• 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

D

DouglasPocock

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
10
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
DouglasPocock said:
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.
Click to expand...

Uh... just so you know, you're a nihilist, dude.

Nihilism is not what the "one true morality" dogmatists would have you believe -- the mopey emo "it doesn't matter anyway" mental cutters of philosophy. Look it up before you insult yourself.

Nihilists simply claim one or both of two things: that there is no objective morality, and/or that human life has no ultimate meaning to anything outside humanity. You are the former at the very least, as per your own post.

Now, with that out of the way...

I am both a moral and an existential nihilist, and I don't think morality SHOULD be "sustained." I think it should be constantly changing, updated, and improved. As we can see from history (and I'm sure future humans will say the same of us), our cultural morality is a work in progress, and we make serious errors all the time.

The fluidity of morality makes us upwardly mobile in terms of our ethics and the justness of our societies.

Ethics and morality in humans is really pretty straightforward to explain. You see a basic example of the same thing in all social mammals.

We're built to work together, and we have an interest in doing so as productively as we can. We come equip with neurological tools to help us understand what being someone else might feel like, and so as we come to utilize it better, we consider more seriously how we affect others.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Uh... just so you know, you're a nihilist, dude.

Nihilism is not what the "one true morality" dogmatists would have you believe -- the mopey emo "it doesn't matter anyway" mental cutters of philosophy. Look it up before you insult yourself.

Nihilists simply claim one or both of two things: that there is no objective morality, and/or that human life has no ultimate meaning to anything outside humanity. You are the former at the very least, as per your own post.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong, it's not that human life has no meaning to anything outside humanity, human life has no meaning PERIOD, humans being valuble to humanity is an objective value, you can say human are sometimes contingantly valueble to other individual humans for whatever reasons, but not humanity.

Now, with that out of the way...

I am both a moral and an existential nihilist, and I don't think morality SHOULD be "sustained." I think it should be constantly changing, updated, and improved. As we can see from history (and I'm sure future humans will say the same of us), our cultural morality is a work in progress, and we make serious errors all the time.
Click to expand...

You can't say morality is improved, because you'd need a way of measuring if morality has improved or degraded ... that would require an objective morality.

Nor can you say there are errors, because for a moral error you'd need some objective way of measuring it.

The fluidity of morality makes us upwardly mobile in terms of our ethics and the justness of our societies.
Click to expand...

Again ... You're not a nihilist, since you think there is progress in ethics and justness, thus assuming there is an objective measure of ethics ... also since when would a nihilist thing "justice" is good ... there is no good, nor bad.

Ethics and morality in humans is really pretty straightforward to explain. You see a basic example of the same thing in all social mammals.
Click to expand...

Those arn't ethics, that's just social behavior, if a monkey decides he's oging to act against those evolutionary behaviors, that is'nt progress or digress, it's nothing, since there is no ethical value.

We're built to work together, and we have an interest in doing so as productively as we can. We come equip with neurological tools to help us understand what being someone else might feel like, and so as we come to utilize it better, we consider more seriously how we affect others.
Click to expand...

Thats fine ... But that isn't talking about ethics, that is talking about evolutionary psychology.
 
Ethics is not incompatible with nihilism. It just means ethics cannot be claimed to be objectively true.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Ethics is not incompatible with nihilism. It just means ethics cannot be claimed to be objectively true.
Click to expand...

Then they are not ethics ... other than just personal choice.

But without objective morality, you cannot talk about progress ... human value, upward mobility, error and so on.
 
RGacky3 said:
Then they are not ethics ... other than just personal choice.

But without objective morality, you cannot talk about progress ... human value, upward mobility, error and so on.
Click to expand...

Sure you can; it just isn't necessarily objectively true.

But on the level of practical philosophy, whether or not something is objectively true is irrelevant. It's about living your life.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Sure you can; it just isn't necessarily objectively true.

But on the level of practical philosophy, whether or not something is objectively true is irrelevant. It's about living your life.
Click to expand...

But then there is no progress ... human value, error and upward mobility.

All you can say is its' good for me or not.

The morality of slavery and genocide are the exact same as the morality of care and equality when it comes down to it.
 
RGacky3 said:
But then there is no progress ... human value, error and upward mobility.

All you can say is its' good for me or not.

The morality of slavery and genocide are the exact same as the morality of care and equality when it comes down to it.
Click to expand...

Dude, I just explained this to you. Try it again.
 
RGacky3 said:
But without objective morality, you cannot talk about progress ... human value, upward mobility, error and so on.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that idea from?

Progress does not require objective morality, it requires agreed upon morality. Even if such a thing existed as "objective morality", no human exists that would be capable of having a perfect understanding of it. So even if it does exist, every human has, at best, a subjective interpretation of it.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Dude, I just explained this to you. Try it again.
Click to expand...

Ok, but you can say morality for you .... but that isn't ethics, thats just personal preferences ... ethics are things people ought to do or ought NOT to do.

So saying things like

"I am both a moral and an existential nihilist, and I don't think morality SHOULD be "sustained." I think it should be constantly changing, updated, and improved. As we can see from history (and I'm sure future humans will say the same of us), our cultural morality is a work in progress, and we make serious errors all the time."

Makes no sense, any more than saying "peoples taste in music has improved," also there CAN BE NO errors, if one era has something we consider morally objectionable, it really isn't, there is nothing objectional about it, other than you don't personally like it.

or

"The fluidity of morality makes us upwardly mobile in terms of our ethics and the justness of our societies. "

There IS no upward mobility ... because there is no "up" to go to, you can say "I personally like the vlues of our society now." But thats meaningless to anyone else.
 
Tucker Case said:
Where did you get that idea from?

Progress does not require objective morality, it requires agreed upon morality. Even if such a thing existed as "objective morality", no human exists that would be capable of having a perfect understanding of it. So even if it does exist, every human has, at best, a subjective interpretation of it.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Uh... just so you know, you're a nihilist, dude.

Nihilism is not what the "one true morality" dogmatists would have you believe -- the mopey emo "it doesn't matter anyway" mental cutters of philosophy. Look it up before you insult yourself.

Nihilists simply claim one or both of two things: that there is no objective morality,
Click to expand...

I know well what the definition of Nihilism is, and you are mistaken. Using your first of two, different definitions of what a nihilist is, I will define what a "moral relativist" is. So, we have that minor change in your language because the same word can not have two separate definitions.

You can not claim to be a nihilist, as you do, and make any should/could/would/ought claims and have anyone take you seriously. You are a moral relativist, welcome to the club. I suggest you read up on it before you continue.

Now that definitions are out of the way. Again, please look up definitions before you use them as I stated in the OP.

---

On the note of personal choice, I don't believe that they have any moral foundations unless we change the working definition of morality. Because, I can do whatever I want through personal choice and not harm any of my morals, supposing that I held any in this instance.

So, if I am in a society that follows a moral and cultural norm, and I obligated to follow the rules of my society?
And, if I choose to act against the accepted morals of my society, and I claim to be a "nihilist" and not understand the definition, am I obligated to act along the moral lines of society because of the concept of utilitarianism?
 
So, it looks like we won;t be getting any arguments for objective morality here on this thread. Seems likely that we won't get any reasonable arguments, but if we do, please discuss.

On moral relativism, and supposing that either individuals or society determine morality. (If this is debatable seriously, please argue).
If my morality is different than yours in a way that can be compromised, whose responsibility, if there is one, is it to oversee how it should be changed. Should society manage it? And, more importantly, if society has determined a morality that an individual has agreed to act as while in society, are they obligated, by society to follow those morals while alone or with others who share morality.

For brevity: If I am alone or with like-minded relative moralists, should I act differently than I normally would in a compromised moral society?
 
Tucker Case said:
Where did you get that idea from?

Progress does not require objective morality, it requires agreed upon morality.
Click to expand...

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?

Second of all, why is "agreed upon" a defining characteristic of progress? If, tomorrow, most people woke up believing that slavery should be reinstated, would you consider that progress?

Thirdly, wouldn't your definition imply there has never been progress? 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? Or not -gressed at all? It seems to me we need an objective yard stick to claim that morality of today has "progressed" relative to morality of the past.

Tucker Case said:
Even if such a thing existed as "objective morality", no human exists that would be capable of having a perfect understanding of it. So even if it does exist, every human has, at best, a subjective interpretation of it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. No one has ever solved the is-ought problem.
 
DouglasPocock said:
Atheism and morality. Because of the lack of a higher "law", can we say that there is an objective morality?
Click to expand...

Yes, you may develop objective morality through philosophy and the understanding of natural rights.
 
DouglasPocock said:
So, it looks like we won;t be getting any arguments for objective morality here on this thread. Seems likely that we won't get any reasonable arguments, but if we do, please discuss.
Click to expand...

You won't get any arguments, because there are not any logically sustainable arguments to be made for the case of objective morality. The last 2 pages of posts have proven that morality is purely subjective and relative. Travel to a foreign country and you will find out immediately just how subjective and relative morality is. That is not saying morality in the US is 'superior' to morality in any other country, because, as people have mentioned before, saying this would imply an ability to measure morality, which is not possible. A nihilistic point of view is truly the only objective view to be had on this issue. The others would be moral relativism, and of course, the wacky religious view of morality that most likely would not even warrant a response.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, you may develop objective morality through philosophy and the understanding of natural rights.
Click to expand...

Personal objectivity is not truly objective, for it is subjective and relative to everyone else.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Travel to a foreign country and you will find out immediately just how subjective and relative morality is.
Click to expand...

That's not actually proof that there isn't objective morality.
 
Knowledge=power said:
Personal objectivity is not truly objective, for it is subjective and relative to everyone else.
Click to expand...

Don't be daft, I'm not talking "personal objectivity", I'm saying that as a species we may develop objective morality through philosophy and the understanding of natural rights.
 
Ikari said:
That's not actually proof that there isn't objective morality.
Click to expand...

It is 100% proof.

For the indigenous cultures of Papua New Guinea, it is morally acceptable for young boys to engage in sexual activity with older men, in order to become a man themselves. It is a rite of passage and is viewed as moral in their culture. In the US, this would mean prison time, and a host of other psychological issues to be worked out for the child.

Proof enough?
 
Knowledge=power said:
It is 100% proof.
Click to expand...

No it's not. All that it means is that if there is objective morality, humans are able to act counter to it. That's it. It doesn't mean objective morality doesn't exist, it means that sometimes humans can be bastards.
 
Ikari said:
Don't be daft, I'm not talking "personal objectivity", I'm saying that as a species we may develop objective morality through philosophy and the understanding of natural rights.
Click to expand...

How are you not talking personal objectivity when you use the word 'you' instead of we?

Ikari, even if you managed to create a heirarchy of morality in your own mind, there is no way the entire human species would see morality the same way you do. It is unrealistic to think objective morality is possible.
 
Ikari said:
No it's not. All that it means is that if there is objective morality, humans are able to act counter to it. That's it. It doesn't mean objective morality doesn't exist, it means that sometimes humans can be bastards.
Click to expand...

There isn't.

I would never have pinned you as the type to resort to this argument, but the same could be said of religious people who counter act evil in the world and God not intervening, with 'we have free will.' It's a deflection, and an easy way to avoid reality.
 
Knowledge=power said:
There isn't.

I would never have pinned you as the type to resort to this argument, but the same could be said of religious people who counter act evil in the world and God not intervening, with 'we have free will.' It's a deflection, and an easy way to avoid reality.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.

Knowledge=power said:
It is 100% proof.

For the indigenous cultures of Papua New Guinea, it is morally acceptable for young boys to engage in sexual activity with older men, in order to become a man themselves. It is a rite of passage and is viewed as moral in their culture. In the US, this would mean prison time, and a host of other psychological issues to be worked out for the child.

Proof enough?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom