Another way to look at premise one is to say that if atheism is true, then morality is not objective. And that is precisely what atheism asserts. Any atheist worth his salt will tell you that you don't read morality into nature. Nature is red in tooth and claw. To quote Richard Dawkins, "there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." — cincPhil
Now, which premise do you deny? — cincPhil
Are you really willing to deny the objectivity of moral values and duties? — cincPhil
My argument is not about what atheists believe. It is about the nature of morality if atheism is true. — cincPhil
This strikes a personal cord with me. I've done things I regret. I've hurt people. And I know that if God did not exist, then I would embrace my animal instinct, you know? — cincPhil
On atheism, what obligations, if any do we owe to other homo sapiens? — cincPhil
On atheism, it is as you say, that morality is a product of socio-biological evolution. — cincPhil
I'm arguing that if God does not exist, then morality is just an evolutionary spin-off. It's a kind of herd morality, but it's not really true in any objective sense. — cincPhil
If morality is dependent upon environmental factors, wouldn't it be subjective? — cincPhil
To say that a moral value or duty is objective is to say that it is true or binding irrespective of human opinion (regardless of what anyone thinks). For example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that even if the Nazis had succeeded in winning WWII, and brain-washed or exterminated everyone who disagreed with them, so that everyone in the world believed that Naziism was right, it would still be wrong. — cincPhil
Thanks MadFool. Let me ask your question back to you. Can you give me an example of an objective moral value that changes? For example, can the value of love be sometimes good, and sometimes bad? Or is it always true that it is good for us to love? — cincPhil
I didn't say anything about happiness. Do you really think of love in this way? Do you really think that love hurts? Or is it when we fail to love purely that we hurt each other? Can you imagine a pure, high love that is greater than all our attempts at it? — cincPhil
We can assume that anyone likes freedom by default. (Including non-humans.) This informs morals.
We can assume that anyone dislikes harm by default. (Including non-humans.) This informs morals.
Liking and disliking are subjective.
Thus, morals are subjectively informed (in part at least).
Well, I'd like to know what your moral theory is based on, if not happiness. — TheMadFool
That is why I prefer to say, "Independent of human opinion." — cincPhil
Should I let the child die because I dislike pain, and I want to live? Similarly, should I let the child be captured beacuse I do not wish to relinquish my own freedom? — cincPhil
I don't know that it's possible to come up with a set-in-stone cost-benefit analysis that would determine what action to take. :) It's simple enough to determine that the child ought remain free and unharmed, however. The trolley problem, for example, seems to show that moral actions in general are not decidable. Implications for the hypothesis that there are objective morals? — jorndoe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.