Atheists who believe in objective morality

[Leonhard]

and have said that morality is in one sense objective in that it is imposed by the culture at large

This is definitely different from the view of morality that I hold.

but it is subjective in that what is derived of the culture at large is concieved of the human mind from its experience or knowledge of its environment.

Then wouldn't all knowledge become trivially 'subjective' by this definition?

[Leonhard]

(It's that last sentence that fails to be objective, even if the rest turns out to be correct.)

It can be derived from following axiom: If you have a goal and there are multiple ways of achieving that goal, then you should use the best method (most likely to succeed/have the greatest outcome etc..) for achieving that goal. There is no way to prove this sentence, but its not something we have any reason to disbelieve. Its an axiom of that system of morality. If the existence of any axiom is sufficient to render the conclusions subjective, then all knowledge is trivially subjective. Some axiom is always employed in all reasoning. The question is if those axioms that we do employ are reasonable, and I don't see why this particular axiom is unreasonable.

[shunyadragon]

No I have never read Carrier, but I would, and have said that morality is in one sense objective in that it is imposed by the culture at large, but it is subjective in that what is derived of the culture at large is concieved of the human mind from its experience or knowledge of its environment. My only argument is that morality is not objective in a transcendent sense.

I am a theist and roughly agree. Morals are a human construct with both objective and subjective properties. In my theist view, morality and ethics reflect the cyclic and progressive spiritual evolution of humans, The miind is not the soul. The mind may not exist at all.

[Tassman]

Anybody here read Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape? Good read. Looks at a lot of the issues being brought up in this thread, and argues quite reasonably for a scientific approach to morality.

Speaking from the point of view of evolution (and, of course, taking things to the extreme), it would seem to me to be objectively wrong/immoral to discontinue reproduction of the human species, and passively drift into extinction. Anyone else agree?

I would agree that it is “objectively wrong/immoral” to the extent that the imperative of nature, as imbued by Natural Selection, is survival and this instinct is 'hardwired' into all living creatures - with the possible exception of lemmings.

In the case of the higher animals, including us, the maintenance of a cohesive social unit is an essential component of our survival and to this end we have devised a code of behavior - or moral system if you prefer - based largely on reciprocity, which we enforce for society’s protection. In my view however, this is no more than ensuring the survival of the species, i.e. the objective impersonal goal of nature - not obedience to the alleged moral absolutes revealed by a deity.

[Seasanctuary]

It can be derived from following axiom: If you have a goal and there are multiple ways of achieving that goal, then you should use the best method (most likely to succeed/have the greatest outcome etc..) for achieving that goal. There is no way to prove this sentence, but its not something we have any reason to disbelieve.

That depends on what you mean by "should." If you mean "in order to maximize your chance of achieving a personal goal" then, trivially, you should do what maximizes your chance of achieving your goal.

But when talking morality, it sure seems like we're talking about what people should do to promote goals they might not have. Or at least it isn't obvious that everyone has the goals associated with moral "shoulds" or "oughts."

From my discussions with Carrier, he seems to be totally stuck on the idea that the only legitimate use of "should" / "ought" type language is whatever is most motivating to people. Meanwhile, I understand those kind of terms to be about a relationship between goals and actions...where only a subset of goals are of the overridingly motivating kind. So only a subset of "should" / "ought" language needs to be about overriding motivation, and it requires more work than he does to show that morality is in that subset.

[shunyadragon]

I would agree that it is “objectively wrong/immoral” to the extent that the imperative of nature, as imbued by Natural Selection, is survival and this instinct is 'hardwired' into all living creatures - with the possible exception of lemmings.

Actually, more humans jump off cliffs than lemmings.

[Kane]

What he does is argue reasonably for a scientific approach to determining moral right and wrong, given a particular substantive definition of moral right and wrong. Unfortunately, the definition he uses is very controversial in itself.

I haven't followed any media post-publication of The Moral Landscape, so I'm not sure how his definition of morality is controversial. I understand that attempting to legitmate an objective morality via science is something that really hasn't been done before, but I think his work in neuroscience suggests some very strong correlations between our physical responses to our environment and the morality that develops as a result; e.g., not only striving to survive, but to maximize well-being and eliminate worst possible outcomes.

Sure, according to some definitions of moral right and wrong; not others. How do you propose we pick which one to use?

You're right: this is where things start to break down. The ability to choose does not guarantee the right choices will be made.

[Seasanctuary]

I haven't followed any media post-publication of The Moral Landscape, so I'm not sure how his definition of morality is controversial.

It's a variant on utilitarianism. Standard issues tend to apply.

[JimL]

This is definitely different from the view of morality that I hold.

Okay.

Then wouldn't all knowledge become trivially 'subjective' by this definition?

Well, as I said, I have not read Carrier, or a whole lot of anything about the concept of morality, but as far as I can tell morality is not something that is tangible, not something that of itself exists out there, apart from the mind. That to me makes morality subjective even though the mind that conceives of it is dependent upon its environment in order to do so.

[JimL]

I am a theist and roughly agree. Morals are a human construct with both objective and subjective properties. In my theist view, morality and ethics reflect the cyclic and progressive spiritual evolution of humans, The miind is not the soul. The mind may not exist at all.

Okay, but I'm not sure exactly what it is that you mean here by "spiritual evolution." I can see morals as being indicative of human progress, of human evolution, but in what sense are you distinguishing between "the evolution of humans" and " the spiritual evolution of humans?"

[Tassman]

It's a variant on utilitarianism. Standard issues tend to apply.

I would have thought it more a variant of ‘Situation Ethics’ rather than ‘Utilitarianism’ in that it allows for individual rules of the moral code to be put aside in certain situations if the best interests of another individual (or society) are served by doing so. Hence, morality is based on caring for others and maintaining the social cohesion essential for its own survival, as imbued by natural selection and best understood in terms of evolutionary biology. Thus, such questions are scientific in character, not religious.

[shunyadragon]

Okay, but I'm not sure exactly what it is that you mean here by "spiritual evolution." I can see morals as being indicative of human progress, of human evolution, but in what sense are you distinguishing between "the evolution of humans" and " the spiritual evolution of humans?"

Actually, there is no way to distinguish between "the evolution of humans" and " the spiritual evolution of humans?" directly by observation. The way I describe it is the evolutionary advancement of morals and ethics as compared to the teachings of religions in different cultures over time. The teachings of Christ, Mohammad and Buddha were ahead of their time and contributed to the advancement of human morality and ethics.

The best most recent example I can give is the Baha'i Faith. It gave a comprehensive foundation of laws and principles, and revealed that they would be the standard for the future. I believe this has indeed happened. The UN charter, and the Humanist Manifesto reflect closely the laws and principles revealed by the Baha'i Faith.

[JimL]

Actually, there is no way to distinguish between "the evolution of humans" and " the spiritual evolution of humans?" directly by observation. The way I describe it is the evolutionary advancement of morals and ethics as compared to the teachings of religions in different cultures over time. The teachings of Christ, Mohammad and Buddha were ahead of their time and contributed to the advancement of human morality and ethics.

The best most recent example I can give is the Baha'i Faith. It gave a comprehensive foundation of laws and principles, and revealed that they would be the standard for the future. I believe this has indeed happened. The UN charter, and the Humanist Manifesto reflect closely the laws and principles revealed by the Baha'i Faith.

So what is it that you mean to convey by the term "spiritual" when applying it to the moral evolution of the human species? Are you by the use of the term implying something otherworldly, something transcendent or immaterial, or are you just using it in a metaphorical sense to define the moral evolution of the human brain?

[magellan004]

I haven't followed any media post-publication of The Moral Landscape, so I'm not sure how his definition of morality is controversial. I understand that attempting to legitmate an objective morality via science is something that really hasn't been done before, but I think his work in neuroscience suggests some very strong correlations between our physical responses to our environment and the morality that develops as a result; e.g., not only striving to survive, but to maximize well-being and eliminate worst possible outcomes.

You're right: this is where things start to break down. The ability to choose does not guarantee the right choices will be made.

When I read your post I thought 'The ability to choose does not guarantee the right choices will be made. ' is an argument against the 'morals come from natural selection' line. Is that what you meant ?

This question is to people in general - How could an evolutionary process go 'wrong'?

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

When I read your post I thought 'The ability to choose does not guarantee the right choices will be made. ' is an argument against the 'morals come from natural selection' line. Is that what you meant ?

This question is to people in general - How could an evolutionary process go 'wrong'?

Magellan

Fundamentally the evolutionary process does not go 'wrong' nor 'right' from the human perspective. The facts of the nature of morals and ethics observed in humanity, like other physical and behavior characteristics, is that dominance of those characteristics that contribute to the survival of the species is what determines that the species will survive.

Morals and ethics are an intimate part of the human cooperative social fabric that promotes the survival of the community and society.

The ability of individuals make choices only in and of itself does not determine the morals and ethics of humans. All it says is some will make good choices and some bad. Survival of the species is only dependent on the majority making good choices.