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

[2PhiloVoid]

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 ...

 

[thecolorsblend]

I've noticed a reluctance among younger atheists to reject the idea of relative morality. If my personal experiences count for something, the trend among younger atheists is to acknowledge the concept of objective morality while claiming that organized religion warps and distorts natural morality.

Thus, they arrive at an explanation for why their morality is so drastically different than historical norms. It allows them to admit to having a morality quite different from traditional Christian morality while also accounting for the reason behind those differences.

I can only assume that atheists got fed up with being asked (by Christians) how atheists know that murder is wrong when they seemingly have no obvious reason to believe that.

 

[com7fy8]

Alex says he does not believe there is objective morality, "that a person should or should not act in a certain way." Even religious morals are subjective, he says; therefore it is impossible for there to be any sort of objective morality. By morality, he means what has to do with what really is good or is bad, I understand him to mean.

Well, I can see a simplicity. What is in God's love is good and moral, and this includes how "love does no harm to a neighbor," (in Romans 13:10). And I would say the morality of love involves God's objective rules, plus there are plenty of things which are moral simply because God has us doing them in His love. And I guess we could say something is subjectively moral if there is no direct rule requiring or forbidding it, and God has us do it.

Something is subjectively moral, because no objective rule specifically forbids or requires it, but God knows it is good for us to do and He has us doing it with Him in His love.

Even so . . . if I were to do the same thing, perhaps later, without God, this would not be moral. So, it is subjectively moral for me, personally, only if and when God has me doing the thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've noticed a reluctance among younger atheists to reject the idea of relative morality. If my personal experiences count for something, the trend among younger atheists is to acknowledge the concept of objective morality while claiming that organized religion warps and distorts natural morality.

Oh, I think your personal experience definitely counts for something here. I've experienced similar situations, particularly with Millennials, but also within my own Gen X crowd. Some of this oscillation might be due to the fact that many younger atheists are 'ex-Christians' who have been inculcated from two sides in their lives: one through their Church, and the other civically by way of various versions of 'rights' political philosophy.

Thus, they arrive at an explanation for why their morality is so drastically different than historical norms. It allows them to admit to having a morality quite different from traditional Christian morality while also accounting for the reason behind those differences.

Yeah, there is something to what you're saying here. A number of them seem to want their have their moral cake and eat it too, with their choice of frosting. As a Christian, I often have to admit that while I'd also like to have cake, I often just get to look at it without all of the ingesting and digesting; moreover, I didn't even know there were so many different colors of moral frosting one could ask for.

I can only assume that atheists got fed up with being asked (by Christians) how atheists know that murder is wrong when they seemingly have no obvious reason to believe that.

That could be. Then too, it could be this and an also instance where they got tired of being asked why they're not 'being moral' all the while objectively noticing that some folks among us Christians have been doing some less than morally savory things. .......... ..... I think somehow the idea of 'moral objectivity' has come to mean that if morality is real and substantive, there should also be some kind of consistent follow through with it. I often wonder, where did these young atheists ever get that idea?

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's almost as though the only thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in any gods.

For the record, Sam Harris is a dumbdumb doodyhead.

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

Morality doesn't really even exist under the atheistic world view. Without God there would really be nothing "right" or "wrong" about anything. There's no law of physics that says that murder is wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's almost as though the only thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in any gods.

For the record, Sam Harris is a dumbdumb doodyhead.

Is that an objective surmisal on your part about atheists, or a subjective one, Essentialsaltes?

But seriously, if we look at what you've said here in relation to the OP, what might be some objective moral implications about atheists that we can draw out?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Morality doesn't really even exist under the atheistic world view. Without God there would really be nothing "right" or "wrong" about anything. There's no law of physics that says that murder is wrong.

While it's true that what we Christians consider to be morality more fully expressed as a set of divine directive or principles for human conduct often doesn't exist within some atheistic viewpoints, I don't think it's also true to say that simply being an atheist precludes the having of a substantial Ethical view, even a view that offers more than just a form of hedonism.

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

While it's true that what we Christians consider to be morality more fully expressed as a set of divine directive or principles for human conduct often doesn't exist within some atheistic viewpoints, I don't think it's also true to say that simply being an atheist absolutely precludes the having of a substantial Ethical view, even one that offers more than a form of hedonism.

Sure but the only reason atheists don't murder is because they don't want to face the consequences. They can't say that murder is truly "wrong" in an absolute sense. It's a warped world view.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They can't say that murder is truly "wrong" in an absolute sense. It's a warped world view.

Neither can I say that Brussels sprouts taste 'nasty' in an absolute sense. I can only say they taste nasty in the only sense that matters to me, viz. they taste nasty to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure but the only reason atheists don't murder is because they don't want to face the consequences. They can't say that murder is truly "wrong" in an absolute sense. It's a warped world view.

Actually, what each individual atheist decides about "murder" will be a composite of various cognitive, emotional, and perceptual nuances arising out of their respective brain states along with their ethical understandings and various psychological motivations. Moreover, I'd be more prone to say that the personal Worldview of any one atheist may or may not play into his conceptualization about the immoral nature of "murder."

I don't think you're wholly wrong, BibleBeliever1611, and while I can't say I know your mind, I think I more or less understand where you're coming from. Would it be safe for me to say that you seem to be indicating that the typical atheist has a difficult time in establishing empirically verifiable and objective conclusions about morality, conclusions that hit upon something ontologically Absolute? And with this being the case, they can flounder in presenting something to the rest of us that seems overtly compelling morally?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sure but the only reason atheists don't murder is because they don't want to face the consequences.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Neither can I say that Brussels sprouts taste 'nasty' in an absolute sense. I can only say they taste nasty in the only sense that matters to me, viz. they taste nasty to me.

But we ALL KNOW that the taste of Brussels sprouts can depend up the recipe used to prepare them......and how proficiently one has cleaned them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

That's all good to know, ES, but you left out one good reason: the inconvenience of it all, as seen in the following incidental situation :

As usual, this is just a sad apologetic that without signing up for religion brand X, people would be monstrous villains.

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

As usual, this is just a sad apologetic that without signing up for religion brand X, people would be monstrous villains.

Maybe not monstrous villains, but sinful people who make society a hellhole.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

Not so much that, I think. Murder and stealing are just straw men. The real problem with atheist moral systems is that they are not so likely to condemn the "sins of the flesh" which are so important to many theists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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 ...

Yes.

 

[Moral Orel]

Is Alex right in saying that Sam is wrong about the nature of human morality? Well, watch the video and decide for yourself.

Alex is right, and he says all the same stuff I've been saying on this subject around here for years. So I guess I'm as smart as an Oxford grad. Who knew? Aww... Who am I kidding. I knew.

 

[FireDragon76]

While it's true that what we Christians consider to be morality more fully expressed as a set of divine directive or principles for human conduct often doesn't exist within some atheistic viewpoints, I don't think it's also true to say that simply being an atheist precludes the having of a substantial Ethical view, even a view that offers more than just a form of hedonism.

Obeying someone merely because they give you a command or a directive isn't moral at all. After all, that was the excuse used by substantial numbers of defendants at Nurenberg. So I very much disagree with the notion that Christian morality as you articulate it is superior.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not so much that, I think. Murder and stealing are just straw men. The real problem with atheist moral systems is that they are not so likely to condemn the "sins of the flesh" which are so important to many theists.

"Sins of the flesh" are all about regulating women's bodies or denigrating women in general, within a patriarchal social structure.