Do atheists believe in objective morality?

[allhart]

You have to consider: whatever you feel, think, fathom, believe... it is always YOU doing it.

Morality - good and bad - can never be anything but subjective.

It has to do with discerning between rationality and ones feelings. For example: ones rationality about hitler, then ur feelings about him. If u don't have bad feeling about him, then I'd be concerned with it...

 

[Nathan Poe]

It has to do with discerning between rationality and ones feelings. For example: ones rationality about hitler, then ur feelings about him. If u don't have bad feeling about him, then I'd be concerned with it...

Feelings are subjective -- hardly a benchmark to prove objective morality.

 

[allhart]

Feelings are subjective -- hardly a benchmark to prove objective morality.

Rationality comes first!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Rationality comes first!

Rationality is also subjective -- what one man considers rational, another might consider to be nonsensical lunacy.

Hitler thought he was rational -- feel free to disagree.

 

[Mling]

Rationality is also subjective -- what one man considers rational, another might consider to be nonsensical lunacy.

Hitler thought he was rational -- feel free to disagree.

Well...depending on what, specifically, we're talking about, Hitler may have been perfectly rational. Rational doesn't mean "right," after all, and a perfectly rational thought process can be rendered meaningless by being based on inaccurate premises.

 

[allhart]

Well...depending on what, specifically, we're talking about, Hitler may have been perfectly rational. Rational doesn't mean "right," after all, and a perfectly rational thought process can be renderedm meaningless by being based on inaccurate premises.

By all account

Hitler was insane or EVIL!

 

[Mling]

By all account

Hitler was insane or EVIL!

Insane--nah.

Evil--depends on your critera.

We were talking about whether he was "rational" though, and he largely was.

 

[allhart]

Insane--nah.

Evil--depends on your critera.

We were talking about whether he was "rational" though, and he largely was.

What defines a serial killer as sane lol only the insane can! We argue with rational communications over ideas but doesn't make their out comes justified!

 

[Mling]

What defines a serial killer as sane

How well he understood what he was doing. Hitler understood what he was doing very well.

We argue with rational communications over ideas but doesn't make their out come justified!

That's my point.

 

[allhart]

How well he understood what he was doing. Hitler understood what he was doing very well.



That's my point.

Then we r on the same page. For no one can help the man with a bad mental attitude!

 

[Nathan Poe]

How well he understood what he was doing. Hitler understood what he was doing very well.

Indeed -- it was very rational -- not to mention effective -- for Hitler to exploit other people's irrationality for his own gain.

 

[tanzanos]

When we consider that the human brain basically is a biological machine that functions on electrochemical input and output; Then as in all machines (including DNA) there are inherent faults that reside within. Only science has the ability to discover, analyse, and rectify such faults. Epilepsy was once thought to be demonic possession; Now we know better. Chemical imbalance in the brain can have from passive to extremely violent behavioural results. No amount of praying will cure such conditions.

Let science do its work lest we keep repeating our violent and destructive tendencies due to the faults I mentioned above.

 

[Freodin]

It has to do with discerning between rationality and ones feelings. For example: ones rationality about hitler, then ur feelings about him. If u don't have bad feeling about him, then I'd be concerned with it...

For one thing, I´d agree. But there is no rational distinction of "good" and "evil". A rational approach to morality must have a goal in mind, as in utilitarism. And even then you can only define "good for reaching the goal" or "bad for reaching the goal"... you cannot objectively define the goal as "good" or "evil".

Yet while I agree that rationality tops "ones feelings"... you haven´t done anything to show that.

Why is Hitler evil (insane is a different question), based on rationality? You have not given any reason... just appealed to "feelings".

Can you do so? Or show your own claims invalid?

 

[allhart]

For one thing, I´d agree. But there is no rational distinction of "good" and "evil". A rational approach to morality must have a goal in mind, as in utilitarism. And even then you can only define "good for reaching the goal" or "bad for reaching the goal"... you cannot objectively define the goal as "good" or "evil".

Yet while I agree that rationality tops "ones feelings"... you haven´t done anything to show that.

Why is Hitler evil (insane is a different question), based on rationality? You have not given any reason... just appealed to "feelings".

Can you do so? Or show your own claims invalid?

What makes discerning between evil and good valid? Otherwise as you make it, it sounds meaningless! On one hand takes people where you seem to like it boundless, but on the other hand it makes our whole lives meaningless. To where people lose the grips on reality to self regulate! Therefore by presents boundless rule's in one's objection to the rule...... Making for duplicity on your part? What it is that gives person-hood structure and accountability? When a person raises the problem of EVIL......By depositing or assuming evil. They are implicit depositing the existence of good! If you a assume evil, then you assume good, then you assume a moral law by to differentiate between good and evil, then if you assume a moral law you must assume a moral law giver, but that is who often the questions are about and whom people try to disprove, not prove! If there is no moral giver then there is no moral law then there's no good or evil. Now the question self destructs to objectivity by a objective rule by which to measure good and evil! The question confirms there is a moral frame work that exists! Do you believe there's suffering in the world? Good can soften the hardened heart in the acts of evil as it did for a SS soldier who saw children clamoring to one anthers wounds ! Do you possess dignity? As to say if a person taken anther human being into slavery and bound them in chains exposed and naked for all the community to see?

 

[Freodin]

What makes discerning between evil and good valid? Otherwise as you make it sound meaningless! On one hand takes people where you like boundless, but on the other hand it makes your whole life meaningless. To where people lose the grips on reality or presenting duplicity. On what it is that gives person-hood structure and accountability! When a person raises the problem of EVIL......By depositing or assuming evil. They are implicit depositing the existence of good! If you a assume evil, then you assume good, then you assume a moral law by to differentiate between good and evil, then if you assume a moral law you must assume a moral law giver, but that is who often the questions are about and whom people try to disprove, not prove! If there is no moral giver then there is no moral law then there's no good or evil. Now the question self destructs to objectivity by a objective rule by which to measure good and evil! The question confirms there is a moral frame work that exists! Do you believe there's suffering in the world? Good can soften the hardened heart in the acts of evil as it did for a SS soldier who saw children clamoring to one anthers wounds ! Do you possess dignity? As to say if a person taken anther human being into slavery and bound them in chains exposed and naked for all the community to see?

I admit that I have enormous difficulties to follow your reasoning... in fact, your whole way of writing. I hope I got the gist of it.

First, there is no moral law giver. There are only individual moral agents. As I said in my first post here, it is always you who makes the distinction.
Even if you assume that there is a moral law giver, who tells you of "good" and "evil", it is you - it MUST BE YOU - that makes the individual decision of "Yes, I agree" or "No, I disagree". It always comes down to your personal decision.

And that is what makes morals subjective, regardless of the existence or non-existence of a moral law giver.

But I said: there is no moral law giver. To clarify, when I say that it means: I don´t see the necessity of such an entity and do not believe it exists.
Morals can easily exist without a moral law giver. They can exist, because of the basic similarity of the individual moral agents I mentioned: humans.

I like to call that my "shoe theory of morals". Like shoes, morals can be very different. But they are also all very similar on a basic level, because they all have to fit human feet.

 

[allhart]

I admit that I have enormous difficulties to follow your reasoning... in fact, your whole way of writing. I hope I got the gist of it.

First, there is no moral law giver. There are only individual moral agents. As I said in my first post here, it is always you who makes the distinction.
Even if you assume that there is a moral law giver, who tells you of "good" and "evil", it is you - it MUST BE YOU - that makes the individual decision of "Yes, I agree" or "No, I disagree". It always comes down to your personal decision.

And that is what makes morals subjective, regardless of the existence or non-existence of a moral law giver.

Your Rationalizing of the evidence to which you base your feelings about evil? By what objective rule do differentiated between good and evil and by what or who do you measure or consider? For chaos is with out order or rules and the diversity of peoples feels by evidence, is all over the place!

 

[Freodin]

Your Rationalizing of the evidence to which you base your feelings about evil? By what objective rule do differentiated between good and evil and by what measure do you consider?

Well.... I have that old book, you know, which tells me.

Nah, just kidding.

Seriously now... I don´t have an objective rule to differate between good and evil. Did you not listen? Did you not read me previous posts? I explicitly said that "...you cannot objectively define [...] 'good' or 'evil'. "

You do it subjectively. Based on your feelings, your education and upbringing, your social setup, your personal hopes and goals. And, referring back to my last post, your basic fact of being human.

The only system of morals that is at least partially objective is utilitarism. Set a goal and see if an action / behaviour is suitable for achiving that goal or hindering that goal. Based on that objective evaluation you can define "good" and "evil"... but only for the actions in question. You cannot make an objective statement about the morality of the ultimate goals.

For chaos is with out order or rules and the diversity of peoples feels by evidence is all over the place!

Missed your edit the first time.

Rules come from the interaction of individuals. People are diverse... but not THAT diverse. They are all people. They are all humans, sharing the same basic needs and wants and a lot more not so basic stuff.

 

[allhart]

Well.... I have that old book, you know, which tells me.

Nah, just kidding.

Seriously now... I don´t have an objective rule to differate between good and evil. Did you not listen? Did you not read me previous posts? I explicitly said that "...you cannot objectively define [...] 'good' or 'evil'. "

You do it subjectively. Based on your feelings, your education and upbringing, your social setup, your personal hopes and goals. And, referring back to my last post, your basic fact of being human.


Missed your edit the first time.

Rules come from the interaction of individuals. People are diverse... but not THAT diverse. They are all people. They are all humans, sharing the same basic needs and wants and a lot more not so basic stuff.

The only system of morals that is at least partially objective is utilitarism. Set a goal and see if an action / behaviour is suitable for achiving that goal or hindering that goal. Based on that objective evaluation you can define "good" and "evil"... but only for the actions in question. You cannot make an objective statement about the morality of the ultimate goals.

I'd say you as well are on a destination fixation and haven't read intently over the questions I've presented to you and considered the ramifications between evil and good? Is there

du·plic·i·ty HERE?


&#8194; <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/D05/D0587300" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="Duplicity pronunciation" /></a>&#8194;/du&#712;pl&#618;s

&#618;

ti, dyu-/ Show Spelled[doo-plis-i-tee, dyoo-] Show IPA
&#8211;noun, plural -ties for 1. 1. deceitfulness in speech or conduct; speaking or acting in two different ways concerning the same matter with intent to deceive; double-dealing.

2. a twofold or double state or quality.

 

[Freodin]

I'd say you as well are on a destination fixation and haven't read intently over the questions I've presented to you and considered the ramifications between evil and good? Is there

du·plic·i·ty HERE?

I read your questions... though I am not sure if I understood them correctly. Certainly you are aware that your way of writing can lead to difficulties and misunderstandings?

So you ask if I have considered the ramifications between evil and good. Can you explain to me, in simple sentences, what these ramifications ARE?

 

[allhart]

By who's objective rule do differentiated between good and evil to self regulate and by what or who do you measure or consider our objective rule that all should live by? Hitlers Litmus testing could have eliminated most of the population if Hitler was able to play out his hypothesis? Was Hitler Evil or Stalin, Mao, Castro, Cha etc? If not then why did the world clamor to eliminate them? Why is there war? If there is no such thing as evil? As I have said before we can't help a man that has a bad mental attitude! Evil is a form of insanity. Look at our prison systems......normal people don't go there per-say!