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.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #150]

Me: Because if you agree that moral opinions are subjective, you can't logically agree that they are objective at the very same time.

Do you agree that moral opinions ( say.... about murder ) are subjective?

You: This is why I said using the same term to mean two distinct concepts could be confusing. You are equivocating on subjective for your bolded part above.

If one agrees that moral opinions are subjective(2), you can logically agree that they are objective at the same time. That's because objective goes against subjective(1), not subjective(2). It's only if one agrees that moral opinions are subjective(1) that you can't logically agree that they are objective at the very same time.

I have to admit that I'm very confused about your critique.

I THINK you are saying that Im using the word "subjective" to mean two different things.. maybe you can let me know what those two things are...

If you aren't talking about how I use the word subjective, let me know.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #151]

I have to admit that I'm very confused about your critique.

I THINK you are saying that Im using the word "subjective" to mean two different things.. maybe you can let me know what those two things are...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. This is why I initially answered your question by saying that my moral opinion is that murder is objectively immoral as opposed to subjectively immoral. I was trying to avoid this exact misunderstanding. One sense of 'subjective' you are using has the synonym of 'personal'. The other involves a feature of reality being based on preference/personal opinion/etc. rather than something outside of individual preferences.

Or to get at the same thing another way, you are slightly shifting the question. Instead of asking about a feature of reality (morality), you are asking about our view on that feature of reality (moral opinion) and analyzing our view. Of course, personal moral opinions are going to be subjective; they must be by definition. But then we are analyzing moral opinion as opinions. We need to analyze morality.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #152]

Me: I THINK you are saying that Im using the word "subjective" to mean two different things.. maybe you can let me know what those two things are...

You: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. This is why I initially answered your question by saying that my moral opinion is that murder is objectively immoral as opposed to subjectively immoral. I was trying to avoid this exact misunderstanding. One sense of 'subjective' you are using has the synonym of 'personal'. The other involves a feature of reality being based on preference/personal opinion/etc. rather than something outside of individual preferences.

____________________________________________

I think I got it, let me check.

I think you agree that moral judgments are subjective, but you argue that morality itself can nevertheless be objectively true.

Is that it?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #153]

If, by that you mean something like the following, yes:

I think moral judgements as judgements/positions/views are definitionally subjective/personal. I think those judgments can be that X is either objectively immoral or subjectively immoral.

Just like I think judgments about the shape of the earth as a judgement is definitionally subjective/personal, even though we can go beyond that and say we are making a personal judgement that the shape of the earth is an objective feature of reality because of various facts and reasons.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #153]

A way back you said that both of humanist and religious moral opinions "are subjective in the sense that moral values reflect human interpretations, judgments, and chosen priorities." Our belief that the earth is an oblate spheroid and another's belief that the earth is flat also reflect human interpretations, judgments, and chosen priorities. Yet we both agree (along with the flat earther) that the shape of the earth is an objective truth, rather than a subjective truth. That's two different senses of 'subjective' or two different senses of "interpretations, judgments, and chosen priorities".

If you mean that moral values reflect interpretations/opinions rather than facts, then I certainly haven't agreed to that. But as far as the question we were discussing (Q1. What does ‘objective morality’ and ‘subjective morality’ mean?), are you then defining them as something like:

Objective Morality - that what one ought to do depends on objective facts of reality (that individuals have rights, dignity, whatever)
Subjective Morality - that what one ought to do depends on personal opinion/judgment/preference/etc.

What do you think of those definitions?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #155]

A way back you said that both of humanist and religious moral opinions "are subjective in the sense that moral values reflect human interpretations, judgments, and chosen priorities." Our belief that the earth is an oblate spheroid and another's belief that the earth is flat also reflect human interpretations, judgments, and chosen priorities. Yet we both agree (along with the flat earther) that the shape of the earth is an objective truth, rather than a subjective truth. That's two different senses of 'subjective' or two different senses of "interpretations, judgments, and chosen priorities".

That does sound like something that I would say, but then again, I do tend to say a lot of things.

I agree that there are opposing beliefs about the shape of the earth. The shape of the earth is not mind dependent, and is not a moral question.

I use math and science priorities when deciding the shape of things.
We both seem to have the same priorities in the context of the shape of things.

Science investigates the shapes of things.

An oblate spheroid is a mathematical shape.

More specific definitions of objective and subjective in the context of the shape of the earth might come in handy here:


Objective: The Earth's shape is a physical reality independent of anyone's beliefs or opinions. It is an oblate spheroid.

Subjective: An individual's personal belief or opinion about the Earth's shape, which may be correct or incorrect. Some call it flat

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #155]

If you mean that moral values reflect interpretations/opinions rather than facts, then I certainly haven't agreed to that. But as far as the question we were discussing (Q1. What does ‘objective morality’ and ‘subjective morality’ mean?), are you then defining them as something like:

Objective Morality - that what one ought to do depends on objective facts of reality (that individuals have rights, dignity, whatever)
Subjective Morality - that what one ought to do depends on personal opinion/judgment/preference/etc.

What do you think of those definitions?

Your definitions are close, but they confuse objective facts with moral judgments.

I'd suggest:

Objective morality: Moral truths exist independently of human opinions, beliefs, and preferences.

Subjective morality: Moral judgments depend on human opinions, beliefs, preferences, or attitudes.

The key distinction is whether moral truths exist independently of what people think about them.