• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Morality and Atheism

You're just making statements. I said "if there is objective" and you're like OMG WTFBBQ THERE ISN'T!!one!!one!!!111.


I'm making comparisons of your argument to an equally unfounded and unprovable argument. Never had an outburst like that either : /


All I'm saying is that what you're claiming is proof isn't proof. It doesn't rule out objective morality, it just demonstrates that humans can be assholes.


Ok, how is it not proof? To say 'humans can be assholes' actually gives credence to the argument for no objective morality....

Second, what would proof would you need to rule out objective morality? Should be a simple answer.
 
Ok, how is it not proof?

You're not arguing against any sort of base. You are not demonstrating how it is impossible for there to be objective morality. All you're showing is that if there is objective morality, people are capable of acting counter to it. Which is a "no duh" sort of statement.

To say 'humans can be assholes' actually gives credence to the argument for no objective morality....

No, it doesn't. Not in the least.

Second, what would proof would you need to rule out objective morality? Should be a simple answer.

That the dynamic of objective morality, that the base of all humans are human, is a false statement. If you can show that all humans are not human, then there can be no objective morality.
 
Even with agreed upon morality ... you don't get progress, all you have is a bunch of people that have similar ideas, if 98 people like chocolate and 2 like vanilla, that doesn't mean someone else liking chocolate is "better" or "worse" even though the majority happen to like chocolate.

Progress is determined by society adhering to the agreed upon the morality.

If there is an objective morality, even if we don't have a perfect understanding, it's at least possible to make a philosophy about it, and find out what it is and talk about moral progress.

It's not possible to make a philosophy based on that which is impossible to understand. We can only base our philosophy on our subjectively derived guesses as to what that objective morality might be, as we have no way of determining what it actually includes prior to developing the philosophy. When we pretend to be operating form an objective morality, what we are really doing is hoping that our guesses are hitting the mark, but we have no way of determining if they are or not.
 
Objective morality is very easy. And it doesn't require an external source.

People don't like to suffer. No one likes to suffer. Even masochists don't like to suffer. They just suffer at different things than other people do. Universally, no one likes to suffer. Morality is that which takes us away from suffering. A moral act is one that reduces suffering, an immoral act is one that increases it. And I mean suffering on a wide scale, not just the actor's personal suffering. It is a moral act to take on suffering to alleviate suffering in many others. It is an immoral act to inflict suffering on others to alleviate your own.

I'm actually stunned to see you, Pasch, taking this side of the argument, given all of your previous posts I have read and liked.

I understand what you say about suffering and not suffering as a sort of measuring stick for morality, as I have used that argument before to get religious people to see that you don't need religion to be moral or immoral. Here is the perfect example of how morality is not objective:

I made a thread about euthanasia. I argued endlessly about human suffering and how doctor assisted death as a means to end that suffering if the patient so wished, is a moral act. I got tons of replies about it being 'immoral,' and in some cases people said it would be cause for conviction of murder.

In response, I made a hypothetical comparison to this situation:

You and a friend are hiking. You come across a bear. The bear gets a hold of your friend at the base of the tree which you have climbed for safety. The bear is savagely mauling your friend. Your friend is experiencing unimaginable suffering, and begging for you to shoot him. You have a gun, and can end his suffering. Do you take the shot?

The replies were less than satisfying, as they did not have a proper counter argument to show the immorality of ending the friend's suffering. The fact that people disagree even on that hypothetical situation, implies that morality is very subjective. The same can be said of abortion and the stances on it as well, among many others. Perspectives on morality vary greatly, and always will.


No, that just means that the concept of the age of consent is not a part of universal morality. The idea of consent is. Morality is not rules that govern our every action. Morality is the values and mindset that inform those rules.

So, where it is morally right for the parents of young people to arrange their marriage, and the children feel pain and suffering as a result, is this moral or immoral? Note, the parents of these children view this as a moral act. It does not matter why, only that they do.
 
First of all, agreed upon by who and how many? Two people? 51% of the population? Everybody? Some blurry "i-know-it-when-i-see-it" number?

That depends on the particular society. The people who do not conform to a societies morality, however, are ostracized from that society (by being placed in prisons, for example). While not everyone may fully agree with the shared morality, they must at least conform to it in order to remain a part of that society.

Second of all, why is "agreed upon" a defining characteristic of progress?

Because "progress" is ultimately a subjective endeavor to begin with. One could make individual determinations of progress, but they only carry weight when applied at the pseudo-objective level of "agreed upon" morality.


If, tomorrow, most people woke up believing that slavery should be reinstated, would you consider that progress?

Would I consider it "progress"? No. But I do not agree with their morality. From their perspective, however, it would be progress. Progress is no more objectively defined than morality is.

Thirdly, wouldn't your definition imply there has never been progress?

Yes and no. Subjectively, I and others who agree with my basis for morality can note progress as it is subjectively defined. Objectively, there is no such thing as moral "progress", or even if we assume that an objective morality did exist, there would be no way to measure progression and regression as there is no way to determine what that objective morality is.

Wasn't there as much agreement on morality of, say, the 1600s in the 1600s as there is agreement on morality of today today? So, how can you say that we have progressed since the 1600s? How can you be sure we haven't regressed?

We can only measure progress, in a moral sense, with our own moral beliefs. If we are part of the agreed upon morality our society employs, then we can measure progress in a pseudo-objective fashion (it's more accurately described as "shared subjectivity", but it has the appearance of objectivity to the individual, hence my choice of term with pseudo-objective).
 
You're not arguing against any sort of base. You are not demonstrating how it is impossible for there to be objective morality. All you're showing is that if there is objective morality, people are capable of acting counter to it. Which is a "no duh" sort of statement.

I am arguing 'against a base.' The only flailing attempt to measure morality is the classic 'suffering vs not suffering' argument. A child raised in US culture would suffer from the Papua New Guinea customs, where as a child raised New Guinea culture does not. Since suffering is not objective, morality also cannot be.

There are a lot of people who TRULY believe homosexuality is immoral. Should you judge them for their beliefs? Would you say they are less moral than you? Because they would say you are less moral than them if you support homosexual civil rights. This is the perfect example of subjective morality.



No, it doesn't. Not in the least.


Is this really your rebuttal?


That the dynamic of objective morality, that the base of all humans are human, is a false statement. If you can show that all humans are not human, then there can be no objective morality.

Please repeat this in a less drunken-Yoda type of way.
 
I am arguing 'against a base.' The only flailing attempt to measure morality is the classic 'suffering vs not suffering' argument. A child raised in US culture would suffer from the Papua New Guinea customs, where as a child raised New Guinea culture does not. Since suffering is not objective, morality also cannot be.

There are a lot of people who TRULY believe homosexuality is immoral. Should you judge them for their beliefs? Would you say they are less moral than you? Because they would say you are less moral than them if you support homosexual civil rights. This is the perfect example of subjective morality.

If there is an objective base it doesn't mean all concepts of morality follow that base, nor does it mean that all humans MUST obey the base.

Is this really your rebuttal?

Nothing else is needed, you did not demonstrate what you thought you demonstrated.

Please repeat this in a less drunken-Yoda type of way.

All humans are human is the basis of objective morality. If that is not true, then you can show that objective morality cannot exist.
 
To begin, this is my first post and I might as well share my particular views before I begin.
I am an atheist in the sense of personal gods but I have yet to make up my mind about an all pervasive force in the universe that can not be defined. But, this discussion is not about whether or not atheism is right or wrong. In fact, I would like the mention of gods, deities, or anything else of that nature to not come up here.
Secondly, I hold that morality is a construct of society and relative.

So, without holding off the topic further...

Atheism and morality. Because of the lack of a higher "law", can we say that there is an objective morality?

If there is not an objective morality, can we sustain that cultural morality is a valid basis for morality?
If there is an objective morality, where does it come from? (I will debate against this, but I would like to see arguments for it).
If you hold that not only is there not an objective morality, but that relative morality is irrelevant, please expand on your topic.
If you hold a fourth stance, please explain.

Nihilists, Solipsists, and other hyper-radical or non-falsifiable philosophical viewpoints need not respond.

just gonna through some facts out there and general statments out there

to have morals and or ethics a belief in god is not required.

Both people of religion and not religion have morals and ethic.

Morals and ethics are factually subjective, always have been and always will be.

They are INFLUENCED by things, religion, up bringing, society, culture, personal opinions etc but they are subjective.

Some groups have similar morals or the same BASIC foundation but they instantly change for situation to situation.

so on to your questions:

1.)can we say that there is an objective morality?
no we can not say as a whole or a blanket statement that there is an objective morality because that would be 100% false.

2.)If there is not an objective morality, can we sustain that cultural morality is a valid basis for morality?
yes and no, it varies from what person you ask in that cultral so again even cultural morality is totally subjective so there no way to define it.

3.)If there is an objective morality, where does it come from?
theres not

4.)If you hold that not only is there not an objective morality, but that relative morality is irrelevant, please expand on your topic.
well we have already established that there isnt an objective morality so that cant make anything else irrelevant since it doesnt exist.

But in general only morals that are enforced by law are semi-relevant (because they could effect you)
all others are only relevant to the person that believes in them
 
If there is an objective base it doesn't mean all concepts of morality follow that base, nor does it mean that all humans MUST obey the base.


First you ask me to provide a base, and when I do, you say the base doesn't matter?....


Nothing else is needed, you did not demonstrate what you thought you demonstrated.


Oh really? And what have you demonstrated, other than your over-inflated opinion, to the contrary?

All humans are human is the basis of objective morality. If that is not true, then you can show that objective morality cannot exist.

All humans are human is the basis of objective morality???.... Not a very strong, nor well thought out argument.

All humans must breathe, eat / drink, sleep, and excrete waste. Those are objective human needs. All humans are human, therefore we all need to do those things. We don't however, all support homosexuality as moral, even though all humans are human.... I'm trying to speak to your argument but I keep wondering exaclty what it is....
 
First you ask me to provide a base, and when I do, you say the base doesn't matter?....

You didn't provide a base. You provided an argument that doesn't rule out the possibility of objective morality existing.

Oh really? And what have you demonstrated, other than your over-inflated opinion, to the contrary?

I have demonstrated that you did not show what it was that you thought you showed.

All humans are human is the basis of objective morality???.... Not a very strong, nor well thought out argument.

All humans must breathe, eat / drink, sleep, and excrete waste. Those are objective human needs. All humans are human, therefore we all need to do those things.

Exactly, and this common basis for humanity is where natural rights come from.

We don't however, all support homosexuality as moral, even though all humans are human.... I'm trying to speak to your argument but I keep wondering exaclty what it is....

Of course not. As I said, even assuming that objective morality does exist, it doesn't mean that there are not subjective components to the larger set of "morals", nor does it mean that humans are unable to act counter to that objective base.
 
I'm actually stunned to see you, Pasch, taking this side of the argument, given all of your previous posts I have read and liked.

I understand what you say about suffering and not suffering as a sort of measuring stick for morality, as I have used that argument before to get religious people to see that you don't need religion to be moral or immoral. Here is the perfect example of how morality is not objective:

I made a thread about euthanasia. I argued endlessly about human suffering and how doctor assisted death as a means to end that suffering if the patient so wished, is a moral act. I got tons of replies about it being 'immoral,' and in some cases people said it would be cause for conviction of murder.

In response, I made a hypothetical comparison to this situation:

You and a friend are hiking. You come across a bear. The bear gets a hold of your friend at the base of the tree which you have climbed for safety. The bear is savagely mauling your friend. Your friend is experiencing unimaginable suffering, and begging for you to shoot him. You have a gun, and can end his suffering. Do you take the shot?

The replies were less than satisfying, as they did not have a proper counter argument to show the immorality of ending the friend's suffering. The fact that people disagree even on that hypothetical situation, implies that morality is very subjective. The same can be said of abortion and the stances on it as well, among many others. Perspectives on morality vary greatly, and always will.

On the contrary. The situation you're describing is a judgement call. Morality isn't about which call to make, but rather how to make the decision. It will cause your friend suffering not to shoot. It will cause you suffering to shoot. Not sure why I didn't shoot the bear before he got my friend, but that's not really the issue. If you approach the question not in terms of absolute rules, but instead about trying to determine which option will cause the least suffering, then you'll probably make the moral choice. Which choice that is varies from person to person. Morality isn't about which choice you make. It's about how you make the choice. Which, of course, will determine which choice you make. Morality is the process, not the result.

So, where it is morally right for the parents of young people to arrange their marriage, and the children feel pain and suffering as a result, is this moral or immoral? Note, the parents of these children view this as a moral act. It does not matter why, only that they do.

It is moral if the alternative would cause more suffering. And it very much DOES matter why. Morality is based on the why. It is a mindset, not a list of rules.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary. The situation you're describing is a judgement call. Morality isn't about which call to make, but rather how to make the decision. It will cause your friend suffering not to shoot. It will cause you suffering to shoot. Not sure why I didn't shoot the bear before he got my friend, but that's not really the issue. If you approach the question not in terms of absolute rules, but instead about trying to determine which option will cause the least suffering, then you'll probably make the moral choice. Which choice that is varies from person to person. Morality isn't about which choice you make. It's about how you make the choice. Which, of course, will determine which choice you make. Morality is the process, not the result.



So there is no morally objective decision to make, because morality is not objective, it is a process of choices presented and choices made... which always varies. How is that in any way remotely objective???


It is moral if the alternative would cause more suffering. And it very much DOES matter why. Morality is based on the why. It is a mindset, not a list of rules.

It sounds like what you're saying is for every choice between 2 actions, there is always a more moral action to be made. So morality is based on actions and events and is subjective to the circumstances of the act, or the 'why.' So it's not a list of rules (which would be objective), rather, it's subjective to your mindset given the situation.
 
You didn't provide a base. You provided an argument that doesn't rule out the possibility of objective morality existing.


Lol.... I did provide a base - suffering vs not suffering. The fact that suffering is also subjective and varies with circumstance, which I have demonstrated, rules out objective morality. How are you not understanding this?


I have demonstrated that you did not show what it was that you thought you showed.


You have disagreed, that is all. Now, if you believe in objective morality, provide a well thought out argument. Maybe PM Paschendale and ask for help.



Exactly, and this common basis for humanity is where natural rights come from.


Natural rights???.... Established by whom? Those aren't rights in nature, they are needs. Rights only exist in the confines of human intelligence.


Of course not. As I said, even assuming that objective morality does exist, it doesn't mean that there are not subjective components to the larger set of "morals", nor does it mean that humans are unable to act counter to that objective base.

So you are defending an assumption with phantom punches and excuses....
 
So there is no morally objective decision to make, because morality is not objective, it is a process of choices presented and choices made... which always varies. How is that in any way remotely objective???

I'll try to make this as simple as possible.

Morality is an objective method for making subjective choices. The objective method is to choose whatever outcome will most reduce suffering.

You're also conflating the idea that people can be wrong in their decisions with a subjectivity to the standard. People can do the immoral thing and pick the option that creates suffering. Or incorrectly evaluate which option is the most moral. I never said people were perfect at making decisions. I am only saying what the standard by which they should make those decisions is. And it is an objective standard.

It sounds like what you're saying is for every choice between 2 actions, there is always a more moral action to be made. So morality is based on actions and events and is subjective to the circumstances of the act, or the 'why.' So it's not a list of rules (which would be objective), rather, it's subjective to your mindset given the situation.

A set of rules would be arbitrary, which the suffering standard would not be. And rules would likely be the subjective views of the rulemaker, which would not be subject to an objective standard. The only way that god given morality could be any better than a Hitler given morality is if you assume the proposition that god is objective and moral by definition, which I think is a bad assumption to make, given the obvious flaws in god given rules.

There is always a more moral action to take, yes. Or possibly the options are equal. Possible, but unlikely. The suffering standard is how you determine which is the more moral action.

On second thought, I'd like to call this something other than "the suffering standard". That's an awfully downbeat name.
 
Lol.... I did provide a base - suffering vs not suffering. The fact that suffering is also subjective and varies with circumstance, which I have demonstrated, rules out objective morality. How are you not understanding this?

Because it doesn't say what you think it says. Some "suffering" can be subjective; there's certainly a large world of first world problems that are not all that problematic on the whole. But that doesn't mean there isn't an absolute to "suffering", that there isn't objective suffering. It just means there are other forms of "suffering" which simultaneously exist. You've never ruled out the objective. You have merely shown that the subjective also exists. Great. But you haven't accomplished what you think you've accomplished. Subjective stuff existing does not mean there is no objective base.

You have disagreed, that is all. Now, if you believe in objective morality, provide a well thought out argument. Maybe PM Paschendale and ask for help.

I have disagreed and demonstrated that you have not ruled out objective bases from existence. Sorry.
Natural rights???.... Established by whom? Those aren't rights in nature, they are needs. Rights only exist in the confines of human intelligence.

Exactly, as Kant has well argued, natural rights are born from intelligence. We have the ability to understand natural rights.


So you are defending an assumption with phantom punches and excuses....

I'm not defending an assumption, I'm saying that you have not demonstrated that the objective cannot exist.
 
Lol.... I did provide a base - suffering vs not suffering. The fact that suffering is also subjective and varies with circumstance, which I have demonstrated, rules out objective morality. How are you not understanding this?

That's my base, not yours, and you have ruled out no such thing. All you have done is fail to understand my point.

You have disagreed, that is all. Now, if you believe in objective morality, provide a well thought out argument. Maybe PM Paschendale and ask for help.

Actually, Ikari is spot on. You did not meet a burden of proof. You are suggesting that because individual standards of objective morality fail, all such standards must fail. That is a flawed argument. Ikari is saying that objective standards can exist, and that we find them in the universal elements of human nature. I am agreeing with that 100% and demonstrating which of those elements give rise to an objective standard.[/QUOTE]
 
To begin, this is my first post and I might as well share my particular views before I begin.
I am an atheist in the sense of personal gods but I have yet to make up my mind about an all pervasive force in the universe that can not be defined. But, this discussion is not about whether or not atheism is right or wrong. In fact, I would like the mention of gods, deities, or anything else of that nature to not come up here.
Secondly, I hold that morality is a construct of society and relative.

So, without holding off the topic further...

Atheism and morality. Because of the lack of a higher "law", can we say that there is an objective morality?

If there is not an objective morality, can we sustain that cultural morality is a valid basis for morality?
If there is an objective morality, where does it come from? (I will debate against this, but I would like to see arguments for it).
If you hold that not only is there not an objective morality, but that relative morality is irrelevant, please expand on your topic.
If you hold a fourth stance, please explain.

Nihilists, Solipsists, and other hyper-radical or non-falsifiable philosophical viewpoints need not respond.

I like how you want to argue something and then tell specific people not to share their viewpoint. Kudos.

Anyway, whether or not there is a "god" doesn't really validate objective morality anyway. Different cultures all over the world have various degrees of morality - they all think their's is (presumably) correct. My stance is there is no morality / no ethics. Your choice is your moral compass. Do what you want and how you want to.
 
That's my base, not yours, and you have ruled out no such thing. All you have done is fail to understand my point.

It is not 'your' base. Most people who argue about morality bring up suffering as a base, as I have in other threads and even cited books (The Moral Landscape - Sam Harris). Also, it is just a base for an attempt at measuring morality.

I do not understand how you think there is an objective morality. Who is to define what is the utmost of moral behaviors? You? Ikari?...God?

The fact that definitions of morality vary so greatly among people is evidence enough that morality is subjective and relative. It's as simple as that.



Actually, Ikari is spot on. You did not meet a burden of proof. You are suggesting that because individual standards of objective morality fail, all such standards must fail. That is a flawed argument. Ikari is saying that objective standards can exist, and that we find them in the universal elements of human nature. I am agreeing with that 100% and demonstrating which of those elements give rise to an objective standard.

The burden of proof is on you. You are the one claiming the existence of something, and you need extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Just as the believers of God bear the burden, so do you.

If objective standards exist, who is going to find and define them? And if you are so sure they exist, name one universal element of human nature and an objective morality pertaining to that element. We can hopefully rule out killing people, though some may believe it is moral to do so given the circumstance.
 
Subjective stuff existing does not mean there is no objective base.

If you are so confident there is an objective base, define it for me then. Using suffering here would be an obvious cop out, as we have already hashed it out. Define it as if you were writing a script for a civilization of robots to follow. Let's see it.

If you have no clue, do not resort to telling ME to demonstrate what YOU are claiming in some desperate deflection of responsibility.
 
If you are so confident there is an objective base, define it for me then. Using suffering here would be an obvious cop out, as we have already hashed it out. Define it as if you were writing a script for a civilization of robots to follow. Let's see it.

If you have no clue, do not resort to telling ME to demonstrate what YOU are claiming in some desperate deflection of responsibility.

You hear nothing that is said. The claim I am making is that you have not offered sufficient proof to conclude that objective morality cannot exist. And I have well demonstrated that.
 
You hear nothing that is said. The claim I am making is that you have not offered sufficient proof to conclude that objective morality cannot exist. And I have well demonstrated that.

Demonstrated that objective morality can exist?
 
You hear nothing that is said. The claim I am making is that you have not offered sufficient proof to conclude that objective morality cannot exist. And I have well demonstrated that.

Omg I knew you would....

What a disappointment.
 
Demonstrated that objective morality can exist?

It could, there's no basis through which it can be ruled out. But no, that wasn't what I was proving. K=P claimed that he had proven that objective morality did not exist; I merely pointed out that he in fact did no such thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom