Atheists Who Say that Morals Are Subjective or Non-Existent

[MSizer]

One common mistaken idea that I encounter mostly among atheists is the idea that morals are purely subjective. This is simply not true, and I find it very annoying that they so often criticize theists for having unfounded claims about morality, but can't in return offer any alternative themselves.

Morality is a suite of sociobiological tendencies which foster social cohension. In order to accomplish this, altruism is necessary, and the concept of harm is also necessary. To say that morality is simply what we all think is a good idea is clearly false. If this were so, then it would be a valid argument to say that Hitler acted morally because he was acting in accordance with the desires of his cohorts.

The fact is that morality is rooted in our ability to cause harm to other sentient creatures, and our power both understand this, and act accordingly.

Please feel welcome to challenge me, becasue I think it is an area where non-religious people need to do some thinking if they expect to continue criticzing theological claims about morality.

 

[Smoke]

I don't believe that morals are subjective, exactly. I believe that moral codes are largely subjective and prone to error.

The good life, as Russell said, is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. If we were inspired by love and guided by knowledge we would have no need of commandments, whether religious or philosophical.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Morality, like many words, is a far too complex and varied set of concepts and ideas to be encapsulated by a single word. I rarely give opinions on morality, as it is generally far too nebulous and ambiguous contextually to make any meaningful comments on.

 

[linwood]

One common mistaken idea that I encounter mostly among atheists is the idea that morals are purely subjective. This is simply not true, and I find it very annoying that they so often criticize theists for having unfounded claims about morality, but can't in return offer any alternative themselves.

I believe this is a misrepresentation of the argument.

I`ve never heard an atheist accuse a theist of having an unfounded moral code.

The accusation is always that the foundation is in some way weak
not non-existent.

Considering that slight correction we can now compare the foundations of dogmatic Abrahamic traditions to the foundations of secular humanism/morality and come to our own biased conclusions.

However, none of this changes the fact that those foundations/evidences are still all purely subjective considering their sources.

Morality is a suite of sociobiological tendencies which foster social cohension. In order to accomplish this, altruism is necessary, and the concept of harm is also necessary.

I might be inclined to argue that altruism isn`t "necessary" and a basis of "violation" is much more distinct than once founded upon the basis of "harm".

To say that morality is simply what we all think is a good idea is clearly false. If this were so, then it would be a valid argument to say that Hitler acted morally because he was acting in accordance with the desires of his cohorts.

Within the confines of that group of cohorts what Hitler was doing was moral and progressing the state of mankind.

The fact is that morality is rooted in our ability to cause harm to other sentient creatures, and our power both understand this, and act accordingly.

Evidence for this claim?

Please feel welcome to challenge me, becasue I think it is an area where non-religious people need to do some thinking if they expect to continue criticzing theological claims about morality.

Ok

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I'm a Theist and even I'm not sure objective morality exists. I think there are things I can say are pretty objectively moral.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One common mistaken idea that I encounter mostly among atheists is the idea that morals are purely subjective. This is simply not true, and I find it very annoying that they so often criticize theists for having unfounded claims about morality, but can't in return offer any alternative themselves.

I think there's an issue of false equivocation that often gets thrown into these sorts of discussions (usually by the theist arguing for some form of divine command theory) where "subjective" is portrayed almost as "arbitrary".

Personally, I don't think that morality is something that's fixed for all places, all time and all situations, so in that respect I reject the idea of absolute or completely objective morality. At the same time, I recognize that this doesn't mean we're free to just pick whatever morality we decide suits us. Our morality is the product of all sorts of factors, most of them out of our control.

 

[Revoltingest]

One common mistaken idea that I encounter mostly among atheists is the idea that morals are purely subjective. This is simply not true....

Then call me mistaken.
I say it's subjective.
Since morals are value laden, what would make it objective?

 

[Aquitaine]

It is a very complex thing to discuss but personally I believe most of it is subjective, however there is an objective foundation amongst all sentient beings IMO, like don't cause unneccessary harm etc. Sort of like a subjective skin over an objective skeleton, if that makes sense.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Like rape. Is rape objectively immoral? See what I mean? For some things it's harder to say then others. I might would argue rape is objectively immoral.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like rape. Is rape objectively immoral? See what I mean? For some things it's harder to say then others. I might would argue rape is objectively immoral.

Define "rape".

We have plenty of species right here on Earth who engage in the act of reproduction without consent; is this rape? Is it immoral?

In a human context, I certainly agree that rape is horribly immoral. However, the human context is not universal.

 

[dust1n]

One common mistaken idea that I encounter mostly among atheists is the idea that morals are purely subjective. This is simply not true, and I find it very annoying that they so often criticize theists for having unfounded claims about morality, but can't in return offer any alternative themselves.

Morality is a suite of sociobiological tendencies which foster social cohension. In order to accomplish this, altruism is necessary, and the concept of harm is also necessary. To say that morality is simply what we all think is a good idea is clearly false. If this were so, then it would be a valid argument to say that Hitler acted morally because he was acting in accordance with the desires of his cohorts.

The fact is that morality is rooted in our ability to cause harm to other sentient creatures, and our power both understand this, and act accordingly.

Please feel welcome to challenge me, becasue I think it is an area where non-religious people need to do some thinking if they expect to continue criticzing theological claims about morality.

So where exactly is your proof for an objective morality?

 

[Autodidact]

For me morality does have an objective basis. For me it's not a list of "thou shalt nots," it's a question of how to live a good life. Eudomonia, you might say. I think science (and some other disciplines) give us insight into this question, that being kind to others makes you happy, being honest helps you be trusted, and so forth. I think Buddhists are right when they say that cruel people are fundamentally mistaken. That's a very, very, short version.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It's a Philosophy base like Buddhism that I'd argue objective morals could be determined and grounded in.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I think you are wrong. Morality is COMPLETELY subjective. It often depends on a majority group mindset, but that is subjective as well. Is it morally wrong to kill chickens to provide food to the poor? A lot of people wouldn't think it is wrong. Is it morally wrong to kill humans to provide human meat to the poor? A lot of people think that is wrong... But humans and chickens are both animals, and killing either for sustenance is the same difference.

And I don't think any single thing is objectively moral/immoral. Everyone has their own ideas of what is moral and what isn't. Even if it harms people. Is it wrong to torture animals? (I don't like it, but some people think it's okay) like at a circus, or bull-riding, so sometimes it is morally okay to torture/hurt animals, for the joy of certain humans. Humans are animals, so sometimes it might be morally okay to torture other humans for pleasure, such as rape.

It all depends on what you value, and what your culture has been teaching you your whole life. Here, it's okay to mass-murder animals, as long as they are chickens, turkeys, pigs, or cows. In some places it is okay to do that to cats and dogs. And in some places it is okay to do that to certain races or genders of humans. It all just depends on what you were taught.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yeah I do kind of see your point notecard. That's why I have a hard time when it comes to morals being subjective or not. Then again, one could say that just because you learn certain ethics in a society doesn't make them right.

 

[whereismynotecard]

What does make them right?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well notecard it's hard to look at a brutal act like rape and say that it's subjectively immoral. That would be leaving room to say it's okay. I don't know what I think about this subject, to be truthful.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Well, I don't like rape, but I don't like a lot of things. I'm not the one who gets to decide what's right and wrong. Some people really love raping other people. Rape is forcing someone to do something they don't want to. So is school, taxes, driving on the correct side of the road, among other things. I'd like to say that something as terrible as taxes could not possibly be seen is moral, but tons of people disagree. It's even a law that you have to pay taxes...

And other animals rape each other all the time. It's instinctual, I think. Just a lot of men have been trained otherwise. Not all of them though.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Of course morality is subjective. If it were not,mankind would have a universal consensus as to what was moral and what was not. We have no such consensus.

That is not to say there is no such thing as moral or immoral actions, only that morality is something that only has value in context. It is a sort of 'fuzzy logic' human behavioral trait that lends itself to survivability in groups, and thus has stayed with us. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course morality is subjective. If it were not,mankind would have a universal consensus as to what was moral and what was not. We have no such consensus.

That is not to say there is no such thing as moral or immoral actions, only that morality is something that only has value in context. It is a sort of 'fuzzy logic' human behavioral trait that lends itself to survivability in groups, and thus has stayed with us. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, I disagree. Reality is objective, so to speak, but people differ in their perception of it. There is an objective basis to ethics, but people differ in their knowledge and understanding of it.

What I mean, is (unless you are a sociopath) giving presents to others makes you happier than spending money on yourself. Unfortunately, many poor souls don't know this, and try to make themselves happy by spending on themselves, which doesn't work. There is an objective reality, it's just that they are ignorant of it.