Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

And yet, I can prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt. I can prove Atheism isn't just "flawed," but is totally useless for morality.

All I have to do is ask you to give me one moral precept...just one...that is grounded in Atheism, and if you can do it, you win. If you can't...

You can't.

Has anyone claimed that morality and atheism are connected?

Yes. Peter, for example, thinks that morality can be in some sense real, while being merely "subjective." Of course, he's oblivious to what a contradiction that is: it's like saying, "There's a duty that isn't a duty." For "moral" implies "intersubjectively binding (or "something we all are committed by", something "universal"), and "subjective" implies "not binding at all."

So yes, there are definitely irrational and inconsistent Atheists, when the subject of morality comes up. And I'm thankful that most Atheists are better than their Atheism, in that respect. I would rather they be inconsistent but objectively moral than that they should choose to act on Atheist subjectivism.

We all should be glad, actually.

Peter thinks morality in terms of real feelings, opinions, beliefs and judgment - these are subjective.
Because these are not factual [not a matter of fact] thus, morality cannot be objective; morality to Peter can only be subjective or relative; to each their own - even genocide is morally right if accepted as a moral element.

But PH 'what is fact' [matter of fact] as real is based on philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.
Philosophical Realism claims of a mind-independent reality is based heavily on faith.
As such, PH do not have any credibility to dictate what is real and factual, an in this case, what real morality should be.

Theism is also based on philosophical realism, mind-independence of God and reality.
Because theistic morality is based on a theistic-moral FSK, it is regarded as objective.
Whilst recognized as objective it has a low degree of objectivity in contrast to the scientific FSK as the Standard.

Nevertheless, even with low objectivity, many of the moral elements are enabled intuitively in alignment with morality-proper grounded on human nature.
Example Christianity's 'love all, even enemies' 'give the other cheek' which cover the 'ought-not-ness to kill humans".

There is no doubt the Christianity moral FSK in respect with the above moral maxim [command from God] has contributed tremendously to the morality of humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Better reread, then. It's pretty obvious.

Atheism doesn't warrant any stronger claim. Honest Atheism has to be just a personal confession of ignorance -- it can't be more, without requiring evidence.

Not in my case.

In every case of Atheism. If you're just an agnostic, then the problem is different, of course.

I am not agnostic.

To me, it is impossible for God to exists as real in anyway as there is an element of contradiction.
This is equivalent to the claim it is impossible for a square-circle to exists.

[Harbal]

Yes. Peter, for example, thinks that morality can be in some sense real, while being merely "subjective."

It seems everyone other than you, apart from VA, who doesn't think it for entirely different reasons to yours, also thinks what Peter thinks.

Then that would just suggest a lot of people are wrong.

But the fact is that none of us are saying that morality is subjective according to atheism.

It has to be. What objective precept can the worldview premised on Atheism generate?

Morality is a driving force within us, as is love, hate, envy, and any other number of emotions.

So is sex, greed, violence...No light is shed on the moral situation by saying "there's a driving force for X in us."

Here's the Atheistic problem, in a nutshell. There are two cultures. One believes that rape is wrong. The other believes that rape a virtuous action that restores the honour of an offended family by giving them vengeance. These two cultures live in the same country -- yours.

To know which one of these cultures is doing evil, and which is doing something virtuous, we will have to judge them with reference to a third code of some kind, a code that transcends both, a universal and objective code.. But Atheism does not allow there to exist such a code: no entity exists capable of grounding a transcendent, universal moral code.

So now, which culture is doing the moral and virtuous thing, and which is doing the wicked thing? They can't both be doing the right thing, since it's the opposite thing. So which one will you pick, and on what basis that cannot immediately be dismissed as you simply being prejudiced in favour of your own culture?

As usual, you leave me not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

I don't even believe that you believe any of that rubbish.

[popeye1945]

That's an et tu quoque fallacy. Atheism's flaws are not addressed by attacking the alternatives.

No flaws, we simply do not believe you, by the way,...

And yet, I can prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt. I can prove Atheism isn't just "flawed," but is totally useless for morality.

All I have to do is ask you to give me one moral precept...just one...that is grounded in Atheism, and if you can do it, you win. If you can't...

You can't.

Humanity created religion and is the source of all compassion which is the seed of all morality. Religion just usurped through a false claim that compassion/morality was handed down by some supernatural force. All meaning, values and judgments are biologically dependent, take away the conscious subject and the physical world is utterly meaningless. Religion, like all human creations, is a biological extension, a biological expression of humanity. Religion is for those who cannot think, or will not think, would they be delusional if they could think, don't think so. Biological consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. All three of the desert religions are the creations of our ignorant ancestors. Again, Atheism is not a belief system, there is no special name for those who do not believe that Elvis is still alive and living in upper Mongolia, just plain folks. So, you have the floor, enlighten me!

[Peter Holmes]

Peter...thinks that morality can be in some sense real, while being merely "subjective." Of course, he's oblivious to what a contradiction that is: it's like saying, "There's a duty that isn't a duty." For "moral" implies "intersubjectively binding (or "something we all are committed by", something "universal"), and "subjective" implies "not binding at all."

Two responses.

A Whether there are moral facts or only moral opinions, the connection between morality and duties is by no means simple or linear. In other words, a moral premise can't entail a factual behavioural conclusion. What should be a 'moral duty' is a matter of opinion. For example:

Premise: Abortion is morally wrong.
Conclusion:
1 Therefore, it's a pregnant person's duty to carry the pregnancy to term.
2 Therefore, it's everyone's duty to force a pregnant person to carry a pregnancy to term.
3 Therefore, it's the government's duty to punish people who have abortions, or who perform them.
4 Therefore, it's a citizen's duty to murder abortion practitioners.

And to repeat: changing the premise to 'It's a fact that abortion is morally wrong' makes no difference.

B The claim that the adjective 'moral' means or implies 'intersubjectively binding', or 'something we all are committed by', or 'something universal' is false. You've simply invented this gloss - along with your claim that 'subjective' means or implies 'not binding'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No flaws, we simply do not believe you, by the way,...

And yet, I can prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt. I can prove Atheism isn't just "flawed," but is totally useless for morality.

All I have to do is ask you to give me one moral precept...just one...that is grounded in Atheism, and if you can do it, you win. If you can't...

You can't.

Humanity created religion and is the source of all compassion which is the seed of all morality.
Religion just usurped through a false claim that compassion/morality was handed down by some supernatural force.

All meaning, values and judgments are biologically dependent, take away the conscious subject and the physical world is utterly meaningless.

Religion, like all human creations, is a biological extension, a biological expression of humanity.

Religion is for those who cannot think, or will not think, would they be delusional if they could think, don't think so.

Biological consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things.

All three of the desert religions are the creations of our ignorant ancestors.

Again, Atheism is not a belief system, there is no special name for those who do not believe that Elvis is still alive and living in upper Mongolia, just plain folks. So, you have the floor, enlighten me!

Agree to the above.

Religion, like all human creations, is a biological & psychological extension, a biological expression & psychological of humanity.
Morality, like all human creations, is a biological & psychological extension, a biological expression & psychological of humanity.

It so happened that religions incorporated elements of morality into its FSK.
However the Moral FSK of human nature do not have to rely on religions which could even hinder morality. Islam with its evil potential to exterminate the human species is a good example of a religion being a hindrance to morality.

Morality is an inherent neural function that is driven by human nature itself thus is independent of religions, atheism, politics, and other FSKs.

Btw, while Islam the religion, has the potential to exterminate the human species, Christianity still has its immutable doctrine that condone slavery [an evil element].

[Will Bouwman]

All I have to do is ask you to give me one moral precept...just one...that is grounded in Atheism, and if you can do it, you win. If you can't...

You can't.

You have to take responsibility for your own actions. This contrasts with Christian morality, according to which a human sacrifice will absolve you.

[Skepdick]

You have to take responsibility for your own actions.

What does that even mean in practice?

Consider the speech-act(ion?) where I insist that all philosophers idiots.

How do I go about NOT taking responsibility for this action?

This contrasts with Christian morality, according to which a human sacrifice will absolve you.

That's hardly a contrast of any kind. In Christian morality the human sacrifise only absolves you of responsibility after death, which in practical terms is no different to atheist morality.

Dying absolutely absolves me from any and all responsibilities.

[Immanuel Can]

Peter thinks morality in terms of real feelings, opinions, beliefs and judgment - these are subjective.
Because these are not factual [not a matter of fact] thus, morality cannot be objective; morality to Peter can only be subjective or relative; to each their own - even genocide is morally right if accepted as a moral element.

"If accepted"? "Accepted" by whom, is the problem. Who has the authority to make something moral?

The Nazis certainly "accepted" the destruction of the Jews. If your explanation of Peter's view is correct, that's enough to make Peter believe the Holocaust was "moral."

I think that's far too low a bar for most people to agree. I think what you've ended up advocating there is actually immoral, and most people will intuitively grasp that that is the case, even if they struggle to say why they feel it so strongly.

[Immanuel Can]

Not in my case.

In every case of Atheism. If you're just an agnostic, then the problem is different, of course.

I am not agnostic.

To me, it is impossible for God to exists as real in anyway as there is an element of contradiction.
This is equivalent to the claim it is impossible for a square-circle to exists.

Then the problem is yours, as it is for anyone who believes in Atheism. There is no grounds for even a single moral precept in a worldview premised on Atheism. And that will turn out to remain true whether, as you insist, God is "impossible to exist," since the problem is inherent to Atheism itself, regardless of all other views.

[FlashDangerpants]

All I have to do is ask you to give me one moral precept...just one...that is grounded in Atheism, and if you can do it, you win. If you can't...

You can't.

You have to take responsibility for your own actions. This contrasts with Christian morality, according to which a human sacrifice will absolve you.

Is it wise to feed his mania? You risk tacitly endorsing IC's fanatical insistence that morality is a mere subset of religious faith.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems everyone other than you, apart from VA, who doesn't think it for entirely different reasons to yours, also thinks what Peter thinks.

Then that would just suggest a lot of people are wrong.

But the fact is that none of us are saying that morality is subjective according to atheism.

It has to be. What objective precept can the worldview premised on Atheism generate?

Morality is a driving force within us, as is love, hate, envy, and any other number of emotions.

So is sex, greed, violence...No light is shed on the moral situation by saying "there's a driving force for X in us."

Here's the Atheistic problem, in a nutshell. There are two cultures. One believes that rape is wrong. The other believes that rape a virtuous action that restores the honour of an offended family by giving them vengeance. These two cultures live in the same country -- yours.

To know which one of these cultures is doing evil, and which is doing something virtuous, we will have to judge them with reference to a third code of some kind, a code that transcends both, a universal and objective code.. But Atheism does not allow there to exist such a code: no entity exists capable of grounding a transcendent, universal moral code.

So now, which culture is doing the moral and virtuous thing, and which is doing the wicked thing? They can't both be doing the right thing, since it's the opposite thing. So which one will you pick, and on what basis that cannot immediately be dismissed as you simply being prejudiced in favour of your own culture?

As usual, you leave me not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

I don't even believe that you believe any of that rubbish.

But you know it's true.

Let's call the one culture "Yorkshire culture," and the other "Rotherham culture." To what standard will you now refer, in order to affirm that Yorkshire culture is the right one, and Rotherham culture is wrong?

Now you see it, I'm certain.

[Immanuel Can]

No flaws, we simply do not believe you, by the way,...

And yet, I can prove it to you beyond any reasonable doubt. I can prove Atheism isn't just "flawed," but is totally useless for morality.

All I have to do is ask you to give me one moral precept...just one...that is grounded in Atheism, and if you can do it, you win. If you can't...

You can't.

Humanity created religion and is the source of all compassion which is the seed of all morality. Religion just usurped through a false claim that compassion/morality was handed down by some supernatural force. All meaning, values and judgments are biologically dependent, take away the conscious subject and the physical world is utterly meaningless. Religion, like all human creations, is a biological extension, a biological expression of humanity. Religion is for those who cannot think, or will not think, would they be delusional if they could think, don't think so. Biological consciousness is the measure and meaning of all things. All three of the desert religions are the creations of our ignorant ancestors. Again, Atheism is not a belief system, there is no special name for those who do not believe that Elvis is still alive and living in upper Mongolia, just plain folks. So, you have the floor, enlighten me!

Let's not even contest all that you say there. Let's pretend it's true. It's not, but this is a "let's pretend" kind of exercise: I needn't even bother to refute it, since its all made up anyway.

How will believing any of that myth fix the fundamental ethical problem inherent to Atheism itself -- namely,that if you take Atheist assumptions at the base of your worldview, there is no warrant or justification for insisting on any morality or any ethics?

[Immanuel Can]

Peter...thinks that morality can be in some sense real, while being merely "subjective." Of course, he's oblivious to what a contradiction that is: it's like saying, "There's a duty that isn't a duty." For "moral" implies "intersubjectively binding (or "something we all are committed by", something "universal"), and "subjective" implies "not binding at all."

Two responses.

A Whether there are moral facts or only moral opinions, the connection between morality and duties is by no means simple or linear.

It's worse than that: it's not obvious at all that Atheism can get from its alleged "facts-only" worldview to a single duty. Even one. That's what Hume saw. And it's what Nietzsche saw, too.

For example:

Premise: Abortion is morally wrong.

An Atheist cannot derive that premise from anything. So no conclusion at all follows.

You're making a very obvious mistake there, Peter: you're thinking that if you can only call into question the various alternatives to subjectivism, that subjectivism will win by default. But that's not logical. What is logical is that if you knock down every view of morality and declare it all subjective, then ALL morality falls. Yours too.

Unless you can show that Atheism can warrant even one moral precept. Still just one. One. Still nothing?

But even that lowest-possible-ask seems to set too high a bar for Atheism; so your conclusion has to be that amorality is true: there are no such things as justified moral precepts. They aren't merely "subjective": they're non-existent, fraudulent, delusory. The very attempt to assert a moral imperative is nothing but a power-grab. Nietzsche was right. And not Moral Subjectivism, but Moral Nihilism is the deep truth of things.

[Immanuel Can]

All I have to do is ask you to give me one moral precept...just one...that is grounded in Atheism, and if you can do it, you win. If you can't...

You can't.

You have to take responsibility for your own actions.

From where do we derive this axiom, "You owe it to the universe to take responsibility for your actions?" What gives us reason to believe it?

For it must surely be apparent to you that many of us do not at all take responsibility for our various actions. If you say we owe it (or "ought") to do so, on what basis do you assert that claim? Why must we begin to do what so many of us clearly do not do?