Do atheists believe in objective morality?

[Verv]

If atheism is defined as 'not believing in God,' there are many absolute moral codes to be found in certain sects of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism.

If atheism is defined as 'not believing in any religion,' there are less but there are some.

It is possible. However, being an atheist without some sort of concept of an objective moral truth in the world set in stone by some sort of force, then truth and morals are in the hands of men who are scarcely the best judges for the job.

 

[quatona]

It is possible. However, being an atheist without some sort of concept of an objective moral truth in the world set in stone by some sort of force, then truth and morals are in the hands of men who are scarcely the best judges for the job.

Personally, I don´t care much whether people commit their atrocities in the name of a suppposedly "objective" moral truth or in the name of their subjective morality.
Come to think of it, I find the former even more scary.

 

[SithDoughnut]

It is possible. However, being an atheist without some sort of concept of an objective moral truth in the world set in stone by some sort of force, then truth and morals are in the hands of men who are scarcely the best judges for the job.

I agree. However, we only have our own judgement to guide us. I know that from a theists point of view there is a God who can decree morality, but from my point of view that is simply people shifting responsibility for their own judgements. Even when reading the Bible, you are interpreting it in the way that you think is correct, and you are applying it in a way that you think is morally right. Whether there is a God or not, we still only have our own judgement to go by. The only difference is whether we have guidelines or not. Our morality remains entirely subjective to what we know. There is no such thing as objective morality, only the potential for there to be 'correct' morality.

Even if a God does exist, I see no reason why he would be any better at judging morality than us, especially if he chooses to remain vague and hidden.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have, as an atheist, believed in objective morality, based in the intrinsic value or disvalue of various emotional states.

 

[dewaddict84]

objective morality, based in the intrinsic value or disvalue of various emotional states.

But not everyone has the same instinctual "intrinsic" emotional reaction to, uh, stuff.

And even after you account for the normal variences across the populous, you'll still find schizophrenics, psychopaths, and sociopaths who really don't have these emotion things, or theirs work is completely different ways. If you discount them from defining absolute morals, then what you've got is really just the median morals of the majority. And that changes over time, abolishing the objectiveness.

 

[jason taylor]

It is possible to be an Atheist and believe in Natural Law. However a lot of the Atheists I know THEORETICALLY don't. Of course, in practice matters are different.

 

[roflcopter101]

I personally do not believe in objective morality. I don't think that makes you a worse person for doing so.

 

[DarkProphet]

But not everyone has the same instinctual "intrinsic" emotional reaction to, uh, stuff.

And even after you account for the normal variences across the populous, you'll still find schizophrenics, psychopaths, and sociopaths who really don't have these emotion things, or theirs work is completely different ways. If you discount them from defining absolute morals, then what you've got is really just the median morals of the majority. And that changes over time, abolishing the objectiveness.

That's true for Christian morals as well though. A quick example would be slavery because technically the Bible supports it so it was easy for Christians to support it. As the moral median shifted though they stopped supporting it. That would make Christian morality just as subjective.

 

[Tenka]

It is possible to be an Atheist and believe in Natural Law. However a lot of the Atheists I know THEORETICALLY don't. Of course, in practice matters are different.

what are you talking about?

 

[SithDoughnut]

what are you talking about?

I second this question.

 

[allhart]

I have, as an atheist, believed in objective morality, based in the intrinsic value or disvalue of various emotional states.

People, are to look at objective morality by their subjective feelings......Christianity is true because it works (pragmatism); it isn't true because it feels right (subjectivism);it isn't true because it is "my Truth" (relativism). It is true because it is anchored in the Person of Christ. Giving us common ground as well! God is the author of and on morality coupled to the moral law!

 

[LoooveLikeFire]

allhart is spot on.

SUBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES:

Below is a quote from secular humanist and Professor of Philosophy, Theodore Schick, Jr. in his article, 'Why Professional Ethicists Think That Morality Is Not Purely "Subjective"'.

"Subjectivism, then, fails to meet the criteria of adequacy for ethical theories: it sanctions obviously immoral actions, it implies that people are morally infallible, and it denies that there are any substantive moral disputes. Because it is inconsistent with our considered moral judgments and our experience of the moral life, it is not an acceptable ethical theory."

So what does he believe? That moral standards are self-evident and justify themselves!

"You don't need any additional evidence to support your belief. What makes self-evident truths self-evident is that they do not stand in need of any further justification; they justify themselves."

And that's his answer! That moral values just exist; they're just there! I know what it means to say that some action or person is just, but I don't understand how the value 'justice', just exists as some sort of abstract moral value!?

OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES:

Below is a quote from the book 'God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist' by atheist Walter Sinnott Armstrong who is a professor of ethics. He is a specialist in ethical and moral theory.

"(William Lane) Craig next asks, 'If God did not forbid rape, what makes rape immoral objectively?' This question is supposed to be hard for atheists to answer, because Craig seems to assume that on “the atheistic view” (which one?) what makes rape wrong is some cost to the rapist or to society (Craig did not assume this). But atheists can give a better answer: What makes rape immoral is that rape harms the victim in terrible ways. The victim feels pain, loses freedom, is subordinated, and so on. These harms are not justified by any benefits to anyone. Craig still might ask, 'What’s immoral about causing serious harms to other people without justification?' But now it seems natural to answer, “It simply is. Objectively. Don’t you agree?”

And that's his answer! You can see that when it comes to justifying his starting point, he can't do it.

But theists can.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

allhart is spot on.

SUBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES:

Below is a quote from secular humanist and Professor of Philosophy, Theodore Schick, Jr. in his article, 'Why Professional Ethicists Think That Morality Is Not Purely "Subjective"'.

"Subjectivism, then, fails to meet the criteria of adequacy for ethical theories: it sanctions obviously immoral actions, it implies that people are morally infallible, and it denies that there are any substantive moral disputes. Because it is inconsistent with our considered moral judgments and our experience of the moral life, it is not an acceptable ethical theory."

So what does he believe? That moral standards are self-evident and justify themselves!

"You don't need any additional evidence to support your belief. What makes self-evident truths self-evident is that they do not stand in need of any further justification; they justify themselves."

And that's his answer! That moral values just exist; they're just there! I know what it means to say that some action or person is just, but I don't understand how the value 'justice', just exists as some sort of abstract moral value!?

OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES:

Below is a quote from the book 'God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist' by atheist Walter Sinnott Armstrong who is a professor of ethics. He is a specialist in ethical and moral theory.

"(William Lane) Craig next asks, 'If God did not forbid rape, what makes rape immoral objectively?' This question is supposed to be hard for atheists to answer, because Craig seems to assume that on “the atheistic view” (which one?) what makes rape wrong is some cost to the rapist or to society (Craig did not assume this). But atheists can give a better answer: What makes rape immoral is that rape harms the victim in terrible ways. The victim feels pain, loses freedom, is subordinated, and so on. These harms are not justified by any benefits to anyone. Craig still might ask, 'What’s immoral about causing serious harms to other people without justification?' But now it seems natural to answer, “It simply is. Objectively. Don’t you agree?”

And that's his answer! You can see that when it comes to justifying his starting point, he can't do it.

But theists can.

So if i understand this correctly all I have to do is claims something that you agree with and it automatically becomes self evident truth?
Fascinating.

Really though self evident is such a rediculous term you can use it for anything. its self evident that the moon was created purely so that I could see it from my bedroom window at 23.00 before i go to bed. Why? There is no reason to explain because it is selfevident!
obviously it does not work that way.

Why is harm wrong? Because generally speaking people do not like to be harmed and we agreed that since we agree we dont want harm to befall ourselfs we call it wrong. Its pretty simple really. Its a subjective judgement we all agree on (Generally speaking, exceptions exist.)

 

[Cabal]

Craig still might ask, 'What’s immoral about causing serious harms to other people without justification?' But now it seems natural to answer, “It simply is. Objectively. Don’t you agree?”

And that's his answer! You can see that when it comes to justifying his starting point, he can't do it.

For the most part, people do not want to be harmed. Self-preservation. Collectively, you could then get the kind of social mores that proscribe rape etc.

 

[LoooveLikeFire]

So if i understand this correctly all I have to do is claims something that you agree with and it automatically becomes self evident truth?

You lost me.

Really though self evident is such a rediculous term you can use it for anything. its self evident that the moon was created purely so that I could see it from my bedroom window at 23.00 before i go to bed. Why? There is no reason to explain because it is selfevident!
obviously it does not work that way.

I'm still pretty lost, but I think you're agreeing with me?

Why is harm wrong? Because generally speaking people do not like to be harmed and we agreed that since we agree we dont want harm to befall ourselfs we call it wrong. Its pretty simple really. Its a subjective judgement we all agree on

Instead of me just regurgitating arguments I've read, I'll direct you to the source. The article basically states that professional ethicists have a set criteria which moral theories need to abide by. Subjectivism fails. He tries to offer an alternative, something along the lines of atheistic moral realism...But that is just as bad. (Don't worry about his point about how the values cannot arise from God; he just hasn't heard of the Euthyphro dilemma).

Council for Secular Humanism

 

[Eudaimonist]

The article basically states that professional ethicists have a set criteria which moral theories need to abide by. Subjectivism fails.

What he seems to be saying is that pure moral subjectivism fails. I agree. But that leaves a wide range of possibilities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JGG]

"Do atheists believe in objective morality?"

I wouldn't say I believe in it. It's possible. I'm pleased to say that I don't know. What seems to matter right now though, is that what we consider morality is, currently, subjective.

 

[drewzz]

I am an atheist, and when it comes to morals for me it depends generally on what hurts others, or what makes others happy.

If you came back from the future and found Hitler and tried to kill him knowing if you didn't he would begin a mass slaughter of jews.... In my opinion that would be OK. Although people from that time wouldn't because they wouldn't know what Hitler was going to do.

From a christians viewpoint killing is one of the ten commandments, although i'm confused by this because apparently killing in war is not a sin. So where is the line between killing in a war and just straight out murder?

Also... Lets say you are faced with a situation where if you lie and steal, you will save someones life. I would go ahead and lie and steal to save someones life, wouldn't you? Or would you watch this person fall over and die?

Christians believe stealing and lying is a sin, so they probably wouldn't do it.

Bad morality = hurting peoples feelings, just flat out hurting people, making people sad ect.

Good morality = Helping people, making people happy, as much as you can.

There is my reasoning and stuff on morals

 

[Nondescript]

To answer the original post: I cannot speak for all atheists, but I do not subscribe to the notion that any morality exists.

 

[LoooveLikeFire]

In response to the original post - Some atheists believe in objective moral values some don't. The ones that do, believe the basis for objective morality is human flourishing.

drewzz, Christianity isn't obeying a set of rules, it's a relationship with Jesus. The first commandment facilitates all the others. We're saved by grace, not by works.

Also... Lets say you are faced with a situation where if you lie and steal, you will save someones life. I would go ahead and lie and steal to save someones life, wouldn't you?

Like when the God of the universe gave up His freedom and died for mankind.