Does Atheism Have a Compatibility Problem With Morality?

[DayRaven]

Muslims are practicing ritual rape today. Look at the Aztecs and other similar groups who routinely practiced ritual murder, both against outsiders and against their own people.

But are they not (I know little about mesoamerican cultures) specific practises seen as benefiting the community? For example human sacrifice was practised in pre-Christian Germanic cultures but murder, in general, was punished (often by exile).

but these are subjective systems, created by humans, not objective systems, handed down from on high.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that they are objective imperatives (I'm undecided on this) but I would argue that they are non-conscious, such as the result of evolutionary pressures.

Anyone who would read a lot of the things in the Old Testament and think they are moral would get no respect from me.

How would you justify your moral stance as superior to the OT? (note I'm not arguing for the OT but I am interested in lieu of an objective sense of morality how people come to justify one behaviour over another).

 

[Cephus]

But are they not (I know little about mesoamerican cultures) specific practises seen as benefiting the community? For example human sacrifice was practised in pre-Christian Germanic cultures but murder, in general, was punished (often by exile).

What difference does that make, it's still rape and it's still murder, things that you claimed no society allowed. Then you came up with an example on your own of murder (calling it human sacrifice is still murder by any reasonable definition). So clearly, murder and rape have not been seen as immoral by all societies, proving my point.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that they are objective imperatives (I'm undecided on this) but I would argue that they are non-conscious, such as the result of evolutionary pressures.

Which still isn't an objective moral system that applies everywhere, to everyone, handed down by a deity.

How would you justify your moral stance as superior to the OT? (note I'm not arguing for the OT but I am interested in lieu of an objective sense of morality how people come to justify one behaviour over another).

The OT argues for rape, murder, slavery and a whole host of other things that we, today, see as morally evil. It is, of course, all subjective, but most people today would see the modern system inherently better than the system described in the OT.

 

[DayRaven]

What difference does that make

Quite a lot, the difference between a specific circumstance vs a general rule. The sacrifice of some (or one) for the benefit of the community isn't necessarily a negation of a prohibition against murder in general, no? If it were so then, presumably, a community would be an impossibility?

Which still isn't an objective moral system that applies everywhere, to everyone, handed down by a deity.

I don't believe I was indicating it was so.

but most people today would see the modern system inherently better than the system described in the OT.

So you believe in justification by the majority?

Please note Cephus that I'm not engaging in a point scoring contest, I long ago abandoned interest in being right (I'm often wrong and happily so). My interest is understanding better.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Atheism is commonly criticized as utterly lacking the basis for a moral theory. Critics sometimes argue that without religion there can be no objective morality. The most misguided or deceitful of these critics suggest that atheists are therefore amoral. Critics of the theory of evolution assert that a materialistic world view can at best explain how events happen(ed), but neither Evolution nor atheism can support a moral theory.

I think critics are right that neither atheism nor a theory of evolution can be the basis of an objective moral theory. As Hume pointed out, one cannot infer “ought” from ”is”(or was). But this does not mean that there is no theory of morality compatible with a naturalistic/materialistic philosophy. Certainly there are many subjective or relative moral theories that are independent of the existence of a deity.

I think all or the overwhelming majority of the atheists and agnostics reading these forums consider themselves to be moral agents. I imagine that many atheists subscribe to a form of cultural relativism rather than an objective moral theory. If you an atheist or agnostic, I would be interested in hearing from you.

(1) Do you think that an objective moral theory has an advantage over moral relativism and/or subjectivism?

(2) Is atheism compatible with an objective moral theory that you agree with?

(3) If not, do you, as an atheist or agnostic, subscribe to a subjective or relativistic normative moral theory?

(4) If you agree that morality is independent of religion it must have predated religion. How do you think it came about? This question probably should be its own topic. I'll discuss my own view this later question at another time.

h2.cjk { font-family: "Droid Sans Fallback"; }h2.ctl { font-family: "FreeSans"; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }
“Certainly there are many subjective or relative moral theories that are independent of the existence of a deity.” Does Atheism Have a Compatibility Problem With Morality?

Philosophy' started by Paradox22, .

To assume that there is a deity masks the question of what constitutes morality. Morals have been around from the beginning of mankind. Morals are inherent but become an ism, moralism. Moralism is not the same as morals. If one was to look for a biblical definition of morals in the Christian Bible they would be disappointed, it is not there. What is inherent, a moral, then becomes moralism because Christians have an opinion of what is right and wrong, morality. Whereas, the definition of sin is now defined as moralism, a false doctrine when sin is defined as a dualism, what is right and wrong. The basic Christian understanding (basic symbolism of Christianity) of sin is a separation from God. How one becomes separated then becomes that moralism as doctrine is developed. “The history of religion and culture is a continuous confirmation of this analysis of the meaning of holiness and of its relation to the unclean and to the secular.” Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, p. 218.


All doctrine is man's interpretation, subjective morality. What is independent of subjective morals is defined or, interpreted in Genesis 1: 27; “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.” as God's “divine image.” This divine image is not about what God looks like (physically) but about what God is about. The one thing that defines the Christian God is that God is good. The good is referred to as Love. So, what is inherent in mankind is love. Sin, a separation from God, is a separation from our moral instinct, love.


Atheism may lack moral theory but Atheists do not lack morals. It is inherent in all mankind. Morality is defined by Tillich “as the constitution of person as person in the encounter with the other person.” Further, Tillich says, “morality must defend its autonomous character against religious commandments . . .” So, everything Spiritual in man, man's spirit (man's life) or man's soul, is only grasped by religion, by Christianity.


Whether there God exists or does not exist, man inherently has the moral instinct of love. Atheism is quite capable of a moral imperative, a theory that would also be subjective morality. Its quite simple, all mankind is capable of love because love is inherent in all mankind.


Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense

 

[Paradox22]

Dr Strange,
your link to "Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense" is brilliant, on point, and very appreciated. The author does a great job explaining what moral subjectivism really is, and what it is not. Most importantly, the author makes a strong case that the whole idea of an objective theory of morality is untenable, even in the framework of a religion. I encourage anyone that is thinking about this issue to follow the link provided by Dr. Strange.

Thanks

 

[icehorse]

Dr Strange,
your link to "Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense" is brilliant, on point, and very appreciated. The author does a great job explaining what moral subjectivism really is, and what it is not. Most importantly, the author makes a strong case that the whole idea of an objective theory of morality is untenable, even in the framework of a religion. I encourage anyone that is thinking about this issue to follow the link provided by Dr. Strange.

Thanks

First off, Hume was wrong about is's and ought's.

Second, demanding "objective morality" is a false dilemma. We can absolutely pursue a "universal science of morality" (USM). A USM would always be a work in progress, just like other sciences for which no "objective truth" can be known. We all consider medicine and healthcare to be worthy pursuits even though the goalposts move. The same should be true for USM. As soon as we start pursuing USM, we can acknowledge that moral expertise is possible. To borrow from Sam Harris, we can say that the Dalai Lama has more moral expertise than a serial killer.