Can Atheism ground objective morality?

[The Tanager]

In my exploration and discussions, I have not seen an atheistic worldview be able to logically account for morality being objective. The closest I've seen is an atheistic platonic kind of moral system, but while that seems to be able to account for the existence of 'good' and 'evil', it still doesn't seem to account for why humans would be obligated to choose Good over Evil. I'd love to hear cases from those who think atheism can account for objective morality to make sure I haven't missed (or misunderstood) thoughts in my exploration.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #29]

That morality is objective, i.e., that moral truths exist independent of a mind's perception of it. This thread asks the question: assuming atheism is true, could one's atheistic worldview rationally ground morality being objective?

Dear Jason.

Given what atheists have already contributed to this thread, they have yet to provide any working rational ground for morality being objective.
I as a theist cannot do so either and both have asked the same question of you, the gist of it being "what do you mean by objective reality?"

THe OPs question cannot be answered in any meaningful way while the subject matter defies explanation.

Having reached this loop with you, I withdraw. Perhaps this thread will float but I suspect it may well sink.

All the best in your seeking your answer...

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #1]

Philosophical definition of "objective": Existing outside of the mind. An objective truth is true regardless of who believes it, who likes it, or even if anyone knows it.

The word "God" in philosophy defines the Supreme, Absolute, and Unconditioned Principle that constitutes the first cause, the foundation, and the ultimate explanation of all reality.

So... by definition, there is nothing "objective" if you dont accept there is a "God" or in other words, if you reject the philosophical concept of God, objectivity doesnt exist.

[The Tanager]

Philosophical definition of "objective": Existing outside of the mind. An objective truth is true regardless of who believes it, who likes it, or even if anyone knows it.

The word "God" in philosophy defines the Supreme, Absolute, and Unconditioned Principle that constitutes the first cause, the foundation, and the ultimate explanation of all reality.

So... by definition, there is nothing "objective" if you dont accept there is a "God" or in other words, if you reject the philosophical concept of God, objectivity doesnt exist.

There is a difference between defining a term and showing that it exists in reality. This topic explores the situation if such a "God" doesn't exist in reality.

[Vilferatus]

Philosophical definition of "objective": Existing outside of the mind. An objective truth is true regardless of who believes it, who likes it, or even if anyone knows it.

The word "God" in philosophy defines the Supreme, Absolute, and Unconditioned Principle that constitutes the first cause, the foundation, and the ultimate explanation of all reality.

So... by definition, there is nothing "objective" if you dont accept there is a "God" or in other words, if you reject the philosophical concept of God, objectivity doesnt exist.

There is a difference between defining a term and showing that it exists in reality. This topic explores the situation if such a "God" doesn't exist in reality.

Exactly, so it is a comparison aboout worldviews of frameworks. Aithis framework is incompatible with logic, or in other works, atheism negates the existance of logic, unless they accept the concept of God, they dont need to call it God, it doesnt matter, im talking about what the word "God" means.

[Bradskii]

I don't see what, in an atheistic world, would provide objective purpose, though. What could that mechanism be? In theism, you have a personal agent providing the objective purpose.

Do you think that God is telling you what is right and you therefore must accept it? Or is it up to you to make that decision?

The first is something with which I have a problem. Because if you think that God has truly told you to do something then you must accept that it's the right thing to do. It becomes objectively right because He commands it to be so. Like...fly a plane into a building. Now you might argue that He wouldn't ask you to do that. In which case you are personally deciding that it's wrong. You are making a subjective decision.

The second is likewise you making a subjective decision. So where is the objective morality?

I think that you and I do exactly the same. A moral problem arises and we think about how we solve it to bring about what we personally consider to be the best solution. Or we are given a solution (it is written) and we personally decide whether it is the correct one. The solution might be to treat others as we'd like to be trusted and we'd both agree that it's valid. Or it might be 'Kill all the Midianites', in which case we'd think 'Hang on, that's not right. He obviously didn't give that command'.

Oddly enough, both commands could be considered as being good from an evolutionary perspective (which is where a lot of our basic morality comes from). Treat others well and they'll reciprocate. It's a good way to keep the tribe together and work as a unit. But...kill the other tribe because they will be competitors for valuable resources.

The first is still valid. The second? Well, there are now better ways to solve that problem without hacking people to death.

[Bradskii]

[Replying to William in post #29]

That morality is objective, i.e., that moral truths exist independent of a mind's perception of it. This thread asks the question: assuming atheism is true, could one's atheistic worldview rationally ground morality being objective?

I was going to say that it's your opinion that morality is objective so your question comes very close to being 'How do you prove that I'm right?' But that wouldn't be very generous of me, so I'll give the original question a shot.

Sam Harris (an atheist) tends towards a belief in an objective morality. And his argument holds water, but it's not one with which I agree. He says that there are some things that are obviously better than others. Some things that are bad and some that must be considered good. Or at least not so bad. So finding out that you've won the lottery is good and finding out that you have a terminal illness is bad. Losing one leg in an accident isn't as bad as losing both legs. So there are, rather obviously, matters on which we can confidently say 'This is morally bad' or morally good as the case may be.

So one could say, stretching the definition, that tying me to a post and beating me to death would be morally bad in an objective sense. Sam tends to the fact that, apart from some sadists, we'd all agree to it. I have a problem with that as objective morality is not a matter of a vote. If we all agree on something doesn't therefore make it an objective truth.

My second problem is that I don't believe that there's some objective morality and some that's relative. There's no neat dividing line and certainly no continuum. So it either exists or it doesn't. And in some matters, it's definitely a personal decision, and hence relative. Like euthanasia for example. Or abortion. Or the death penalty. Hence I think he's on to something as regards utilitarianism. Which might be the closest I can get to answering your question.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to William in post #29]

That morality is objective, i.e., that moral truths exist independent of a mind's perception of it. This thread asks the question: assuming atheism is true, could one's atheistic worldview rationally ground morality being objective?

I was going to say that it's your opinion that morality is objective so your question comes very close to being 'How do you prove that I'm right?' But that wouldn't be very generous of me, so I'll give the original question a shot.

Sam Harris (an atheist) tends towards a belief in an objective morality. And his argument holds water, but it's not one with which I agree. He says that there are some things that are obviously better than others. Some things that are bad and some that must be considered good. Or at least not so bad. So finding out that you've won the lottery is good and finding out that you have a terminal illness is bad. Losing one leg in an accident isn't as bad as losing both legs. So there are, rather obviously, matters on which we can confidently say 'This is morally bad' or morally good as the case may be.

So one could say, stretching the definition, that tying me to a post and beating me to death would be morally bad in an objective sense. Sam tends to the fact that, apart from some sadists, we'd all agree to it. I have a problem with that as objective morality is not a matter of a vote. If we all agree on something doesn't therefore make it an objective truth.

My second problem is that I don't believe that there's some objective morality and some that's relative. There's no neat dividing line and certainly no continuum. So it either exists or it doesn't. And in some matters, it's definitely a personal decision, and hence relative. Like euthanasia for example. Or abortion. Or the death penalty. Hence I think he's on to something as regards utilitarianism. Which might be the closest I can get to answering your question.

If there is an Absolute, it would serve as an objective reference, from wich you can define objective truth. So, God is exactly that by definition. If you deny the existence of God (the concept of God) then, you are denying that objective morality exist.

The problem about how do you know what is that true is a different problem, even if not a single person in the world know what the Truth is, the Truth would still exist in the Theist framework.

[Vilferatus]

The core of the issue is structural. Atheism cannot rationally ground objective morality because the moment you deny the existence of an Absolute Foundation, you are logically denying the possibility of objectivity itself.

By definition, for a moral truth to be 'objective,' it must exist independently of human minds, cultures, or evolutionary consensus. If there is no transcendent reference point outside of humanity, then morality is reduced to biology or social convention—both of which are contingent, subject to change, and dependent on human perception. In a purely materialist framework, preferences exist, but objective benchmarks do not. Without an Absolute, the word 'objective' is completely stripped of its meaning.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #36]

Do you think that God is telling you what is right and you therefore must accept it? Or is it up to you to make that decision?

No, I think we have free will to agree or disagree. I’m not talking about that, though. I’m talking about if something is objectively right/wrong whatever we think of it.

The first is something with which I have a problem. Because if you think that God has truly told you to do something then you must accept that it's the right thing to do. It becomes objectively right because He commands it to be so. Like...fly a plane into a building. Now you might argue that He wouldn't ask you to do that. In which case you are personally deciding that it's wrong. You are making a subjective decision.

The second is likewise you making a subjective decision. So where is the objective morality?

I don’t think a command is objectively good because God commands it to be so. I also don’t think a command is objectively good because you or I think it is so. I believe that God creating humans with an objective nature coupled with an objective purpose makes certain actions good and certain others bad.

I think atheism can provide an account of us having an objective nature (where certain things are good/bad for things) , but I’m asking if it can provide an account for an objective purpose that we ought to pursue doing good for certain beings or not (or something other than objective purpose) that would account for objective morality.

I think that you and I do exactly the same. A moral problem arises and we think about how we solve it to bring about what we personally consider to be the best solution. Or we are given a solution (it is written) and we personally decide whether it is the correct one. The solution might be to treat others as we'd like to be trusted and we'd both agree that it's valid. Or it might be 'Kill all the Midianites', in which case we'd think 'Hang on, that's not right. He obviously didn't give that command'.

I agree. But that is not what I’m talking about in this thread. I’m not talking about how we choose to act one way or another, but about if “we ought to act this way” makes sense if atheism is true.

I was going to say that it's your opinion that morality is objective so your question comes very close to being 'How do you prove that I'm right?' But that wouldn't be very generous of me, so I'll give the original question a shot.

Yes, being generous has helped you avoid a very bad misunderstanding of what I was saying. I believe atheism logically leads to subjective morality, but many atheists still believe in objective morality, so I’m seeing if any one can provide a rational foundation to hold both objective morality and atheism to be true.

So one could say, stretching the definition, that tying me to a post and beating me to death would be morally bad in an objective sense. Sam tends to the fact that, apart from some sadists, we'd all agree to it. I have a problem with that as objective morality is not a matter of a vote. If we all agree on something doesn't therefore make it an objective truth.

Yes, I agree with you here. So, atheists need something else, if they think morality is objective.

My second problem is that I don't believe that there's some objective morality and some that's relative. There's no neat dividing line and certainly no continuum. So it either exists or it doesn't.

I don’t think ‘objective’ and ‘relative’ are referring to the same question. We should distinguish objective from subjective and relative from absolute. I’m an objective relativist. Whether an atheist is an objective relativist or objective absolutist, I’m asking if such an atheist can be logically consistent in holding the objectivist part.

And in some matters, it's definitely a personal decision, and hence relative. Like euthanasia for example. Or abortion. Or the death penalty.

Flesh this out more because it may be that we are talking past each other on the terms here, as I don’t think being ‘relative’ follows from it being a ‘personal’ decision.