I’ve heard this claim before that it is not possible for atheists to have “objective moral beliefs” because many moral claims are based on religious authority, which atheists do not believe in.
Thus atheists are subjectivists when it comes to morality: each atheist may disagree with the other about what is moral. Obviously this opens atheists up to problems of disagreements, with some who might believe very conventionally “immoral” things are acceptable for them.
This is not of course to say that atheists may not choose to live lives that are some what “moral” (moral, as is often defined by religions)
So, what’s the status of the idea of “objective morality” and atheism?
its a dead end conversation. we have a base morality as defined by the zeitgeist. thats it. if you require some religious moral authority to act appropriately in our society you are broken .
I don’t see how moral beliefs based on religious authority could be considered “objective.”
I look at all the splintering of religions that resulted from moral disagreements and differing interpretations of their religious texts and don’t feel inclined to believe that morality derived from religion has any particular value in my world.
This is a slightly different discussion, but there’s nothing to prevent atheists splintering in disagreement as they have no commonly agreements with morality
and yet, you dont see factions of atheists murdering each other which seems to be a default feature of organized religion… hmmmmm
its almost like the ‘religious moral authority’ is far less stable than the ‘inherent social morality’
hmmm the Communists were atheistic so it does happen @jordanlund
There’s nothing to prevent religious people of doing the same either, even in the same religion you’ll have disagreements on what’s right or wrong.
You’re assuming that every atheist has a different morality but at the same time assume every believer of one religion have the same one.
“Because God says so” isn’t an objective basis - it’s a subjective basis in which the entity making the subjective appraisal has been elevated to a purportedly ultimate position.
The difference between “because God says so” and “because Jeff who lives down the street says so” isn’t one of kind, but merely one of (supposed) degree. God is simply treated as a more aithoritative source than Jeff, but that doesn’t somehow elevate God’s assertions to objectivity.
Well but so what’s to moderate disagreements between Atheist A who believes one thing is right versus Atheist B who believes some other opposite thing is right?
The same things that moderate disagreements between members of one religious sect that believes that God commanded that this is right and members of another religious sect that believes that God commanded otherwise - persuasion or force (and the latter either done directly or through a legal representative proxy).
There are no short cuts anywhere in morality - it all always comes down to what individuals believe, how many others share those beliefs and how far the believers are willing and able to go to force others to submit. Various approaches to it work better or worse in various settings and among various participants, but it’s all the same basic dynamic, always.
For example, it could come to be commonly held in a particular civilization that religious morality is inherently flawed - the claims made by an evil church, or even the claims made by a false god - and the only legitimate source of morality is human reason. And if that view was sufficiently widely held, then that would be the reality for that civilization.
And then it could even be the case that someone in that civilization could post on a message board one day, wondering how theists manage.
Super easy:
Murder is wrong because I don’t have the right to deprive someone of their life.
Theft is wrong because I don’t have the right to goods or services which I did not earn.
I could go on, but there’s no need to bring imaginary beings into morality. In fact, the least moral people appear to be religious.
So to illustrate the point maybe: are you saying atheists are generally in agreement abortion is wrong and that taxation is theft and all governments should be abolished?
If you’re reading this and agree please take the next logical step.
Animal slaughter is wrong because I don’t have the right to deprive someone of their life.
Animals aren’t “someone” and eating other animals is, and has been, part of the natural order of things since animals have existed.
I have been taught animals aren’t things, therefore they are not something but someone.
The relevant part is that they have their own conscious experience that you are negatively impacting by killing them, the same reason it is wrong to kill a human.
“The natural order of things” is not a guide for morality; lions rape each other, that is still immoral.
My moral system is based on what benefits me and thus society. The two are closely connected. Therefore if I want to navigate society with ease I try to make it easy to navigate too so someone else will feel better about making it easy to navigate for me.
Being antisocial is not logical because it burns the branch on which I stand. It gets me in trouble, it makes trouble easier to occur for me.
If I need to steal I will but I won’t do it just because. If I need to kill I will but I will hold out for long to seek alternative solution.
I think adhering to society and general morals is very beneficial for us all until the pros outweigh the cons.
