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]

There is still moral disagreement on what is the best interest of overall humanity.

Of course. I hope there always will be. It gives both us thinkers something pertinent to think about, and them doers something pertinent to do.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[The Tanager]

Surely that's backwards! Objective morality is like the random shape of a rock and subjective morality the English phrase. Subjective morality are mental construct just like English phrases; where as objective morality does not depend on what people think just like rock shapes do not change with people's thoughts.

Shapes of rocks are constantly changing from individual rock to individual rock. That's subjectivity. That should be the analogy to subjective morality. Rocks arranged into an English phrase remain constant, no matter the individual shapes of the rocks. That should be objective morality.

Or perhaps the analogy needs to be tweaked so we aren't comparing the shape of one rock to the shape of a collection of rocks. If so, then I guess the comparison would be rocks to something like a ring's diamond. Or, a random collection of rocks to a collection of rocks formed into an English phrase. But I don't want to just be smuggling in intelligence in the examples if other examples for comparison will still work. Thoughts?

[The Tanager]

Because my views would eventually lead to an incremental increase in human well-being, and the Nazi ideology was about hatreds that led decisively to the detriment of that goal.

They lead to an incremental increase in human well-being from your perspective. But from the perspective of Nazi ideology overall human well-being has diminished. We need a separate standard to judge between these two perspectives, if morality is objective.

[2ndRateMind]

Because my views would eventually lead to an incremental increase in human well-being, and the Nazi ideology was about hatreds that led decisively to the detriment of that goal.

They lead to an incremental increase in human well-being from your perspective. But from the perspective of Nazi ideology overall human well-being has diminished. We need a separate standard to judge between these two perspectives, if morality is objective.

No, I can't let you get away with this. The persecution and exploitation and execution of around 6 million Jews, and uncounted further numbers of the disabled, communists, gypsies and homosexuals is solid fact that needs no separate standard to judge it by. The detriment to human well-being is obvious to me, even if you can't see it. The Nazis were wrong not because their victims thought them wrong, or I do, but because they went about destroying human well-being deliberately, forcefully, industrially and callously.

Stalin thought that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths a statistic. I think that if we can only see a million deaths as a million tragedies, we might get some purchase on the reason why and to what extent the holocaust was objectively immoral.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[The Tanager]

No, I can't let you get away with this. The persecution and exploitation and execution of around 6 million Jews, and uncounted further numbers of the disabled, communists, gypsies and homosexuals is solid fact that needs no separate standard to judge it by. The detriment to human well-being is obvious to me, even if you can't see it. The Nazis were wrong not because their victims thought them wrong, or I do, but because they went about destroying human well-being deliberately, forcefully, industrially and callously.

Stalin thought that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths a statistic. I think that if we can only see a million deaths as a million tragedies, we might get some purchase on the reason why and to what extent the holocaust was objectively immoral.

First off, I agree with you that it goes against true human well being. I hope you don't honestly think I don't see their actions as detrimental to human well being. That was not the point. The point is that the Nazis didn't think it goes against human well being. We are judging ideologies here. Nazi ideology teaches that humanity is better served by getting rid of these various groups. Those groups weren't truly human in Nazi ideology. Our ideologies disagree.

The task before us is to rationally support why we are right and the Nazis were wrong. We are begging the question by just saying it's obvious to us or that it's just a fact that this is true. We beg the question if we say a death is an obvious tragedy. Nazi ideology doesn't agree.

We also beg the question a step back if we say we can prove that these groups were, in fact, human. That sounds like an easy thing to prove, but it's not. Yes, I completely agree with you that they are human, but Nazi ideology does not. Whatever way we define 'human' the Nazi ideology will disagree with it because those people groups were seen as sub-human. We can't just claim we are obviously right. We need a foundation that shows this to objectively be the case. And if a foundation is given, then we need to analyze that foundation to see how plausible it is.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 65 by The Tanager

From the tone of your posts, I guess that we do not actually disagree. I guess that you just want a certain proof that the Nazis were evil, and wrong. Fair enough, but if so, you will be disappointed with my position.

One cannot prove morality, as one can with logic, or mathematics, or science. Morality is not like logic, where one can say 'either p or not-p, but never both'. Or like mathematics, where one can say '2+2=4, because (1+1)+(1+1)=(1+1+1+1)'. Or like science, where one can say that 'because the statistical correlation between A and B is absolute, we can be sure that if A, then B'.

Morality is a qualitative thing, and qualitative truths require the adequacy of the individual, a certain degree of spiritual stature, to appreciate that truth. The Nazis were not sufficiently adequate to appreciate their immorality, as you are. But that does not mean they were not immoral.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Surely that's backwards! Objective morality is like the random shape of a rock and subjective morality the English phrase. Subjective morality are mental construct just like English phrases; where as objective morality does not depend on what people think just like rock shapes do not change with people's thoughts.

Shapes of rocks are constantly changing from individual rock to individual rock. That's subjectivity. That should be the analogy to subjective morality. Rocks arranged into an English phrase remain constant, no matter the individual shapes of the rocks. That should be objective morality.

Or perhaps the analogy needs to be tweaked so we aren't comparing the shape of one rock to the shape of a collection of rocks. If so, then I guess the comparison would be rocks to something like a ring's diamond. Or, a random collection of rocks to a collection of rocks formed into an English phrase. But I don't want to just be smuggling in intelligence in the examples if other examples for comparison will still work. Thoughts?

I am not sure where we can go from here, we agree intelligence is a better explaination than conincidence for that a ring's diamond vs a typical rock; or an English phrase vs a rock pile. Where we can't agree is whether objective morality is more like a diamond ring or a rock; more like English phrase or a pile.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 67 by Bust Nak]

I agree that our disagreement there seems to stop us. I will make one more case, just in case I haven't been as clear as I could have been. I absolutely respect your continued disagreement if you just see it another way.

I think moral subjectivity speaks to different moral 'shapes.' Your action looks different than mine (I steal, you don't) and both are considered 'moral.' Moral objectivity speaks to the same moral 'shape' for everyone. If I steal and you don't, then one of has the wrong 'shape' and can't be called 'moral'.

[The Tanager]

From the tone of your posts, I guess that we do not actually disagree. I guess that you just want a certain proof that the Nazis were evil, and wrong. Fair enough, but if so, you will be disappointed with my position.

One cannot prove morality, as one can with logic, or mathematics, or science. Morality is not like logic, where one can say 'either p or not-p, but never both'. Or like mathematics, where one can say '2+2=4, because (1+1)+(1+1)=(1+1+1+1)'. Or like science, where one can say that 'because the statistical correlation between A and B is absolute, we can be sure that if A, then B'.

Morality is a qualitative thing, and qualitative truths require the adequacy of the individual, a certain degree of spiritual stature, to appreciate that truth. The Nazis were not sufficiently adequate to appreciate their immorality, as you are. But that does not mean they were not immoral.

Best wishes, 2RM.

It's not so much that I want proof of any particular moral judgment. It's a more general point. I think theism can provide a rational foundation for objective morality (whatever particular situations you want to talk about). A possible (simplified) line of reasoning could go something like this regarding the Nazi scenario. (a) The Nazis were objectively wrong because all human beings have intrinsic worth. (b) Human beings have intrinsic worth because they are made in God's image and endowed with that value by their creator. God is the higher standard judging us and the Nazis. It seems to me that (a) logically follows from (b).

Atheists can and do certainly believe (a), but in the atheistic worldviews we've been briefly touching upon there seems to be no (b) from which it logically follows, at least in an objective sense. 'It just does' isn't an answer. 'People have worth to themselves' doesn't seem to logically lead to (a). I'm not seeing any atheistic possibilities that would logically lead to (a).

[marco]

It's not so much that I want proof of any particular moral judgment. It's a more general point. I think theism can provide a rational foundation for objective morality (whatever particular situations you want to talk about). A possible (simplified) line of reasoning could go something like this regarding the Nazi scenario. (a) The Nazis were objectively wrong because all human beings have intrinsic worth. (b) Human beings have intrinsic worth because they are made in God's image and endowed with that value by their creator. God is the higher standard judging us and the Nazis. It seems to me that (a) logically follows from (b).

Atheists can and do certainly believe (a), but in the atheistic worldviews we've been briefly touching upon there seems to be no (b) from which it logically follows, at least in an objective sense. 'It just does' isn't an answer. 'People have worth to themselves' doesn't seem to logically lead to (a). I'm not seeing any atheistic possibilities that would logically lead to (a).

I'm not sure that all humans have intrinsic worth. If we artificicially describe them as images of God, then what are we to say of those humans who are so dangerously depraved that the best solution is their destruction? Deformed gods?

Rules have evolved with man; it may have been right once to do what is now considered wicked. Self interest probably played a big part in our adoption of certain rules. Hitler's crime was in demonising Jews and, in wrongly regarding them as wicked, destroying them. The Bible likewise commits that crime and in many ways the Bible is complicit in Hitler's crimes.


Introducing God is no better than introducing the European Court of Justice, which would try people like Hitler and punish them. The difference is that such a court demonstrably punishes whereas God doesn't. Ideas punish nobody.

We generally value life because we are of an age when we have learned from experience. Our homes are relatively safe, not because God's in his heaven, but because we have a strong justice system. Hitler ably demonstrated there is no God; he did not demonstrate that wickedness goes unpunished on earth, thanks to civilised man.