find hard to suffer in many cases).

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm on your side, I hope very much that I can find even ground in this case between theism and atheism, but it's just very hard for me to find it.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Samhain

Godless Dave,

I hear you. I don't need to know what's right to know what's right (I guess ). The only thing I curious about is that is there really something we are basing our morality off of besides what we feel? For the uneducated man, if we gave him the choice to create a set of morals (without religious basis), could he come up with the same ones that I do? This is why I see it's hard to harshly judge theists in this sense they "know," in a sense, where their morality derives from, and they "know" how they "Ought to act" regardless of their feelings. Can an atheist justify that they can also "know" instead of just doing what is right because they think it is?

You must remember, this is not true in the mind of the theist. The theist (for the most part) feel these men were "inspired" (or some such nonsense) by God (or whatever) to write these things down based off of what God "told" them. So this subjective idea cannot apply to theists since they "know" (in their minds) that God has handed down these rules, and therefore they are objective.

Yes and no. In the case of an omnibenevolent, omniscient god, then it really cannot be subjective since that god would (really) know what is right and wrong.

Samhain

Thanks, I'll check it out. I haven't read Rand yet, though, so you'll be educating me on the intricicies (don't laugh) of her philosophy. I have The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged sitting on my shelf, but I wanted to get through Dostoyevsky's "The Brother's Karamazov" which is going to take me forever and a day to get through already.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>