Do atheists believe in objective morality?

[FallenPaladin]

Or does being atheist tend to make their beliefs more subjective since there is no God to say what is right and wrong?

 

[nolongerhome]

Or does being atheist tend to make their beliefs more subjective since there is no God to say what is right and wrong?

Some do. I know of at least one who posts in the politics area of this forum - lordbt. He and I have quite a few disucssions on this matter.

Personally, I do not believe that there is such thing as an objective morality because all evidence points to an understanding of the rules of social interaction which focuses on their social creation, elaboration and enforcement.

I would stress that that doesn't render morality "merely subjective". Morality is inter-subjective - it is the result of complex processes of social interaction between a large number of subjectivities.

In much the same way as there are no objective meanings in language, I suggest there is no objective meaning in human actions - any meaning we ascribe to words or to actions is reliant on us, not prior to us.

 

[Tenka]

I don't believe religious beliefs are as significant a factor in creating personal morality as some religious people seem to ...believe.

If it were, all Christians would believe largely the same things, but they don't.

 

[Nathan45]

depends which atheist, although i don't believe in objective morality.

This is not to say i think morality is unimportant, i simply think it's subjective.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Rather nice topic.

some do, some do not. It is possible that you decide that your moral values are objectively true. I think a big part though is to define moral. Which is something that is very hard to do even for believers, though we may have little problem picking out some actions and claim them as immoral the reasons behind that are often not very strong such as "the book says so" or simply "I just belief so"

 

[The Nihilist]

I mean, I think there are objective reasons to be moral, but I don't think the content of that morality is necessarily objective.

 

[quatona]

Do atheists believe in objective morality?

I have never understood what "objective morality" is supposed to be. To me it appears to be an oxymoron.
Even if there were a god who decrees a certain morality, I wouldn´t know why call god´s moral prescriptions "objective".

However, speaking as an atheist, in view of the countless different moralities ascribed to gods, I feel there´s practically not much between discussing our admittedly subjective moral views or discussing what might be god´s ("objective") moral view. For all practical purposes "I think..." and "I think god thinks..." make no difference.

Or does being atheist tend to make their beliefs more subjective since there is no God to say what is right and wrong?

Well, from the subjectivist´s viewpoint, an objectivist´s opinions are as subjective as those of an subjectivist. IOW, claiming "my morals are objective (have an objective source)" does not make it so.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Or does being atheist tend to make their beliefs more subjective since there is no God to say what is right and wrong?

You may have to spell out your question a little more clearly to get the best responses.

In my view, the standard of value for human beings is properly the requirements of human life, and this is objective. We don't decide what is beneficial for us, or harmful for us, we can only discover this. Our natures as human beings determines what courses of action will lead to our own good.

Moral rules (and values, and virtues) are human inventions that can be weighed according to this objective standard. They are "subjective", in a sense, but neither are they without unchosen consequences, either for or against you as a living being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[kharisym]

I actually don't know if I have objective or subjective morals. Truth is, I'm not completely sure what the distinction would be.

How my morals work, however, is that I see morality as defining a 'purpose' to social interaction. Morals establish a framework of behavior designed to replicate and/or promote a certain ideal. For Christians, that ideal is the morality given by their interpretation of the bible. For me, I see the set of ideals being roughly transcribed as a balance between society and self- We each decide how important society and how important self is to us, and build our ideals to promote that balance. I consider society and self to be equally important, and therefore I consider certain impositions of society upon self immoral and vice versa.

 

[matthewgar]

To me Objective morals are like saying, "THis is always right or always wrong 100% of the time." while subjective means this can be considered 0-98% of the time right or wrong, but there can always be a situation where it could be considered either moral, or at the least lesser of two evils.

When Christians usually talk about objective morals, they tend to mean that, "Lying is always a sin, no if ans or buts, it may be better to lie about the jews in your basement to the Nazi's, but it's still lying and still a sin." Or abortion is 100% wrong, or so on.

I find that to me there isn't really anything that I would call 100% objective moral, closses might be, lesser of two evil situations where yeah it's wrong 99.99999% of the time.

To me even as a Christian, I find that saying X is always wrong and a sin and evil, or Y is always good and godly removes the laws and situations from the people.

When you say abortion is always wrong, and a evil act and a sin, you end up like those bizzare situations down in Brazill *or where ever it is* where that 6-9 year old is pregnant with twins from her step father, her chances of surviving long enough to give the twins birth were as close to zero as possible, but the church down there still considered it a evil act, excomunicated everyone in the family, except the step father, and the girl when she had a abortion to save her life.

No consideration for wether the childs life was more important then two babies wich had virtually no chance of surviving, no consideration to wether then child should go through the mental trauma of having the children even if they all survived, just a, "It's wrong, to hell with the kid."

 

[Fenny the Fox]

To me Objective morals are like saying, "THis is always right or always wrong 100% of the time." while subjective means this can be considered 0-98% of the time right or wrong, but there can always be a situation where it could be considered either moral, or at the least lesser of two evils.

When Christians usually talk about objective morals, they tend to mean that, "Lying is always a sin, no if ans or buts, it may be better to lie about the jews in your basement to the Nazi's, but it's still lying and still a sin." Or abortion is 100% wrong, or so on.

I find that to me there isn't really anything that I would call 100% objective moral, closses might be, lesser of two evil situations where yeah it's wrong 99.99999% of the time.

To me even as a Christian, I find that saying X is always wrong and a sin and evil, or Y is always good and godly removes the laws and situations from the people.

When you say abortion is always wrong, and a evil act and a sin, you end up like those bizzare situations down in Brazill *or where ever it is* where that 6-9 year old is pregnant with twins from her step father, her chances of surviving long enough to give the twins birth were as close to zero as possible, but the church down there still considered it a evil act, excomunicated everyone in the family, except the step father, and the girl when she had a abortion to save her life.

No consideration for wether the childs life was more important then two babies wich had virtually no chance of surviving, no consideration to wether then child should go through the mental trauma of having the children even if they all survived, just a, "It's wrong, to hell with the kid."

Essentially, this. I don't believe there are any cases of 100% objective morality. Situation is always relevant and pertinent to moral decisions.

 

[matthewgar]

A example of this was something I got into a disucssion with a friend over D&D cleric spells, he wanted to argue that healing spells were always good, and harm spells were always bad, and fell under the catagory that a cleric were restricted to using based on their alignment. I asked on WOTC about the rules and what they said is, neither are good or evil, it's how they are used.

Would casting healing spells on a dragon that terrorizes a town killing everyone good, simply becuase they were cure, or does casting harm on the same dragon to save the town evil simply because they are harm spells. It's all in the context of the situation for wether a act is good or evil.

Another way of looking at it, there are no 100% objective moral or immoral acts, but there are within any given situation objective moral or immoral actions or least more or less so.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

D&D apologetics? That's nice!

I've always found the alignment system to be overly simplistic, as the most compelling (and realistic) villains are usually perfectly certain that *they* are the champions of good.

Take the Nazis, for example. Pretty much everyone can agree that the death camps were an atrocity, right? And yet, the people who ran these camps were *perfectly* convinced that they were doing the right thing: they believed that Jews were evil by default, kinda like orcs in a fantasy setting. A malicious race that infiltrated and undermined other cultures, warping them to their own ends and scheming to take over the whole world. So, from *the Nazis'* POV (and you can BET that they believed in objective morality), they were the stalwart heroes of the Light side, combating a sinister force of evil.
And no one thinks twice about slaying orcs, right?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Take the Nazis, for example.

Rapier-like poignancy.
Democracy doesn't fix divisiveness. The majority get their way.
The deity coercion works if everyone is in the same club. But they aren't and the deities are very jealous.
The Golden Rule is powerful provided you believe you are essentially the same as others...something that I believe an acceptance of our natural history enforces.
What are your thoughts?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I see all moral statements as statements of like and dislike. The sentence "Murder is wrong." is actually "I don't like murder.". Any statement of this type is inherently subjective. Therefore, I think all moral statements are subjective.

Trying to attach objectivity to moral statements results in an endless series of "why" questions:

"Murder is wrong."
"Why is murder wrong?"
"Because of the harm it does to families."
"Why is harming families wrong?"
.
.
.

 

[quatona]

To me Objective morals are like saying, "THis is always right or always wrong 100% of the time." while subjective means this can be considered 0-98% of the time right or wrong, but there can always be a situation where it could be considered either moral, or at the least lesser of two evils.

matthewgar, whilst this may be a use- and meaningful distinction (which would be an interesting but separate discussion - see below), I don´t think this is what objective vs. subjective means (of course, you are free to redefine words as you see fit, but I think that simply ignoring the established definitions is not really helping a successful communication.
The distinction you describe is - traditionally, by the etymologically established meaning of the words, and in the philosophical discourse - not "objective vs. subjective" but "absolute vs. relative (or situational)".
Something that happens only sometimes still happens objectively, and independently of the subjective perception of the beholder.

So much for a mere semantics issue.

As for the distinction you have in mind: Personally I don´t think it makes much sense because it merely depends on the way you form the concept that´s being discussed. I´ll give you an example: Killing.
According to your distinction, everyone who does not condemn each and every killing (no matter the circumstances or the nature of the killed object) would be a moral relativist (or "subjectivist" in your terminology). Yet, hardly any of those who take comfort in calling themselves moral "absolutists" (or "objectivists", in your terminology) actually hold that view. Instead, they create a fine-tuned concept (e.g. "murder") in order to get the opportunity to call something "absolutely" (or "objectively", in your terminology) wrong. IOW, each supposedly "absolute" moral stance has always qualifications (an "...unless...") built into the concept used.

 

[quatona]

I see all moral statements as statements of like and dislike. The sentence "Murder is wrong." is actually "I don't like murder.". Any statement of this type is inherently subjective. Therefore, I think all moral statements are subjective.

Trying to attach objectivity to moral statements results in an endless series of "why" questions:

"Murder is wrong."
"Why is murder wrong?"
"Because of the harm it does to families."
"Why is harming families wrong?"
.
.
.

Exactly.
That´s, however, where claiming there to be an unquestionable authority (aka "god") really comes in handy: it doesn´t allow for a "why"-question.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Oh, I don't think that all ethical judgments can be reduced to a mere question of personal taste, as in: "I don't like murder".
People tend to conflate ethics (the "nuts and bolts" of social coexistence) with morality (specific "codes" that are perfectly subjective and - at least when watched from the outside - random).

It is true that there is no such thing as an universal morality - each and every culture had its own set of taboos, and even concepts we regard as absolutely anathema, such as cannibalism, are not universally condemned by all cultures throughout history. But there is only a limited number of possible configurations that will establish a sound foundation for a relatively peaceful and productive coexistence. Man is a social species.

 

[quatona]

Oh, I don't think that all ethical judgments can be reduced to a mere question of personal taste, as in: "I don't like murder".
People tend to conflate ethics (the "nuts and bolts" of social coexistence) with morality (specific "codes" that are perfectly subjective and - at least when watched from the outside - random).

It is true that there is no such thing as an universal morality - each and every culture had its own set of taboos, and even concepts we regard as absolutely anathema, such as cannibalism, are not universally condemned by all cultures throughout history. But there is only a limited number of possible configurations that will establish a sound foundation for a relatively peaceful and productive coexistence.

Sounds like you like peaceful and productive coexistence.

 

[matthewgar]

matthewgar, whilst this may be a use- and meaningful distinction (which would be an interesting but separate discussion - see below), I don´t think this is what objective vs. subjective means (of course, you are free to redefine words as you see fit, but I think that simply ignoring the established definitions is not really helping a successful communication.
The distinction you describe is - traditionally, by the etymologically established meaning of the words, and in the philosophical discourse - not "objective vs. subjective" but "absolute vs. relative (or situational)".
Something that happens only sometimes still happens objectively, and independently of the subjective perception of the beholder.

So much for a mere semantics issue.

As for the distinction you have in mind: Personally I don´t think it makes much sense because it merely depends on the way you form the concept that´s being discussed. I´ll give you an example: Killing.
According to your distinction, everyone who does not condemn each and every killing (no matter the circumstances or the nature of the killed object) would be a moral relativist (or "subjectivist" in your terminology). Yet, hardly any of those who take comfort in calling themselves moral "absolutists" (or "objectivists", in your terminology) actually hold that view. Instead, they create a fine-tuned concept (e.g. "murder") in order to get the opportunity to call something "absolutely" (or "objectively", in your terminology) wrong. IOW, each supposedly "absolute" moral stance has always qualifications (an "...unless...") built into the concept used.

Thing is what I said at first is what the Christians and such that have objective moral beliefs generally mean, something is always wrong no matter what, thats what THEY mean. Of course in practice none of them except for some extremists like with that 6-9 year old, actually follow that definition. While they might consider it a sin and still wrong, I would hope that no Christian would condemn someone for lying about hiding jews simply because they think lying is never right.