Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality

[The Tanager]

So, this would be a question to those who believe that objective morality can be founded upon an atheistic worldview. What is the objective foundation?

[2ndRateMind]

Do you think it's the overall amount of happiness that matters or that it's the overall number of people that are happy that matters?

The overall amount. If two people each give up an ounce of happiness in order to give a third person a pound of happiness, that's a good thing.

I would agree, in the case of voluntary sacrifice. The problem with utilitarianism, and 'happiness' justified ethics, is that it lends itself to a comfortable, complacent establishment deciding what constitutes happiness, and who should benefit and who should be deprived in the allocation of overall happiness. And I do not think establishments, of either left or right wing political persuasion, have proven themselves to be unbiased and altogether accurate in this calculus.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

Do you think it's the overall amount of happiness that matters or that it's the overall number of people that are happy that matters?

The overall amount. If two people each give up an ounce of happiness in order to give a third person a pound of happiness, that's a good thing.

I would agree, in the case of voluntary sacrifice.

Right. If we said that the recipient of the benefit could take the benefit against the other people's will, then we'd find a lot of people rationalizing theft and tyranny.

The problem with utilitarianism, and 'happiness' justified ethics, is that it lends itself to a comfortable, complacent establishment deciding what constitutes happiness, and who should benefit and who should be deprived in the allocation of overall happiness. And I do not think establishments, of either left or right wing political persuasion, have proven themselves to be unbiased and altogether accurate in this calculus.

I'm not with you. I don't see how being able to tell good from bad automatically entails tyranny.

[The Tanager]

The overall amount. If two people each give up an ounce of happiness in order to give a third person a pound of happiness, that's a good thing.

But how would we gauge such a thing? How can we gauge the happiness a rapists gets versus the unhappiness of their victim? What if the rapist gets a whole lot of pleasure from their atrocious act? And what if the victim surely experiences unhappiness, but is a very resilient person and overcomes their tragedy and maybe even creates more happiness in the world than they would have done otherwise?

[The Tanager]

I am saying that if anyone doesn't care about these things, then they have lost the right to consider and claim themselves to be in any way 'moral'.

But on what basis have they lost that right?

[2ndRateMind]

I am saying that if anyone doesn't care about these things, then they have lost the right to consider and claim themselves to be in any way 'moral'.

But on what basis have they lost that right?

On the basis that they couldn't care less about general human wellbeing. And since all ethical theory essentially comes down to that*, they can't call themselves moral, even if they don't (say) have sex with underage children.

Best wishes, 2RM

*eg; deontology - rules and duties imposed (perhaps by God) for our greater good determines the ethical. Or utilitarianism - human happiness determines the ethical. Or virtue ethics - human flourishing as promoted by human virtue determines determines the ethical. Or situation ethics - what we should do in any given situation to promote human well-being determines the ethical. 2RM.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

So, this would be a question to those who believe that objective morality can be founded upon an atheistic worldview. What is the objective foundation?

With respect to OP considering claims of atheists hollerin' on about objective morals and such, there ain't.

No moral value exists without sufferin' it some subjectivity.

Even the biblical god is shown to suffer it, when he declares don't you eat that or you'll die you right then and there on the today of ya a-doin' it, only don't it beat all, Cain and Abel.

God lies.

'Cause humans lie.

God is a human construct.

[Bust Nak]

Perhaps I'm missing your point. We both agree mathematics is knowable and applicable to reality. The question is: why is that so? On atheism, it seems to be coincidence. Theism provides an intelligence behind creation that explains that. But then, of course, that just pushes the theistic answer back to ask why the intelligence is there. Eventually we have a brute fact in both explanations. In the atheistic view we have a brute fact coincidentally leading to the applicability of math and in the theistic view we have a brute fact (GOD) leading to the applicability of math. And to bring it back to morality, we have the same kind of answer.

Right you are, "it just is" is the same kind of answer to "God made it that way."

[2ndRateMind]

Do you think it's the overall amount of happiness that matters or that it's the overall number of people that are happy that matters?

The overall amount. If two people each give up an ounce of happiness in order to give a third person a pound of happiness, that's a good thing.

I would agree, in the case of voluntary sacrifice.

Right. If we said that the recipient of the benefit could take the benefit against the other people's will, then we'd find a lot of people rationalizing theft and tyranny.

The problem with utilitarianism, and 'happiness' justified ethics, is that it lends itself to a comfortable, complacent establishment deciding what constitutes happiness, and who should benefit and who should be deprived in the allocation of overall happiness. And I do not think establishments, of either left or right wing political persuasion, have proven themselves to be unbiased and altogether accurate in this calculus.

I'm not with you. I don't see how being able to tell good from bad automatically entails tyranny.

It doesn't. The problem is with the people who have done well out of life, and therefore assume that they can tell the difference between good and bad for people who haven't done so well. Just as it is not necessarily the case that what makes you rich will make me rich, it also isn't necessarily true that what makes you happy will make me happy. If 'freedom' means the right of establishments to impose their own ideas of good and bad, wealth and poverty, happiness and unhappiness, on everyone else, then that would seem to me to a somewhat limited view of freedom.

It has been said that freedom for the pike is death for the minnow. And it seems to be that my mission in life is to be an advocate for minnows. Or, as Jesus put it: 'not a sparrow falls without your Father's knowledge'. If only humanity was so considerate, we might all have a better world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[wiploc]

The problem with utilitarianism, and 'happiness' justified ethics, is that it lends itself to a comfortable, complacent establishment deciding what constitutes happiness, and who should benefit and who should be deprived in the allocation of overall happiness. And I do not think establishments, of either left or right wing political persuasion, have proven themselves to be unbiased and altogether accurate in this calculus.

I'm not with you. I don't see how being able to tell good from bad automatically entails tyranny.

It doesn't. The problem is with the people who have done well out of life, and therefore assume that they can tell the difference between good and bad for people who haven't done so well. Just as it is not necessarily the case that what makes you rich will make me rich, it also isn't necessarily true that what makes you happy will make me happy. If 'freedom' means the right of establishments to impose their own ideas of good and bad, wealth and poverty, happiness and unhappiness, on everyone else, then that would seem to me to a somewhat limited view of freedom.

It has been said that freedom for the pike is death for the minnow. And it seems to be that my mission in life is to be an advocate for minnows. Or, as Jesus put it: 'not a sparrow falls without your Father's knowledge'. If only humanity was so considerate, we might all have a better world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Utilitarians advocate being nice; theists advocate obedience. I don't see how anyone can possibly see the first as more conducive to tyranny than the second. I can't take that seriously.

[2ndRateMind]

Utilitarians advocate being nice; theists advocate obedience. I don't see how anyone can possibly see the first as more conducive to tyranny than the second. I can't take that seriously.

So let's consider this. If being 'nice' was all there was to ethics, it would be a rather superficial enterprise. A bit like 'political correctness', maybe.

As for theists advocating obedience, well, yes, maybe some of them do. But my own preference, as a theist, is that each should obey their own conscience. Maybe some thus directed will want to oppose dictator governments, and some merely want to neuter male stray cats, so that their kittens are not born into adversity. And there is room, within the great democratic communion, for every conscience, in that they all, largely or lesserly, contribute to a better world.

So let's all be nice to each other. I'm not against that. But let's not pretend that being nice is the end of the matter, whatever ethical perspective we adopt. If we are to have freedom of conscience, that takes both a society that promotes and defends it, and individuals willing to make such sacrifices as their conscience demands. And such a society is far removed from tyranny.

Best wishes, 2RM.