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.

[Bradskii]

No, I think we have free will to agree or disagree.

In passing, I don't think that we have free will.

I don’t think a command is objectively good because God commands it to be so.

That makes no sense. Even to an atheist. God cannot, by definition, command something that is not good. If He says that something is good then it is objectively good.

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.

As to why we ought to pursue going good for some people, there's the Golden Rule. Or, in evolutionary terms, reciprocal altruism. It's an evolutionary advantage so the majority of us would tend towards it. But that doesn't lead to an objective morality.

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.

If beating me with a stick causes me distress, then you ought not to do it. I think that simple example probably sums up where an atheist might get their sense of morality from.

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.

Short of the brief explanation of what Sam Harris thought...no, no-one can.

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.

Sorry! My bad. Perhaps I posted before I'd had my coffee. I meant subjective, not relative.

And in some matters, it's definitely a personal decision, and hence subjective. 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.

I corrected my typo, so it will now read as I meant it.

[Vilferatus]

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.

If you state, as you just did, that objective morality can only be defined by reference to God, then your original question makes no sense, because you are restricting it to people who don't believe in God. You're effectively saying 'Here's a question for people who believe that God does not exist, but it can only be answered by people who believe that God does exist'.

You're excluding those to whom the question is being asked.

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.

There's no such thing as capital T Truth unless you're going to start a sentence with it. But now you're asking a different question. Which is easy to answer whether you're an atheist or not. Truth is a verifiable statement of fact.

Let's go back to an example I used. Tie me to a post and beat me with a stick will be painful. That's a true statement. I won't like it. Another true statement. I would prefer that you not do it. Yet another. So if we throw in terms like good and bad then we can say that as far as I am concerned it's true that you beating me with a stick is bad.

You'll note the highlighted section. It's a relative statement. It's not objectively true, even if we all agree that it's a fact.

Exactly my piont. Your worldview just accepts that there is no such thing as Truth with capital letter... nobody is imposing that on you, it is your own axiom. My axiom is, there is One. So in my framework, there is an Absolute Truth, so in my framework there is ground for objective morality. In yours, there´s not.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #41]

I don’t think a command is objectively good because God commands it to be so.

That makes no sense. Even to an atheist. God cannot, by definition, command something that is not good. If He says that something is good then it is objectively good.

There is a difference between whether God can command bad things and whether good/bad is determined by God’s commands. I think good/bad is determined by the nature of things (including purpose), not by statements about them (even if the statements are true). So, God's act of creation determines good/bad, even if God were able to command something against the natures created.

As to why we ought to pursue going good for some people, there's the Golden Rule. Or, in evolutionary terms, reciprocal altruism. It's an evolutionary advantage so the majority of us would tend towards it. But that doesn't lead to an objective morality.

Yes, there are reasons to do it and reasons not to do it (both would be the result of evolution). I agree with you that this doesn’t lead to objective morality.

If beating me with a stick causes me distress, then you ought not to do it. I think that simple example probably sums up where an atheist might get their sense of morality from.

Why should one only consider your distress (or distress in general)? If it gives them great benefit (for instance), why does your distress outweigh their benefit?

es, 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.

Short of the brief explanation of what Sam Harris thought...no, no-one can.

I thought you said you didn't agree with Harris’ explanation, but perhaps I misunderstood. Why do you think Harris' view provides a rational foundation for objective morality?

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

Thanks for clarifying. Why do you think ‘subjective morality' follows from it being a ‘personal’ decision?