Objective Morality and Atheism.

Hey guys. BigLundi here with a special announcement on objective morality.

Before I begin, for the purposes of this post, the God being referred to is Yahweh. The Judeo-Christian biblical idea of god.

As an atheist, when I was younger, I was tempted to, and in fact did for a short time, reject the idea of objective morality. Why is this? Well because for the entire time that I've been around religious people, religion likes to claim some sort of monopoly on objective morality, and indeed the argument is made that if objective morality exists, there must be a source of said morality, and that source could only be God.

In this post, I'm going to explain why this idea is wrong, and why I, as an atheist, can have an objective morality, acknowledge an objective morality, and why said objective morality actually goes AGAINST the idea of a God being the source.

Firstly, how can an atheist have objective moral values? I've had debates with other atheists on the subject, and to be honest, it's a combination of subjectivity...and objectivity. This seems odd, I know, but please let me explain. I define something to be morally good if it depletes the unnecessary suffering of others and promotes the well being of the same people. Someone who views morality as subjective might say, "But that's just a subjective idea of morality." Well...yeah. There is no correct and incorrect definition to have for morality, there's just what we place value on. I place value on what is objectively good, or rather, what objectively promotes the well being of others and depletes the unnecessary suffering of others.

However the objective part comes from what is suffering and what is beneficial. I mean, it's objectively true that owning another person as a slave causes unnecessary harm and doesn't promote the well being of others. It's objectively true that murder is detrimental to society and most certainly doesn't promote the well being of others, rape too. These are things that, under my definition(and I contend most people's definitions) are objectively morally wrong.

So I've gotten over the path of GETTING to an objective morality, but...WHY did I chose to define Morality in this way? Well it's simple, whenever you're asked the question "Is that moral?" You should also be asking the follow up of "Why or why not?" Most of us would look at murder and rape and stealing as being morally wrong, but my goal was to define morality in a way to explain WHY these things are morally wrong. So you see all things that we have that are against the law, all things that we instinctualy feel are wrong fall under the definition I've given.

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------------------------

Next, I'd like to address the argument that if an objective morality exists, then clearly, god must be the source for this morality. Well...that's...self defeating. There are in fact so many problems with this argument, I couldn't fit them al in the generous amount of characters Fakku posts allow. However, I'm only going to address for now, a couple of them, as they directly correlate with my own ideas of morality.

Now, what is moral, under the theistic mindset of God being the source? Well, to address this we look to the Euthyphro Dilemma, which is as follows.
1. Is what is moraly right, morally right because god says it is?
2. Is what is morally right, morally right, and God is simply pointing it out?

Now of course, neither answer really helps the theist's problem. If we go with option 1, then what is morally right is simply an arbitrary definition of 'whatever God says is right'. therefore, if God were to say, perhaps, that murder is ok, then murder just simply becomes ok. This offers a meaningless tautology that whatever god says is morally good, even if we don't find these things to be good.

If we go with option 2, then the use of God as far as morals go, becomes completely wiped out.

However, most apologists have come up with a third answer.

Neither, what is morally right is whatever reflects God's eternal unchanging nature. God's nature, is what is morally right, and things we see as being morally wrong, are simply things that are not in his nature.

2 problems with that.

Firstly, Is murder wrong? Well duh, murder's wrong. For the purposes of this post, we'll define murder as "Intentionally terminating the life of another human being without consent." Consent, btw, can include having given up their right to life, say by attacking you, or having already murdered someone else. Well why is it wrong? Well as the apologist says, "It's wrong because murder does not reflect the eternal unchanging nature of...god...uh oh...see now we have a problem. Anyone who's read the bible understands that God's nature is, most certainly that of allowing murder in many many cases. He commanded it on a regular basis and even accepts human sacrifice. So clearly that...can't be the reason. What CAN be the case, if we want to be consistant with the apologist explanation of morality and god, is we can say that clearly murder, or rather, the intentional termination of human life without consent, does in fact reflect God's nature. I'm gonna do a little syllogism to illustrate my point.
1. Actions consistent with god's nature are moral, while actions inconsistant with god's nature are immoral.
2. God's actions are always consistent with God's nature.
3. (from 1 and 2) God's actions are always moral.
4. God performs the act of intentionally terminating the lives of human beings without their consent.
Conclusion: From 3 and 4, it is then moral to intentionally terminate the life of a human being without their consent.

Now, while most of us look at that and see the flaw, a christian might be tempted to make the argument, "Morality is such that intentionally terminating the life of a human being without their consent is moral when performed by god, but immoral when performed by us."...For...whatever bullshit reason.
And you know what That's fine, that's a perfectly legitimate way...to cop out. But it's not without its consequences. See, it then follows from THAT argument that neither God's actions, nor god's nature are TRULY the standard for what is objectively moral. See, if intentionally terminating the life of a human being without their consent is morally wrong, and clearly it is, then...why...is it moraly wrong, if it's not morally wrong for GOD to do so?

The SECOND problem wit hthe aplogetic response to the Euthyphro Dilemma is that saying Morality is reflected by God's nature...doesn't...answer...the question. It just puts the question in seperate terms. It just makes the dilemma more interesting. Does God's nature, for instance, include honesty? Then we simply re word the question.

1. Is honesty right?
2. Is honesty right, because god's nature is honest?

To say that God's nature is honesty just because honesty is morally better than dishonesty certainly doesn't answer the question, and any 4 year old could destroy that answer just by having the capacity to ask, "Why?"

Why is honesty morally better than dishonesty? "Well because honesty reflects God's nature whereas dishonesty doesn't." Right, but why is god's nature one of honesty and not dishonesty? "Well because honesty is morally better than dishonesty." And why is honesty morally better than dishonesty? "Because honesty reflects God's nature whereas dishonesty does not."

Circular reasoning...is circular. Get out of the merry go round, view morality not as simply a question of God, but a question of why.

Thanks for reading.

I'm a Christian, so I have a really easy answer to What is moral; Whatever God says is Moral is moral. Atheists have a much harder time answering this question, but it's still important for them to answer. Most people just believe that the Law is the basis of morality. This usually works, but there are times when the law simply doesn't tell you when something is right or wrong.



As a Christian, I believe God created the world, along with everything in it. If morality already exists in the world, it exists because God created it. Whether God is Declaring what is moral or if he's pointing out what is moral is irrelevant; either way, God is the source of Morality



God doesn't request human sacrifices; technically he requested one from Abraham, but God stopped Abraham; it was a test of faith. Also, God is never unjust; he has never unjustly murdered anyone. There were some wars that God declared the Israelites to fight (such as the Amorites), but that was because of the Wickedness of the Amorites. God has the right to justly murder someone just as an executioner has the right to execute a criminal



God doesn't unjustly murder, and we don't have the right to unjustly murder. There aren't any contradictions in God's nature and the morals he gave us.



I'll stop that circle then :)

Honesty is moral because God said "thou shalt not give false testimony". He said that because honesty is His nature. *From here, it's impossible for us to comprehend the reason for His nature, hell, we can't understand the reason for our own nature. If I asked you "why do you like Hentai", and kept asking "why", you would have circular reasoning. Just because we can't explain why something is the way it is doesn't mean it's not true.

Ultimately, If you're a Christian, and believe that what God says is true, than you won't question "why" God is the way he is; you'll just believe what he says is true and live by it.

You can't ever become objectively moral because it doesn't matter how you slice things, things won't ever be 100% benefit and 0% disbenefit to the people involved.

Every action someone takes will have some sort of benefit involved as well as some sort of disbenefit.

And because what someone sees as a benefit and disbenefit is changes from person to person, from situation to situation.

And that's the thing, for you to be able to be objective, you would have to know of an action that would satisfy EVERYONE'S viewpoints. Which is beyond any person to ever accomplish.

This applies to everyone. Not a single person can be objectively moral because it is beyond understanding.

However, everyone can strive to be objectively moral. The reasons for it are just funny.

Which actually makes it funny, because trying to find a reason to do so, ultimately makes it even more subjective because you are thinking in how it benefits you.

In any matter, morality is one of those things that if you try thinking about it too much, you tend to create a self-defeating concept in which you either make yourself think it is useless, or you make yourself think you are more moral than you are which in turn will make you less moral because you are becoming more selfish.

Your answer is extremely flawed. In reality, your morality isn't whatever god says is moral. The first thing you needed to do was determine that God is good, and that whatever he says is good. Whether you recognize it or not, you used your OWN standard of morality ot make that decision. As far as saying whatever God says is right, is right, I have a lot of problems with that. I'll go over that in the rest of your response.




Morality isn't a 'thing' though that's to be created. You've already chosen answer 1 OVER answer 2, and I've already explained why that creates not only a meaningles tautology as well as makes you...well...morally bankrupt. :/ I don’t have a hard time with morals, mine soar over the morals taught in the bible, as do…well most people who accept that the bible isn’t literally true, or whatever such nonsense.




Ahem. Problem 1 with that response. Firstly it’s that Abraham clearly thought God was indeed the type of God that would ask for sacrifice, else he would have the faith to say, “Oh, clearly you aren’t the real God, because my God would never ask me to do such a thing. Obviously you are an imposter.” No no, Abraham clearly had the faith that God would indeed ask for his son’s death, and was fully willing to go through with it. The story of Abraham is a testament to the cruelty of God. As far as God actually ACCEPTING human sacrifice, one must merely look to the Story of Jepthuh. Also known as Judges 11. And yes, I know the apologetic response that “Burnt sacrifice” could have meant simply making his daughter into a nun, however, that’s a bold faced lie. 



Really…God has never…unjustly murdered anyone…Let’s take a look at Elijah and the bears, shall we? Found in the Book of Kings, Elijah is laughed at by 42 children because of his bald head. Elijah asked God to punih them, so God sent 2 she bears to maul and kill all the children.

Unfortunately, you are forced to believe that mass child murder for calling someone bald is moral…because you dogmatically must believe God cannot do anything wrong. How sad for you. : / Course, you can go ahead and believe that, but it just shows me once more why my morality is…better than yours.



See above. Sorry, but God’s morals as defined in the bible are…laughable at best. Nothing good about them. : /



Shame. You actually think you answered the question, and have outright admitted that you have no interest in asking the question "why?". I'm sorry, but your level of morality is very inferior to secular morality, especially for that reason. You've admitted your answer as to WHY Honesty is moral is because God said it's moral, when asked why is God's word right, it's because...well...God's word is right. You don't care that you haven't answered the question to why...no...you simply say, "No no, you don't ask why, you just accept my answer. God said it, that settles it."

Sorry, but I will never be satisfied by such an...answerless answer.

Wow…let me see if I can deconstruct this and help you understand where you’re wrong, or simply misunderstanding me.

Firstly, is health objective? Well of course it is. Take drinking battery acid for instance…that’s objectively unhealthy, right? Yes, I think we can agree on that. By objectively unhealthy, I mean it doesn't matter if someone thinks Battery Acid might taste absolutely delicious...it's still unhealthy for them. This is in regards to humans, by the way.

Now what if we were to re define health? I’m going to re define health to mean…having a wonderful smell. Now it’s become something rather subjective, hasn’t it? It becomes whatever people think smells good, which not everyone CAN agree on, and an objective standard cannot be achieved.

Am I WRONG to re define health this way? Well, societally, and systemically, yes, I am. But on a basic philosophical level, it’s alright to define any word however you want, words only mean what they do by theot anyway.

Alright, so now that you understand that, you can see that re defining morality to be something that can be objectively measured, like health already is, is all I’m doing. I never said that me DEFINING morality was an objectively true thing to do, merely that the morality I FOLLOW is objective, and it is. Anything can be measured on that scale, and not only that, but most people tend to follow that morality, whether they are aware of it or not.

Also, you don’t seem to understand what objective means, as evident by your statement “And that's the thing, for you to be able to be objective, you would have to know of an action that would satisfy EVERYONE'S viewpoints” Nope. That’s not an objectively good action at all. Objective, by definition, is literally a word that means, “It doesn’t matter what you think.” So even if I do an action that’s objectively good, there CAN still be people who are dissatisfied by the action.

And lastly, I’d like to lol at your closing statement that if I were to think I’m more moral than I am, I’d be selfish, and therefore…less moral. Tell me, how do you know selfishness is immoral? ;)

No, I understand objectivity quite alright.

The reason you can't be objective about morality, is because you have to take into account everyone else, you can't just go based on what you think is right. In fact, going by what you think is right is one of the most subjective ways to go about it.

You seem to be confused about the fact that morality is purely a social trait. It has no realistic way of measurement.

And the other point is that what is considered a benefit is also a social trait. If you want to look at it from a selling point of view, a feature is what something has, a benefit is what makes it worthwhile to a person. Which is also a very subjective person.

So essentially, to force objective morality, you would have to use morality that completely benefits everyone. Which doesn't exist because benefits are subjective.

And in terms of objective morality, selfishness IS immoral simply for the means that you are thinking in purely subjective terms.

So by not defining morality as a whole; you try to objectively define your own morals. This is what I believe you are trying to say. Also, you state that your morals are more logical than a Christians due to the plethora of inconsistencies and decrepit values. I wanted to try to tear your argument apart for arguments sake, but could find no fault with your reasoning, so let's just see how consistent your morals are in practice. Someone wants to commit suicide, they are a fanatic that believes that their God will welcome them into heaven. Do you stop them? Points to remember: You said that doing what is morally good depends on what benefits a person.
This person believes what they are doing is beneficial to their happiness.
Would it being morally in-congruent for you to stop them.
You don't know this person very well, in fact, he's just a classmate that you see on a bridge about to jump.

It's nice to know that I have no right to post my opinions and beliefs



Your contradicting option #2


This statement implies that morality already existed. I believe that morallity exists because God created it. Because of this, I don't see a difference in the 2 options.



First off, these weren't children. The hebrew word "Naar" is used, which has refered to guys as old as 28. They were Cursing God's chosen profit, Elisha. This was treated the same as cursing God, and the consequences were also the same. These guys were old enough to understand what they were doing, and They got punished for it.
I will admit that this story makes people go O_o, but there was a (harsh) reason. I'll admit that this is a very good argument for your point, but I'm not gonna throw away my religious beliefs because something harsh happens in 2 verses



I'll admit, I didn't really answer "why"; I just said that it doesn't matter. However, your being very arrogant to say that this means my belief in morality is inferior. Since you think it's a shame I can't answer endless "why" questions, let's see how you do. I want you to explain why your morals are true, then explain why that is, then explain why that is,
All without using circular reasoning. If you can do that, then your belief of morals is superior. Until then, stop bringing up this argument, it's downright stupid.

Your first two sentences contradicted eachother. I'm sorry, but in no way does an objective morality have to take into account...ANYONE'S viewpoints. That's what objective is. I've explained this using the health example, and you still fail to grasp the concept. Sorry. And morality only can't be measured if we define it to be such that cannot be measured. I have succeeded in creating a specific measurement system by which you can live by, and judge individual actions by. I never said that the decision to define moral actions as moral isn't subjective. You seem to be misunderstanding both me and objective as a concept. I'm sorry, but when you make the argument, "Objective morality has to benefit everyone" you not only display a complete lack of understanding of what objective means, but you also don't even understand what I've said. Re read my post and try and get a better understanding.

Please quote where I said anything like that at all. I think you'll find that I didn't. Nice job strawmanning the shit out of me :P




No, I was explaining that you are. Explain how I'm doing something...simply saying "You'recontradicting something" isn't an argument. It's what's known as a bare assed assertion. :)


Yes, and you were saying god made what is moral, moral, therefore you were outright contradicting option 2. which is all I was pointing out. You were coming to the conclusion that it was both, when in reality it was onnly option one, and you were outright denying 2.



It always is entertaining when people think I havne't heard these failed apologetics before. Yes, NA'ar was used, and yes Naar CAN refer to people as old as 30, not 28, learn your hebrew...however, what you failed to do enough research on, was that the added qualifier ka'tan, which literally means little. Na'ar, which means youth, boy, child, is paired with the quailifier ka'tan, which is, by the way, never used in all the adult versions of the word na'ar used, literally translating the word used in that passage as 'little boy'. Sorry, they were kids. Deal with it.



As I already demonstrated, according to the original hebrew word, no they weren't, and they got punished unmercilessly, and unjustifiably.




I just used a couple verses, sorry, but that's not the only bad thing god does. Not only do you agree he orders ethnic cleansing, which by the way ,I want to state for the record, you support, but he also outlines the ways in which the slave trade should be instituted and run, and ordered the stoning to death of a man who recanted his beliefs of god, as well as the killing of a wife who might turn her husband from him, OH! and how about that lovely little law that if a man should hate his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they married, and, if the father of the wife cannot produce the bloody sheet she lost her virginity in, she is to be stoned to death. How's that one? Does that one not ust STING? That's God's law, by the way.



Ok, viciously circular. That's what you're being. I however, am not. Why is honesty right, rather than dishonesty? Simple, I prefer people to be honest to me, so, if I want to increase the chances of people being honest with me, I shall be honest to them. Why is it objectively right whereas dishonesty is objectively wrong, Also simple, in order to have a cooperative society, the well being of others is directly dependent upon many variables, one of them is inevitably the ability for some to be honest to others. this is a desired trait for survival, and makes it objectively right. "Ah hah!" I hear tyou saying, "But what makes survival preferred?!" Well, me. the people around me, you, unless you don';t want to survive. Everyone who wishes to survive makes survivability the desired trait. Could I go on? yes, I could, but I don't need to, because I've already demonstrated with my morality, I can go steps furthur than you claim yourself you ever possibly could. :)

One of your points to remember is completely incorrect. :( I never said "You said that doing what is morally good depends on what benefits a person." Sorry, but I didn't. I said a morally good action promotes the health and well being of others, and diminishes the suffering, or one, or the other.

According to my morality, put quite simply, yes, I would stop the boy from doing what he wanted to do, commit suicide, because there is no rational reason to show that his god will in fact accept him into heaven, andhe would be suffering if he didn't die on impact, and death certainly isn't a healthy thing to bring oneself too. I'm promoting his health and well being, and diminishing his suffering, I am performing a morally good thing by saving him from committing suicide.

Sorry about the misquotation, what would diminish the person's suffering isn't necessarily what would promote his health. These conflicting points are a flaw in you argument, :) happy I found one. By stopping the suicide you are in fact prolonging his suffering. Katan Naar can refer to young men, the cultural age of adulthood was younger.

...I'm sorry, what flaw? You didn't say the boy was suffering, and even then, there is nothing to suggest that saving the boy from killing himself would promote suffering in any way. As a matter of fact, seeing someone care enough about him to save his life might make him make a friend, might make him enjoy life, in fact, systemically I'd say this is an inevitability. AND, furthurmore, because of your added qualifier that I don't know this person, even if he were of the strange mental condition that he would consider himself suffering for hainvg had his life saved by someone who cares about his life, I had no way of knowing that when I saved his life. Sorry, I have performed no inconsistency with my idea of morality whatsoever.

Katan Naar doesn't just possibly refer to young men, it indeed does mean exactly "young boy" children. It's unavoidable I'm afraid, and the age specific for Naar is 13-30, with the added qualifier of Katan, the word specifically refers to around 13 years. Children.

The 42 children who confronted Elijah, and did nothing more than laugh at his bald head, were mauled by 2 she bears for this very simple, innocent bit of childhood fun. It's an immoral passage. And it's unavoidable on any level.

I stopped reading when you said that slaves were objectively immoral.

Mankind is simply a flawed race. A foolish one if i may add.

That perhaps we're desperate as a species.

That we simply need to believe in something, a concept of god to fulfill us. The ideology that here after one's life lies a world beneath for the wicked and another above the clouds for the good.

Simply because to be ignorant of one's end brings fear to everyone. They do that to comfort themselves.

Back then, when we lack the knowledge that earth itself revolves that we claim the Sun and Moon being gods, One that brings light and another darkness. That in some cultures, fearing to lose light, blood would be needed to keep the light ever burning.

We do that because we're ignorant.

Perhaps it's down to a genetic level. Part of our make up. That itself could be reasoned.

Could that be Mankind's ultimate flaw? The need to believe in an existence above us. We may very well hunger for it, for spiritual peace.

Or because ignorance brings us so much fear that we used faith, a baseless thing to fill up the gaps which we know not off? Like a blackhole, forever taking in everything in a fruitless attempt to fill a never ending void.


... There are nothing to prove an existence above us, so we made it up. That there be gods, there be demons, that there be heaven, and there be an underworld.

That if we follow a way of line given to us that we'll ascend to this "heaven" that we made up. "God" will greet us in with open arms and to those who didn't, may they burn under the never ending flames of the underworld, eternally suffering under the gaze of the "devil".



...

...

I choose to not believe in things without a base. Having to subject yourself to such things is pointless, meaningless and foolish.

There above the clouds lies space, not gods.

There, a thousand feet below us is more earth, not a hell.

How we live will not be judge by anyone by humans themselves.

I who choose to believe in my own way of living doesn't make me a heretic, it's the ones who forbid me from doing so, out of fear induced superstition that are the ones at fault.

wow, really?




Let's start over, since logical reasoning didn't get through to you.

does this sentence imply that morality already existed?




I'll admit, crazy sh*t happens in the old testament. I'll never prove that the stuff here is acceptable by society, so I don't see any reason to keep trying. Keep in mind that these laws applied to God's people (not regular people), for the purpose of being a sign for the coming savior. I don't think most of these laws apply, now that the savior has come. as for stoning an unvirgin, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."


um... you only got to saying that survival is our nature. I said Morality was God's nature, but apparently that's not enough for me. Your now at the same roadbump as me; tell me why it's our nature

No, you TRIED to explain what you think it would mean to be objective in morality.

I said you were wrong because you aren't taking into account that it is a social attribute.

You can't compare health to morality because health has physical aspects to it, you can measure portions of it by measuring the physical aspects as in body care and such.

Morality cannot be measured in such a way because it is purely a social attribute. You HAVE to take into account other viewpoints because of this fact.

If you ignore others in trying to create an objective point of view in what is a social aspect, you aren't being reasonable and you are ignoring facts because you are failing to take into account things like the social norms and so on.

So not contradictory, you are just failing to understand what social means.

Hi guys! You know the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? It might explain alot.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

Objectivism is quite posibly one of the dumbest secular moralities Ive ever seen. It's an attempt to paint helping other people as bad...and....it's so undemonstrable, that anyone who folows objectivism is...well, simply wrong. Demonstrably.