Can Atheists Have an Objective Morality?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Nin', Dec 15, 2008.

  1. Zap Facts > Opinions Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    326
    True. It is relative and subjective, but important nonetheless.

    However, I do not regard the subjective and objective as being mere poles, but a spectrum, from one to the other. In this regard I would assert that the morality of an atheist has the potential to be more objective than the morality of a theist.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No one can have an objective morality because not every situation can be accounted for. So, a set of rules must be general, an ideal that could be applicable only when the variables are clear. Reality often presents people with moral choices where there is no clear objective answer.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nin' Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    I'm not talking about moral absolutism, as in "Do not kill" in any situation whatsoever.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Which begs the question; Important to whom?

    Interesting. I would have said exactly the opposite! The theist has, usually, a basis for his morality. What does the atheist have as a basis?

    Baron Max
     
  8. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I don't know, Spider, I think we always know what the right thing is to do ....even if we sometimes hesitate to do it. I don't think that hesitation is any indication that we don't "know" what's right ....perhaps instinctively.

    Baron Max
     
  9. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    I differ slightly from the general opinion that morality is objective—but I agree that it is.

    Morality is a process that develops; it isn't something that suddenly drops out of the blue—although for the unimaginative, I suppose ethics do drop out of nowhere.

    So in as much as it’s a process, it’s a subjective one: one interacts interrogatively with a circumstance to determine its nature, its value, its potential—in other words, one develops a moral positioning towards a specific circumstance. The process itself of moralizing must therefore be a subjective one because one must determine for one's self.

    But here’s the catch. Once a moral is founded, admitted, and settled, it positions itself as an objective regulation serving to estimate, or prevent or pre-empt—somewhat like a reliable mute signpost by the roadway pointing neutrally in a specific direction.
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Objective would mean individuals don't have to think about it. I don't think every moral situation can be predicted so that no personal decision making is necessary. This choice is necessarily subjective.
     
  11. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    For everyone? Or just people in a particular society or culture or region?

    See? For morality to be objective, it must be the same for all mankind, in all parts of the world at the same time.

    Baron Max
     
  12. Nin' Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    An objective moral system can change depending on the context. For example, what James linked me to: Utilitarianism.
     
  13. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    It shouldn't matter in what type of soil the signposts are planted—once planted they act as objective signposts. But agreeing or disagreeing with another's morals returns one to the initial step of subjectively determining for oneself those moral values all over again—the process of recreating, or recycling, or abolishing formerly erected signposts. The geography changes, and new signposts are erected.
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053


    You missed the whole fuckin' point of my post!

    If Nation 'X' plants one of your "objective morality signposts", does taht mean that it's the same the world over? If not, then it ain't no "objective" any-fuckin'-thing! ...regardless of what you call it.

    Baron Max
     
  15. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    I didn't miss the whole fuckin' point of your post, silly—in fact, I thought you had missed the whole fuckin' point of mine,—and I just said that in the friendliest of ways.

    Nation X couldn't plant "one of my signposts" because Nation X is, quite simply, not me. Nation X would have to determine for itself whether or not they can read one of my signposts, no?

    However, in a way, you're correct. As a species, we all share certain traits, a common front that stretches back for thousands of millennium—morals based on these excruciatingly deep commonalities would be, for the most part, signposts planted in deeper strata—tested, tried, and true.

    So perhaps what you're pointing at are not signposts at all but people on the surface pointing in puzzling directions—and who can trust complete strangers, right?
     
  16. Zap Facts > Opinions Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    326
    To me. It is relative and subjective, after all.

    Note that I said the atheist only has more opportunity for a more objective morality than the theist - it is only an opportunity. If the atheist derives his morality from reasoning with the sincere aim of being objective, then his outcomes are favoured to be more objective than the theist who attempts the same, since the latter is obstructed by irrational premisses by definition, whereas the atheist is not necessarily so obstructed (but may be). It is likewise possible for a theist to suspend his theism in order to use non-supernatural premisses in value reasoning, but insofar as he does this, he would be an atheist for our purposes - the same with deists.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2008
  17. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Valuable.

    Mean.
     
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So why did you make it about atheists ?
     
  19. Nin' Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    Because I'm an atheist and I was wondering if I could have an objective moral system.
     
  20. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Fair enough Nin', but do note that, you've structured the original question in such a way as to be misleading and unclear.

    SAM, James and Sarkus have all provided correct answers to your question. Any remaining confusion is due to the vague OP.

    Are you concerned with the feasibility of specific approaches to Morality?
    Or are you concerned with the nature of Morality itself?

    The two questions are markedly different, and I would venture to say that the latter must be decided before attempting to answer the former.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Well, I think that to start thinking about a moral system, you need to work out several things:

    1. To whom are moral duties owed?
    2. What is good? (i.e. what is the aim of obeying moral principles?)
    3. Which principles or actions will best promote the good?

    The term "objective" in this context can have a range of different meanings for different people, as Zap pointed out.

    At one end of the spectrum is pure subjectivity, in which every single person has a single, personal set of morals, and no two people agree on any morals (or, if they do, it is only by coincidence). At the other end is "pure" objectivity, in which every person in the world is supposed to agree on all moral principles.

    Clearly, both extremes are contrary to experience and reason. But there is a middle ground, whereby most of the people, most of the time, agree on most moral issues. Such morals can't be considered "subjective" in the pure sense, nor can they be considered completely objective. Calling them one or the other is misleading.

    Total moral relativism is unworkable and contrary to experience. But it is not the only option once you decide that perfect objectivity is impossible. To claim that it is is to ignore the large middle-ground - an error that is very very common.

    This is a reasonable distillation of the middle way.

    Yes, and the "I" is pure subjectivity. The "we" is total objectivity. And somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

    They share the same basis: community, genetics, socialisation, education. There is a commonly-held illusion that Christians, say, get their morality from the bible. They don't. The extent to which their morality matches biblical morality is purely circumstantial, and most modern people don't match very closely anyway. Virtually all Christians break the 10 commandments, for example, all the time, so their morality can't be based on those.

    This is an example of falling into the fallacy of extremes that I referred to before.
     
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    To me, objective means I am not personally affected by the outcome. Morality to me is personal, not objective.

    I am very biased in my moral attitude, I do not have an and/or opinion.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Objectivity isn't about who is affected. Objectivity means you perceive things with a minimum amount of distortion due to personal feelings, desires, wishes or interpretation. It means people agree on the facts and act according to them.
     

Share This Page