When atheists disagree about the Objectivity of Morality ... !

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,120
Los Angeles Area
✟820,594.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Rather, it's that subjectivity isn't necessarily subjective in the 'way' in which we so often allow it to be defined, and being that this is the case, and despite our various ethical matrices, there remains some objectivity among us in our common moral endeavors by which we may conceptualize our seemingly individual morality during our ongoing social actions.

If that was your point, no wonder you regret bringing up sociopaths.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If that was your point, no wonder you regret bringing up sociopaths.

Actually, I only regret the substantial kick back that has been attempted here to stymie one of my supporting points ...... so if I regret anything, it's that this my point of mine about sociopaths was seemingly thought by others to be my 'only' point. It most definitely is not, and was not. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So, while I'm here, does everyone understand that as far as this thread is concerned, I do not equate atheism with sociopathy? I have to ask because it seems that some of the 'come-backs' are such that they are given and measured by some underlying idea that I'm imputing sociopathy upon atheists everywhere. I am not.

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,409.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So, while I'm here, does everyone understand that as far as this thread is concerned, I do not equate atheism with sociopathy? I have to ask because it seems that some of the 'come-backs' are such that they are given and measured by some underlying idea that I'm imputing sociopathy upon atheists everywhere. I am not.

Thanks.

I wasn't assuming that.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think morality doesn't easily boil down to subjective vs objective. I think one of the central conceits of ethics is the concept that we are rational beings. We feel that morality should follow clear, definable rules. But we also tend to feel that cold calculation based on clear definable rules is suspect. But we also tend to feel that failing to logically address considerations of a moral dilemma is a failing.

This is why the trolley problem is so great. It allows us to tweak a situation that's nominally the same to play off different, contradictory elements of morality.

I'd say the perceived morality of an action depends on not just ultimate outcome (moral action tends towards the better outcome), but also the perceived directness of our actions(direct actions are weighed more heavily than indirect actions), and action vs inaction(action is weighted more heavily than inaction), along with morally troubling concepts of in-groups and out-groups.

The usual progression of the trolley problem is that you have a runaway trolley heading for 5 people, but you can switch it to a track with one person. Most people will switch it.
What if there's one fat person you could push in the way to save 5 people? most people wouldn't.
To take it a step further, what if there's a fat person already in the way, and you could save them, but then the trolley would hit the 5 people? Do you push the one person out of the way and allow the 5 people to die?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The usual progression of the trolley problem is that you have a runaway trolley heading for 5 people, but you can switch it to a track with one person. Most people will switch it.
What if there's one fat person you could push in the way to save 5 people? most people wouldn't.
To take it a step further, what if there's a fat person already in the way, and you could save them, but then the trolley would hit the 5 people? Do you push the one person out of the way and allow the 5 people to die?
I don't think the moral issue should be concerning the person who makes the split decision to switch the track or not, as long as he makes the decision he thinks is best at the moment, nobody has the right to (Monday night quarterback) judge him for making the best decision he could concerning the circumstances of not having time to weigh his options. I think the judging should be reserved for whoever was responsible for the trolley running away in the first place, not the person faced with such a tragic decision to make
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
When one atheist disagrees with another about morality, it sounds a little like what we find in the following video by atheist and Oxford graduate, Alex O'Conner (a.k.a. 'Cosmic Skeptic' on youtube).

In the 20 minute video below, Alex takes a little umbrage with fellow atheist Sam Harris's view that human morality has some kind of substantial 'objective' quality to it. Rather, Alex thinks human morality is firmly 'subjective.'

Is Alex right in saying that Sam is wrong about the nature of human morality? Well, watch the video and decide for yourself. Or don't decide ...


:cool:
This raises a good point in the debate about atheistic and theistic morality. Like belief in God is the key to salvation and no objective evidence is going to prove God. It is the belief in God's objective morality that is the key and not any direct evidence for it in the end.

We can come up with good arguments for morality being objective based on our intuition, it's better for us, subjective morality cannot establish any clear and consistent moral code and therefore ultimately don't work, our lived moral experience shows that we act and react like there are objective morals despite subjective moral claims.

We can also show support for Jesus being the only true representation of God. But in the end these can never directly fully support objective morality. Ultimately it is only by faith in God and therefore His moral laws that we can know the objectivity of morality. But that doesn't mean there is indirect evidence.

At the end of the day if there is a God unlike what the Cosmic Skeptic argues there must be objective moral values because God is also a God of judgment which implies a measure to determine accountability. Whether we can directly prove that is another thing and therefore relies on faith. But if he wants to use the example that there is a God then he has to also acknowledge the implications of God's judgment for morality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,771.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, I'm far too smart to ever be caught. ;)

I don't murder people for many reasons. I think it's wrong. I have better things to do with my time. No one in my immediate vicinity really needs to be murdered at the moment.

As usual, this is just a sad apologetic that without signing up for religion brand X, people would be monstrous villains.
But none of that equates to something being objectively right or wrong. And saying something is wrong doesn't mean its wrong without any independent measure. In other words, saying you don't murder because you have better things to do means when you don't have better things to do murdering can be something to do. No one in the immediate vicinity to murder means that when there is someone in your vicinity it is OK to murder etc.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This raises a good point in the debate about atheistic and theistic morality. Like belief in God is the key to salvation and no objective evidence is going to prove God. It is the belief in God's objective morality that is the key and not any direct evidence for it in the end.

We can come up with good arguments for morality being objective based on our intuition, it's better for us, subjective morality cannot establish any clear and consistent moral code and therefore ultimately don't work, our lived moral experience shows that we act and react like there are objective morals despite subjective moral claims.

We can also show support for Jesus being the only true representation of God. But in the end these can never directly fully support objective morality. Ultimately it is only by faith in God and therefore His moral laws that we can know the objectivity of morality. But that doesn't mean there is indirect evidence.

At the end of the day if there is a God unlike what the Cosmic Skeptic argues there must be objective moral values because God is also a God of judgment which implies a measure to determine accountability. Whether we can directly prove that is another thing and therefore relies on faith. But if he wants to use the example that there is a God then he has to also acknowledge the implications of God's judgment for morality.

Have your ”god” created morality or is it independent from him/her/it?

Can your ”god” change moral rules?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This raises a good point in the debate about atheistic and theistic morality. Like belief in God is the key to salvation and no objective evidence is going to prove God. It is the belief in God's objective morality that is the key and not any direct evidence for it in the end.
Assuming you believe Objective morality is based on God, in theory if God said murder was good, would you believe murder to be good?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Have your ”god” created morality or is it independent from him/her/it?

Can your ”god” change moral rules?

Yes, He can! Why? ...... because as the Apostle Paul implies in his letter to the Romans, moral "rules" are presented to humanity by God for the sake of the "unruly." In fact, we don't even need written rules if we already have God's unwritten moral code implanted, however intuitively structured, within our individual psychologies......................unless, of course, any one of us is a sociopath, then we might flout the social and humanitarian rules we should all, and everyone, already sense we need to do.

So, if a person is already moral, they don't need rules to abide by. And some rules can be changed as imperfect people adjust to dealing appropriately with their sinful proclivities.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, He can! Why? ...... because as the Apostle Paul implies in his letter to the Romans, moral "rules" are presented to humanity by God for the sake of the "unruly." In fact, we don't even need written rules if we already have God's unwritten moral code implanted, however intuitively structured, within our individual psychologies......................unless, of course, any one of us is a sociopath, then we might flout the social and humanitarian rules we should all, and everyone, already sense we need to do.

So, if a person is already moral, they don't need rules to abide by. And some rules can be changed as imperfect people adjust to dealing appropriately with their sinful proclivities.
So god(s) can change what is right/wrong, doesnt that defeat the idea of ”objective morality ”?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So god(s) can change what is right/wrong, doesnt that defeat the idea of ”objective morality ”?

Nope. Because it doesn't change what is right and wrong on a general level. Why? Because even biblical rules (laws) never fully represent all of what is right and wrong in the human world, and at least some of the biblical laws are ensconced within priorities and provisions and weren't just 'absolute' on their own. Some of them could even be considered with exceptions under certain conditions. For example, the 1st Commandment is non-negotiable, but some biblical laws come with contingencies and exceptions. So, we can't really say that it was One Law, Once for All in an absolute way.

The only thing that is 'once for all' is the sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross for you, me, and everybody else.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
At the end of the day if there is a God unlike what the Cosmic Skeptic argues there must be objective moral values because God is also a God of judgment which implies a measure to determine accountability.
If we assume there is a God, how does that make him the moral dictator?
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Nope. Because it doesn't change what is right and wrong on a general level. Why? Because even biblical rules (laws) never fully represent all of what is right and wrong in the human world, and at least some of the biblical laws are ensconced within priorities and provisions and weren't just 'absolute' on their own. Some of them could even be considered with exceptions under certain conditions. For example, the 1st Commandment is non-negotiable, but some biblical laws come with contingencies and exceptions. So, we can't really say that it was One Law, Once for All in an absolute way.

The only thing that is 'once for all' is the sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross for you, me, and everybody else.

This makes zero sense.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums