"The Atheist Worldview Does Not Allow For Objective Morality" - Page 2 - Religion, God, and Theology

Authority is the source of the relevance of normative judgements to others.

The physical world has properties which anyone can independently confirm. Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive.

You cant really say for sure morality isn't apart of the physical world. Morality could come form evolution, big brains and evolving in social groups that need to get along. If it does then it should be able to be independently confirmed, at least some day i would think. Not that anyone can confirm morality coming form the natural world means the natural world didn't get its morality form a God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

What would an objective moral in an atheistic construct be grounded in?

I dont see how God solves that problem unless its a given God would be the arbiter of morality. For all i know God is an evolving creature who got to a point where he lost his empathy so he doesn't care about morality at all.

Last edited by batair; 06-15-2010 at 05:10 PM.

Quote

06-15-2010 , 05:07 PM

#27

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by Concerto

Authority is the source of the relevance of normative judgements to others.

You confusing the epistemic and existence criteria for normativity. I know that the chemical structure of water is made up of three atoms because I've been told so by reliable authorities. However, these reliable authorities did not make the chemical structure of water such by saying so.

In the same way, I can be told that lying is wrong by a reliable authority. But these reliable authorities do not make lying wrong by saying so.

Quote:

The physical world has properties which anyone can independently confirm. Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive.

So? You are appealing to epistemic features again.

Quote

06-15-2010 , 05:16 PM

#28

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

What would an objective moral in an atheistic construct be grounded in?

Either unchangable properties, unavoidable conclusions or a combination of the two.

It's not like it's a longer shot than most gods people believe in.

Quote

06-15-2010 , 05:48 PM

#29

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Either unchangable properties, unavoidable conclusions or a combination of the two.

It's not like it's a longer shot than most gods people believe in.

Nice. A clean summary.

Quote

06-15-2010 , 05:52 PM

#30

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Either unchangable properties, unavoidable conclusions or a combination of the two.

It's not like it's a longer shot than most gods people believe in.

How do we make the decision to ground the morals in one of these properties/conclusions in a non-arbitrary fashion?

And can you give an real world examples?

Quote

06-15-2010 , 06:00 PM

#31

Our House

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 28,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

In the same way, I can be told that lying is wrong by a reliable authority. But these reliable authorities do not make lying wrong by saying so.

This perfectly illustrates the question(s) from the OP.

Quote

06-15-2010 , 08:00 PM

#32

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

How do we make the decision to ground the morals in one of these properties/conclusions in a non-arbitrary fashion?

And can you give an real world examples?

1. Either by not being able to do otherwise, or by not reaching other conclusions (except by error).
2. No.

Last edited by tame_deuces; 06-15-2010 at 08:05 PM.

Quote

06-15-2010 , 08:29 PM

#33

Concerto

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4,564

Quote:

Originally Posted by batair

Reminds me of the (incorrect) saying used by materialists to the effect that you can't go against nature because when you do that's part of nature too.

See also my comments following.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

You confusing the epistemic and existence criteria for normativity.

I think you are, actually.

Quote:

I know that the chemical structure of water is made up of three atoms because I've been told so by reliable authorities. However, these reliable authorities did not make the chemical structure of water such by saying so.

The chemical structure of water is an objective reality independent of any authority's opinion on the matter. A prescriptive rule is such only because, and insofar as, an authority says so.

Quote:

In the same way, I can be told that lying is wrong by a reliable authority. But these reliable authorities do not make lying wrong by saying so.

Yes they do, if the "wrongness" of an (immoral) act consists entirely in violating the prescription of a prohibiting authority.

Quote

06-15-2010 , 08:59 PM

#34

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

1. Either by not being able to do otherwise, or by not reaching other conclusions (except by error).
2. No.

This seems like a satisfying answer on the surface but I cannot see how this could be applied. How can the subjective nature of "morality" be taken out while applying this to every day scenarios.

Quote

06-15-2010 , 09:44 PM

#35

batair

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 16,802

Quote:

Originally Posted by Concerto

Reminds me of the (incorrect) saying used by materialists to the effect that you can't go against nature because when you do that's part of nature too.

See also my comments following.

Im not sure how you can say that when i said even if morels come from nature a God could still be ultimately responsible.

Your the one making the positive claim they come form the immaterial. The best i can do is guess and say i think the come form nature (which itself could come form the immaterial or not).

Your statement would be ironic if morals do come from nature though. Because if that is the case some theists will just say our morals are given to us through nature by God.

Last edited by batair; 06-15-2010 at 10:07 PM.

Quote

06-16-2010 , 12:05 AM

#36

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by Concerto

The chemical structure of water is an objective reality independent of any authority's opinion on the matter. A prescriptive rule is such only because, and insofar as, an authority says so.

Yes they do, if the "wrongness" of an (immoral) act consists entirely in violating the prescription of a prohibiting authority.

So, if the "wrongness" of an (immoral) act consists entirely in violating the prescription of a prohibiting authority, then what makes something wrong is that an authority says it is so.

I agree. But thanks for illustrating the absence of support for your claim.

Quote

06-16-2010 , 04:48 AM

#37

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

This seems like a satisfying answer on the surface but I cannot see how this could be applied. How can the subjective nature of "morality" be taken out while applying this to every day scenarios.

I don't know, objective morality is like an invisible unicorn...that some people believe will become possible to detect.

Maybe you now realize how I feel when people invoke "goddidit".

Quote

06-17-2010 , 10:19 AM

#38

deucedeuces

old hand

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,730

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1982

I'm interested in questions like this, but have no formal philosophy training etc.

I would argue that "morality" is an invented concept and therefore "moral" or "immoral" acts are defined by the creators of the concept and cannot exist objectively ("Justice" would be another example of a value judgement which I would not accept existed objectively). This is not presupposed on atheism or theism - the only difference is who sets the rules.

My simple view is that I believe that a test of morality is "treat others as you would have them treat yourself". I would argue that this doctorine is perfectly sensible and a good way to test morality of uncertain acts.

grunching but this clearly can't be right. what about masochists?

Last edited by deucedeuces; 06-17-2010 at 10:28 AM. Reason: confused masochism with sadism

Quote

06-19-2010 , 10:01 PM

#39

Megenoita

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 3,171

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Either unchangable properties, unavoidable conclusions or a combination of the two.

It's not like it's a longer shot than most gods people believe in.

i.e., atheism is faith-based

...and its faith is unable to be justified...

1. Objective Morality exists.
2. Atheism (and no particular form thereof) cannot account for OM.
3. Atheism is false.

Q.E.D.

Quote

06-19-2010 , 10:08 PM

#40

All-In Flynn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 10,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megenoita

Please define 'objective morality'. The last time I asked you to do this you responded with definitions of 'objective' and 'morality' pasted from a dictionary. This will not be sufficient.

Quote

06-20-2010 , 03:05 AM

#41

Turn Prophet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megenoita

That's a really poor proof.

Just because something cannot account for "X" does not mean it is false by definition. This is like saying,

1. Quantum indeterminacy exists.
2. General Relativity cannot account for Quantum indeterminacy.
3. General Relativity is false.

That's utter rubbish. It is quite likely that incompatibilities in the theories arise because neither gives a total picture, yet to say that one or the other is simply "false" is an oversimplification.

Quote

06-20-2010 , 03:43 AM

#42

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turn Prophet

More specifically, for his argument to succeed he has claim this:

2.* Atheism (and no particular form thereof) contradicts OM.

Quote

06-20-2010 , 04:45 AM

#43

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Megenoita

I think the universe just disappeared in a puff of logic.

Quote

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last