Atheists who believe in objective morality

[ZackMartin]

How many atheists believe in objective morality, vs. how many believe that morality is subjective?

I was interested to see a post by PZ Myers on his Pharyngula blog, The “objective morality” gotcha, in which he seems to endorse the concept of objective morality:

...I do live by an objective set of moral principles that allow me to assess whether an action is moral or not. It is not a subjective morality

. So it was interesting to read someone who is a reasonably notable Internet atheist endorsing some concept of objective morals.

(I haven't linked to his post because he uses the F-word a couple of times, and I'm not sure it's allowed to link to it given that. You can find it on Google, or someone else can post the link if they think it is okay.)

[robertb]

He probably means objective as in a consensus of subjective opinion.

Or he has some 'splainin to do.

[magellan004]

How many atheists believe in objective morality, vs. how many believe that morality is subjective?

I was interested to see a post by PZ Myers on his Pharyngula blog, The “objective morality” gotcha, in which he seems to endorse the concept of objective morality:. So it was interesting to read someone who is a reasonably notable Internet atheist endorsing some concept of objective morals.

(I haven't linked to his post because he uses the F-word a couple of times, and I'm not sure it's allowed to link to it given that. You can find it on Google, or someone else can post the link if they think it is okay.)

Please give your definition / understanding of Objective morality and subjective morality. Sometimes people mean 'Absolute' so I get dizzy.

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

How many atheists believe in objective morality, vs. how many believe that morality is subjective?

I was interested to see a post by PZ Myers on his Pharyngula blog, The “objective morality” gotcha, in which he seems to endorse the concept of objective morality:. So it was interesting to read someone who is a reasonably notable Internet atheist endorsing some concept of objective morals.

(I haven't linked to his post because he uses the F-word a couple of times, and I'm not sure it's allowed to link to it given that. You can find it on Google, or someone else can post the link if they think it is okay.)

PZ Myers would not be referring to the same 'objective morality that theists believe in.

[ZackMartin]

Please give your definition / understanding of Objective morality and subjective morality. Sometimes people mean 'Absolute' so I get dizzy.

Well, his definition, he's not very clear about exactly what he means by "objective morality"

My definitions:

Objective morality: The belief that moral statements are capable of being true or false independently of the beliefs of any individual or group.

Subjective morality: The belief that moral statements are incapable of being true or false independently of the beliefs of any individual or group.

[shunyadragon]

Please give your definition / understanding of Objective morality and subjective morality. Sometimes people mean 'Absolute' so I get dizzy.

Magellan

Good question!

[shunyadragon]

I believe PZ was using this definition of 'objective' when referring to his 'objective morality.'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective

1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. [To PZ physical reality, to the theist spiritual outside our physical reality].

© source where applicable

His morality would be based on his interaction with the physical world around him. To PZ a morality based on a spiritual 'Source' outside our physical reality would be subjective, and of the mind only.

[robertb]

I believe PZ was using this definition of 'objective' when referring to his 'objective morality.'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective

1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. [To PZ physical reality, to the theist spiritual outside our physical reality].

© source where applicable

His morality would be based on his interaction with the physical world around him. To PZ a morality based on a spiritual 'Source' outside our physical reality would be subjective, and of the mind only.

Morality based on interaction would seem to be necessarily subjective. Maybe we could ask him what he means by objective in this instance.

[shunyadragon]

Morality based on interaction would seem to be necessarily subjective. Maybe we could ask him what he means by objective in this instance.

Well, that is probably the best to hear from him, but by the definition provided, 'interaction with the physical world,' would be objective, where 'based on interaction with a spiritual world' would be subjective. I am going by the fact that he claims to be an atheist and thus physicalist where the physical world and his interaction with it determines his world including morality.

Theists use the philosophical concepts of 'objective' and 'subjective' based on Thomas Aquinas works. The definitions I refer to would be those that the secular and scientific world would use. Objective relates to the physical existence, and subjective relates to 'of the mind only.' The theist view of 'subjective morality' is not realistic. It some how goes with an anything goes thinking that determines morality as humans simply chose to do what ever they want.

In reality, 'morals and ethics' are not 'objective nor subjective' in nature. They are evolved standards of behavior for the survival of the 'group' not the individual. The group can be defined as those morals common to all humanity, such as the prohibition against wrongful death, and those that are evolved and related to individual cultures, which may vary. The reality is the morals are not determined by the group, and especially not the individual, they evolve as a part of the 'social group' for the survival of the 'group.' Morals and ethics have both objective and subjective attributes.

[Seasanctuary]

PZ is such an embarrassment.

Anyway, "subjective" and "objective" are nearly useless terms for communicating ideas about morality. They've almost become pure "boo!" and "yay!" adjectives.

What PZ apparently means is that he goes by some criteria for judging something to be morally good or bad, as opposed to going only by his immediate warm fuzzy or cold prickly feelings. PZ totally fails to justify the use of his criteria over alternate criteria, except by implying that religious criteria are false just because religions are false (sure, sure, but what about non-religious alternatives?).

If you want to know which atheists believe in objective morality, you're going to have to specify what you mean by "objective morality."

[JimL]

How many atheists believe in objective morality, vs. how many believe that morality is subjective?

I was interested to see a post by PZ Myers on his Pharyngula blog, The “objective morality” gotcha, in which he seems to endorse the concept of objective morality:. So it was interesting to read someone who is a reasonably notable Internet atheist endorsing some concept of objective morals.

(I haven't linked to his post because he uses the F-word a couple of times, and I'm not sure it's allowed to link to it given that. You can find it on Google, or someone else can post the link if they think it is okay.)

I would say that the universe itself is amoral in nature, but morals could be said to be objective in the sense that we concieve of them through our experience within said universe. What we define as good or bad has to do with our survival as a species as well as our peaceful co-existence with one another.

[ZackMartin]

PZ is such an embarrassment.

Anyway, "subjective" and "objective" are nearly useless terms for communicating ideas about morality. They've almost become pure "boo!" and "yay!" adjectives.

What PZ apparently means is that he goes by some criteria for judging something to be morally good or bad, as opposed to going only by his immediate warm fuzzy or cold prickly feelings. PZ totally fails to justify the use of his criteria over alternate criteria, except by implying that religious criteria are false just because religions are false (sure, sure, but what about non-religious alternatives?).

If you want to know which atheists believe in objective morality, you're going to have to specify what you mean by "objective morality."

I've given these definitions, before, which I believe are correct ones:

A statement is objective if it is capable of being true or false independently of whether any individual or group believes that it is true or false.

(Subjective statements then can simply be defined as statements which are not objective.)

This definition can be applied to all kinds of statements, including ethical/moral statements, but not just ethical/moral statements.

[shunyadragon]

I've given these definitions, before, which I believe are correct ones:

A statement is objective if it is capable of being true or false independently of whether any individual or group believes that it is true or false.

(Subjective statements then can simply be defined as statements which are not objective.)

This definition can be applied to all kinds of statements, including ethical/moral statements, but not just ethical/moral statements.

It is not a matter of what is the correct, but how they are defined differently. You gave one set of definitions most commonly used by theists, and first used by Aquinas, and possibly Descartes in this way. Kant was probably the first to begin to define obective in terms of our physical existence, and the definitions I gave. These are more commonly used in science, secular uses, and by atheists that are also correct dictionary definitions, and an explanation. The bottom line is what is it that is 'independent outside the human mind that determines that something is 'objective.'

[ZackMartin]

It is not a matter of what is the correct, but how they are defined differently. You gave one set of definitions most commonly used by theists, and first used by Aquinas, and possibly Descartes in this way. I gave definitions that are more commonly used in science, secular uses, and by atheists that are also correct dictionary definitions, and an explanation. The bottom line is what is it that is 'independent outside the human mind that determines that something is 'objective.'

I agree that my definitions are not the only possible way of defining "objective" (although I do think they are the best way.) But I don't see any reason why one couldn't use my definitions in secular context - there is nothing specifically religious about them. One could be an atheist and accept my definition of "objective". One could be a moral subjectivist and accept my definition of "objective".

[shunyadragon]

I agree that my definitions are not the only possible way of defining "objective" (although I do think they are the best way.) But I don't see any reason why one couldn't use my definitions in secular context - there is nothing specifically religious about them. One could be an atheist and accept my definition of "objective". One could be a moral subjectivist and accept my definition of "objective".

I guess they could, but they probably would not. Their preference would be more the 'objective' first specifically proposed by Kant. Your definition does not reference clearly what it is that independently and objectively determines morals and ethics, and fits the Aquinas model that God is the independent and objective source of morality. If you wanted to bend your definition and say what is the determining nature of morality and ethics 'independent' of the mind it would our physical existence makes that determination independently and 'objectively,' which would in a way fit the view that evolution determined our morals and ethics independently of the beliefs and preferences of individuals or groups.