objective moral values

[achilles12604]

By definition :

Objective : Grammar.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

Moral : mor-al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

values : duh!


Based on these definitons, I am wondering if objective moral values even exist for an atheist. I do not mean to say that there are NO moral atheists. However, can atheists have objective moral values? What do they base there morals on? is a better way of asking the same question.

Since they deny any form of deity or religious structure, what do they base there morals on and furthermore, why are their morals correct instead of just the opposit being true?

[achilles12604]

If I may interject here for a moment, I want to say that I am really enjoying reading this thread.

It seems that the answers among previous atheists revolves around evolution (lower-case "e", I assume; maybe not). This means that there must be a first cause somewhere. For most people, I would assume their first cause was probably at birth (like Grumpy so adequately stated) and it was shaped through personal experiences, science, and your upbringing.

As an Evolutionist (upper-case "e") myself, and quite a novice in biology, I must therefore assume that there is something within our DNA language that makes us all appeal to this sense of "morality", especially since morality seems to be so universal and seems to be present at birth.

How very interesting!

I was just reading a new book entitled, The Language of God, by Francis Collins. In his introduction he cites CS Lewis and his proof of God involving this "capitol E" idea. The entire book is about how the DNA, RNA and protiens work within humans to control our thoughts and actions. have just started the book and so far he has only recited his personal journey from atheism to Christianity, but I think that his background PHD in Chemistry, Biology and MD, will play well with the particular subject matter.

I'll keep you posted.

Strange I would read your post right after putting my book down. . .

[4gold]

Moreover, I think that while we all tend to have some "sense" of a needs for morals, I think it's clear enough that those "morals" can (and typically do) differ (even greatly) from one person/group to the next.

Let's take the most pressing issue of the day: Some among us believe that spreading democracy through the world is a moral obligation, while others among us believe that sovereign nations ought to be able to choose for themselves how best to govern.

So while you are correct that morality differs across individuals, cultures, religions, and time periods, I want to demonstrate that even in my above example, morality is universal.

Even though people have differing ideas of what is moral, we are still appealing to the same universal sense of morals. Why else would I try to convince you that spreading democracy is best or that sovereignty is best, if I didn't think that you and I both had similar senses of "right" and "wrong"?

Without a universal sense of morality, our appeals to get others to act morally would be in vain.

[4gold]

How very interesting!

I was just reading a new book entitled, The Language of God, by Francis Collins. In his introduction he cites CS Lewis and his proof of God involving this "capitol E" idea. The entire book is about how the DNA, RNA and protiens work within humans to control our thoughts and actions. have just started the book and so far he has only recited his personal journey from atheism to Christianity, but I think that his background PHD in Chemistry, Biology and MD, will play well with the particular subject matter.

I'll keep you posted.

Strange I would read your post right after putting my book down. . .

It's a good book. I just finished it last week. I think that all Christians ought to be educated in the sciences, because often times I believe Christians will do exactly what Collins warns: create a position of orthodoxy that can be easily disproven through observation.

Later on in the book, he is going to go back over the "Moral Law" and expand on why he believes Chrisitianity is the choice for religion.

One point that he never expands upon, and I wish he did, was animal morality. He claims that the human sense of altruism is not found in lower forms of animals.

But we hear of stories of dogs running into burning houses or flooding rivers to save humans. Vampire bats regurgitate blood and feed it to those who didn't feed that night. And the list goes on.

I would be very interested to hear a genomist's perspective on what makes human altruism different from animal altruism.

[Grumpy]

4gold

One point that he never expands upon, and I wish he did, was animal morality. He claims that the human sense of altruism is not found in lower forms of animals.

But we hear of stories of dogs running into burning houses or flooding rivers to save humans. Vampire bats regurgitate blood and feed it to those who didn't feed that night. And the list goes on.

I would be very interested to hear a genomist's perspective on what makes human altruism different from animal altruism.

Theists often make the mistake of assuming that man is somehow different than other mammals. Other than birds and octopi(squids, etc.)mammals are unique in having a more advanced(in terms of intelligence) brain(birds are more intelligent than reptiles but of a different type, as are octopi). The only difference between your's and a mouse's brain is the degree of that intelligence. Chimpanzee intelligence has been measured between 80 and 90 on some of our intelligence tests. Gorillas and chimps can be taught sign language and can use it to express desires and feelings, They can even invent words for new objects using previously understood words(google Koko the gorilla if you don't believe me.) Francis Collins is wrong to dismiss this obvious fact.

Grumpy

[4gold]

Francis Collins is wrong to dismiss this obvious fact.

I just want to clarify one quick point. Collins did not "dismiss" this fact. He just didn't mention it. It might be a minute point (maybe he does dismiss it for all I know), but it's probably worth mentioning just in case he sees animal altruism, but believes human altruism is somehow different.

I have no idea, and that's why I wished he would have expanded on it.

[Goat]

4gold

One point that he never expands upon, and I wish he did, was animal morality. He claims that the human sense of altruism is not found in lower forms of animals.

But we hear of stories of dogs running into burning houses or flooding rivers to save humans. Vampire bats regurgitate blood and feed it to those who didn't feed that night. And the list goes on.

I would be very interested to hear a genomist's perspective on what makes human altruism different from animal altruism.

Theists often make the mistake of assuming that man is somehow different than other mammals. Other than birds and octopi(squids, etc.)mammals are unique in having a more advanced(in terms of intelligence) brain(birds are more intelligent than reptiles but of a different type, as are octopi). The only difference between your's and a mouse's brain is the degree of that intelligence. Chimpanzee intelligence has been measured between 80 and 90 on some of our intelligence tests. Gorillas and chimps can be taught sign language and can use it to express desires and feelings, They can even invent words for new objects using previously understood words(google Koko the gorilla if you don't believe me.) Francis Collins is wrong to dismiss this obvious fact.

Grumpy

For that matter, the difference between the intelligence of a chimp and the intelligence of a human appears to be 18 mutations on one specific gene.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health ... -headlines

[Sleepy]

For that matter, the difference between the intelligence of a chimp and the intelligence of a human appears to be 18 mutations on one specific gene.

And the difference between the Chimp and a Chicken appears to be 2 mutations.

Lets not draw too many conclusions from this genetic study shall we.

[achilles12604]

Since there is obviously a marked difference between Chimps and Humans, what is the point of saying how closely we are related as far as genetics when it comes to morals?

All life is more or less similar and/or different. The point is that Chimps are not now, nor will they ever be human.

[Simon's Legacy]

Considering the question: "However, can atheists have objective moral values?" Yes, of course they can. Anyone can have objective moral values. All they have to do is set up an ethical frame work and stick to it. Is rule 'A' the same Monday as Friday? Is rule 'A' the same for person B and person C? etc. etc. Isn't that the nature of 'objective'--being defined and consistent? If group X doesn't like the framework that group Y established--that doesn't nullify its objectivity. The argument then is whether the framework is valid, not whether it is objective.
But doesn't that lead to the more important question (and tell me if this should be a separate thread) SHOULD anyone have objective moral values? It doesn't seem wise. I've yet to see it used to good effect by theists or atheists. I think objective morals can be useful tools. But they need to be controlled by the subjective moral values of kindness and compassion.

[achilles12604]

Considering the question: "However, can atheists have objective moral values?" Yes, of course they can. Anyone can have objective moral values. All they have to do is set up an ethical frame work and stick to it. Is rule 'A' the same Monday as Friday? Is rule 'A' the same for person B and person C? etc. etc. Isn't that the nature of 'objective'--being defined and consistent? If group X doesn't like the framework that group Y established--that doesn't nullify its objectivity. The argument then is whether the framework is valid, not whether it is objective.
But doesn't that lead to the more important question (and tell me if this should be a separate thread) SHOULD anyone have objective moral values? It doesn't seem wise. I've yet to see it used to good effect by theists or atheists. I think objective morals can be useful tools. But they need to be controlled by the subjective moral values of kindness and compassion.

I think my unsaid point was that an atheist can have morals, but with nothing substancial and unchanging to compare test those morals against, they are nothing more than human creation and therefore, nothing is really actually wrong or evil if you prefer.

The arguement I am getting the most is that society builds what morals are. Yet every society throughout history has had different laws and therefore different morals. Cold blooded murder is not only accepted but required in some cultures. So in the overall scheme of life, nothing should really be considered WRONG (capital letters) even though society has deemed it unproductive or (wrong).

My next leap here is to question, if that is the case, then what about that little voice inside which we all (or perhaps most of us) know? If morals are nothing more than currently accepted guidelines built by society, then that voice doesn't mean anything really and therefore shouldn't really exist if you consider useless things are lost. But there it is.

Taking this line a step further, what about those individuals who think and act above and beyond? Since there is no reward by society and if there really was little difference betweenn right and wrong, those people should be looked at as fools. The went out of their way to help someone they never knew and who would probably never help or even see them again. Yet they did what they did because it was the right thing to do. Where does this sense to do more than is asked come from if morals are nothing but societal guidelines created over time?