An Atheist Argument for Objective Morality

[LimitedGrip]

I've recently been thinking about what morality means to me. Where it came from. How it is determined. 

 

At first, I thought it was subjective in nature. This is evidenced by the fact that for all humans, what is deemed moral changes as society progresses; for theists and atheists alike. Moral law, as it were, is determined by society through discourse and ultimately governmental decree. 

 

In my opinion, where morality came from has to do with evolution. Populations of species who worked harmoniously were able to survive better, and reproduce more. This lead me to believe that moral good is nothing more than that which, in the way others are treated, helps a society to survive. 

 

It was my argument that even things which are ubiquitously seen as immoral, like murder (if defined properly), are still subjective in that long ago, before we had the intelligence to recognize that murder was detrimental to society, murder had no immoral value. For example, we don't typically consider murder among other species as immoral, as they have not developed morality in their environment. 

 

The more I thought about it, though, if I define morality as treatment of others which is beneficial or detrimental to society, there are three outcomes when considering whether a topic is moral or not. 1. It's beneficial to society, 2. It's detrimental to society, and 3. Neutrality. 

 

I think it can be argued that there are topics which objectively fall into categories one and two, and can be quantified, which makes morality itself objective with regards to these topics. Things which cannot be objectively placed in category 1 and 2 are necessarily in category 3, and are subject to subjective morality, I think. 

 

Help me out here...would appreciate input about where my reasoning fails or succeeds. Thanks. 

[florduh]

Morality is entirely subjective. It changes with time and place. Most people have their own moral compass, however they came to get it, and naturally think they have quite objective morality and those who disagree are simply wrong. Those who are in disagreement think the same. To an individual it may look as if there is an objective morality and YOU have it, but a walk through history and a map of the world will show otherwise.

[LimitedGrip]

1 minute ago, florduh said:

Morality is entirely subjective. It changes with time and place. Most people have their own moral compass, however they came to get it, and naturally think they have quite objective morality and those who disagree are simply wrong. Those who are in disagreement think the same. To an individual it may look as if there is an objective morality and YOU have it, but a walk through history and a map of the world will show otherwise.

 

Yes, but are there topics which are objectively detrimental to society? And is defining morality as that which is beneficial/detrimental to society a valid proposition? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Grace and relationships; and everything is subjective.

[florduh]

2 hours ago, LimitedGrip said:

Yes, but are there topics which are objectively detrimental to society? And is defining morality as that which is beneficial/detrimental to society a valid proposition? 

Societies that persist in detrimental behaviors don't last long. So for specific societies, yes, but it's not universal. Headhunting may be the foundation of one society, but today's America would consider the practice immoral regardless of the benefit to society. The movie Soylent Green showed us a morally reprehensible act (to us) that was necessary to the society's survival. It's anybody's call to decide if something beneficial to a society is by definition moral. I think "moral" is a weasel word.

[Guest end3]

31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Grace and relationships; and everything is subjective.

This is exactly why I would buy the beer...

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

End, I've "known" you a long time now, to the extent we know each other online. I've seen changes over the years in what you write, which tell me there are changes in you. As in me. So ... with my husband a semi-invalid, I can't travel to Texas. But rest assured that if we could do it, I'd join you and bring some beers from up my way.

 

Rock on.

[Guest end3]

3 hours ago, ficino said:

End, I've "known" you a long time now, to the extent we know each other online. I've seen changes over the years in what you write, which tell me there are changes in you. As in me. So ... with my husband a semi-invalid, I can't travel to Texas. But rest assured that if we could do it, I'd join you and bring some beers from up my way.

 

Rock on.

Thanks F.  Maybe my age and decreasing testosterone are working for me in a positive way.  Every day is a challenge being this, whatever I am....but thanks again.

[midniterider]

On 10/23/2017 at 1:47 PM, LimitedGrip said:

I've recently been thinking about what morality means to me. Where it came from. How it is determined. 

 

At first, I thought it was subjective in nature. This is evidenced by the fact that for all humans, what is deemed moral changes as society progresses; for theists and atheists alike. Moral law, as it were, is determined by society through discourse and ultimately governmental decree. 

 

In my opinion, where morality came from has to do with evolution. Populations of species who worked harmoniously were able to survive better, and reproduce more. This lead me to believe that moral good is nothing more than that which, in the way others are treated, helps a society to survive. 

 

It was my argument that even things which are ubiquitously seen as immoral, like murder (if defined properly), are still subjective in that long ago, before we had the intelligence to recognize that murder was detrimental to society, murder had no immoral value. For example, we don't typically consider murder among other species as immoral, as they have not developed morality in their environment. 

 

The more I thought about it, though, if I define morality as treatment of others which is beneficial or detrimental to society, there are three outcomes when considering whether a topic is moral or not. 1. It's beneficial to society, 2. It's detrimental to society, and 3. Neutrality. 

 

I think it can be argued that there are topics which objectively fall into categories one and two, and can be quantified, which makes morality itself objective with regards to these topics. Things which cannot be objectively placed in category 1 and 2 are necessarily in category 3, and are subject to subjective morality, I think. 

 

Help me out here...would appreciate input about where my reasoning fails or succeeds. Thanks. 

 

If morality is objective then what?

If morality is subjective then what?

[bornagainathiest]

My 50 cents worth...

 

As I understand it, morality involves the making of choices.

If that's so, regardless of whether the argument is being made by an atheist, an agnostic or a theist and regardless of whether morality is ultimately objective or subjective, unless the  moral choices being made are free choices, then we have a problem.  If humans do not make free choices, then morality is an illusion.

 

It seems to me that before we can make any argument about morality, we must first ascertain that we can make free moral choices.

 

Free will first, then moral objectivity or subjectivity.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[LimitedGrip]

On 10/23/2017 at 5:08 PM, florduh said:

Societies that persist in detrimental behaviors don't last long. So for specific societies, yes, but it's not universal. Headhunting may be the foundation of one society, but today's America would consider the practice immoral regardless of the benefit to society. The movie Soylent Green showed us a morally reprehensible act (to us) that was necessary to the society's survival. It's anybody's call to decide if something beneficial to a society is by definition moral. I think "moral" is a weasel word.

 

It occurs to me that there is another category I hadn't considered when writing my initial post: Conditional topics. That is, depending on the environment, things could be either beneficial, detrimental, or neutral. However, I wonder if things like sadistic torture, or rape, would always be detrimental to society, regardless of environment. 

 

18 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

If morality is objective then what?

If morality is subjective then what?

 

If it is subjective, we continue on as we have been. 

 

If it is objective, the potential to improve society through the quantification of that fact, would increase, I should think. 

 

11 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

My 50 cents worth...

 

As I understand it, morality involves the making of choices.

If that's so, regardless of whether the argument is being made by an atheist, an agnostic or a theist and regardless of whether morality is ultimately objective or subjective, unless the  moral choices being made are free choices, then we have a problem.  If humans do not make free choices, then morality is an illusion.

 

It seems to me that before we can make any argument about morality, we must first ascertain that we can make free moral choices.

 

Free will first, then moral objectivity or subjectivity.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

A good point. Defining morality as that which helps or hurts society seems deficient, in this case. Even if a person commits an act that is objectively detrimental to society, if he/she had no freewill to do otherwise, would it still be considered immoral? Likely not. 

[bornagainathiest]

  23 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

My 50 cents worth...

 

As I understand it, morality involves the making of choices.

If that's so, regardless of whether the argument is being made by an atheist, an agnostic or a theist and regardless of whether morality is ultimately objective or subjective, unless the  moral choices being made are free choices, then we have a problem.  If humans do not make free choices, then morality is an illusion.

 

It seems to me that before we can make any argument about morality, we must first ascertain that we can make free moral choices.

 

Free will first, then moral objectivity or subjectivity.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

LimitedGrip replied...

 

A good point. Defining morality as that which helps or hurts society seems deficient, in this case. Even if a person commits an act that is objectively detrimental to society, if he/she had no freewill to do otherwise, would it still be considered immoral? Likely not. 

.

.

.

LG,

 

I submit that if a person had no choice and their decisions are made for them, then they cannot logically be held responsible for the consequences of those actions.  So whether their 'controlled' action is helpful or harmful to society, they cannot and should not receive either praise or punishment.  It is the controlling agent (who overrode their free will) who must be the one who must inherit the consequences.  The responsibility is solely theirs.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

 

[disillusioned]

Hi LG.

 

I've spent a lot of time over the past couple of years thinking about this. We recently had a thread going over in the Colosseum discussing whether or not objective morality exists. I always feel like I learn something from these discussions, so thanks for raising the topic.

 

I agree with your premise that we can form moral systems on the basis of what actions are useful, and which actions are not useful, or even harmful. The problem that I see is that this leaves us with the question "useful to whom?". You speak of actions which are beneficial or detrimental to society. But which society are we talking about? And who gets to make this decision? I don't really have a good answer to these questions, and so for these (and other) reasons I have adopted the view that morality is not objective. I think it is subjective. But please note that this does not mean that I don't think it is real or important. Certainly it is!

[midniterider]

LG: "If it is objective, the potential to improve society through the quantification of that fact, would increase, I should think."

 

I'm of the opinion people do whatever they want without considering whether morality is objective or subjective.

[Vigile]

Quote

This lead me to believe that moral good is nothing more than that which, in the way others are treated, helps a society to survive. 

 

This is a dangerous belief. Nazi Germany adopted exactly such a belief system as has the most dangerous people in the CIA and top technocrats, such as Kissinger. 

[Vigile]

On 10/24/2017 at 12:02 AM, florduh said:

Morality is entirely subjective. It changes with time and place. Most people have their own moral compass, however they came to get it, and naturally think they have quite objective morality and those who disagree are simply wrong. Those who are in disagreement think the same. To an individual it may look as if there is an objective morality and YOU have it, but a walk through history and a map of the world will show otherwise.

 

I don't believe it's entirely subjective. All humans can be empathetic (and most are, with the exception of sociopaths) and apply that empathy in the form of morality toward their fellow man, hence, the golden rule, which has survived culture and history for eons. Much of morality is subjective/or better, situational, but it starts from the premise of humanity and human society, which rests on the foundation of commonality and survival.  

 

IOW, morality is the lubrication that makes society function. There is no need for morality if one chooses to live as a hermit, but show me a functioning society that has no moral foundation. This is not subjective, but fundamental. 

[LimitedGrip]

12 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

LG,

 

I submit that if a person had no choice and their decisions are made for them, then they cannot logically be held responsible for the consequences of those actions.  So whether their 'controlled' action is helpful or harmful to society, they cannot and should not receive either praise or punishment.  It is the controlling agent (who overrode their free will) who must be the one who must inherit the consequences.  The responsibility is solely theirs.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

 

Indeed I would. In fact, I have often used a similar argument when discussing god's alleged "omni" attributes. 

 

I just hadn't considered piecing it together, as a precursor,  with this moral idea. So thanks for that. 

[LimitedGrip]

2 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

This is a dangerous belief. Nazi Germany adopted exactly such a belief system as has the most dangerous people in the CIA and top technocrats, such as Kissinger. 

 

There is nothing dangerous about the belief, in and of itself. The danger comes when a person thinks he/she already has the knowledge (through subjective means), and it just so happens to coincide with his or her ambitions, much like the Christian's "knowledge" of objective morality.

 

Though it is, admittedly, a bad definition, in retrospect. Apart from the input given in this thread, I've since thought of some reasons of my own that make the definition not work.

 

Ultimately, I was just trying to build on the idea of morality being an evolved trait due to populations surviving/reproducing more by cooperating with moral cohesion. 

 

 

 

 

[Vigile]

4 hours ago, LimitedGrip said:

 

There is nothing dangerous about the belief, in and of itself. The danger comes when a person thinks he/she already has the knowledge (through subjective means), and it just so happens to coincide with his or her ambitions, much like the Christian's "knowledge" of objective morality.

 

Though it is, admittedly, a bad definition, in retrospect. Apart from the input given in this thread, I've since thought of some reasons of my own that make the definition not work.

 

Ultimately, I was just trying to build on the idea of morality being an evolved trait due to populations surviving/reproducing more by cooperating with moral cohesion. 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe the evolutionary model limits it too much. As I mention above, it's not necessarily a survival mechanism (though I'm sure that's a major factor). It also has to do with establishing social glue. Yes, society is a survival tactic, but morality to make society hold together means that evolution would only be a secondary effect on it at best.