Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent exchange in this post William J. Murray said to frequent commenter Bob O’H:

all you (and others) are doing is avoiding the point via wordplay. We all act and expect others to act as if these things are objective and universally binding, the ability to imagine alternate systems notwithstanding.

That is precisely correct, as illustrated by my exchange with goodusername in the same post.  First, at comment 12 GUN professed to not even know what the word “right” means:

GUN:  “What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?”

I decided to test this:

Barry @ 13:

Suppose the following exchange:

GUN: Hey, Barry is is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

Barry: Yes, GUN, it is.

Did I supply a “right” answer to a moral question?

 

GUN replied at 15: “Such a thing certainly shocks my sense of empathy, and so I would fight to stop such a thing, as would most others. So the answer is right in that sense.”

First GUN insisted he does not even know what “morally right” means.  But when confronted with an undeniable self-evident moral truth he had to walk it back and admit he did in fact know what the right answer is.  But, as WJM points out, he tried to obscure the obvious point with wordplay.  So I called BS on him.

GUN’s antics are just the latest of hundreds I have seen over the years.  It is amazing.  They know that no sane person can live his life as if what they say were true.  Yet they absolutely insist on saying it anyway.   Why do they do that?  Simple.  Because they want to ignore the dictates of morality when it suits them.  Atheist Aldous Huxley was very candid about this:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.

Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (1937), 272-73

Huxley wanted to reserve the option of sleeping with his neighbor’s wife.  So, no objective morality.

 

 

 

Comments
KF, sorry, I thought you were referring to comments on this site. I couldn’t see any such comments. That is the only reason I asked. Have a pleasant weekend.Molson Bleu
January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
MB, it happened in the penumbra of animus-driven sites. We were there, we remember. As should you if you are yet another persona. Just remember, Ab fired the opening salvo. KFkairosfocus
January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
“Let’s just say that when trolls take on a decent woman and try to trash her in ways that we have seen, they deserve a haymaker. ” Sorry, but I do not recall this happening here. Is it possible to provide a king? Thank you.Molson Bleu
January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
PS: First steps to a taxonomy of trolls: http://tantek.pbworks.com/w/page/19403022/TrollTaxonomy , clipping -- >> . . . I am first providing a list of previous work and efforts to classify and categorize trolls that I've found. Wikipedia: Troll (Internet) article 2002-11-10 ChessBase News: Flame warriors – a full taxonomy by Mike Reed. See also Mike Reed's illustrated Flame Warrior Roster which includes a number of troll types. Compost has few weapons at his disposal and must resort to expletives and gross vulgarities. Godzilla Big Dog may be smart, articulate or just plain mean, but in any case he is a remorseless fighter, brutally ripping into even the weakest of combatants. Profundus Maximus eagerly holds forth on all subjects, but his thin knowledge will not support a sustained assault and therefore his attacks quickly peter out. Profundus Maximus often uses big words, obscure terms and...ahem...even Latin to bluff his way through battle. Deacon Be he a Baptist, Scientologist or Zoroastrian, in the heat of battle Deacon will call down Divine retribution on all net sinners, and will never miss an opportunity to tell everyone about his personal savior. Deacon is fervent and earnest, but never has anything of interest or substance to contribute. Jerk is sarcastic, mean, unforgiving and never misses an opportunity to make a cutting remark. Jerk is very happy to participate in electronic forums because in cyberspace he is free to be his repulsive self. Grunter always reponds to discussion forum messages with a single word or a short phrase: "Yeah!". "Get a life.", "Whatever", "I agree." "Wrong.", etc. Lonely Guy doesn't get out much, his social isolation drives him to do battle just for the human contact. Compassion dictates that we shouldn't get too upset with his antics. But he can be very fierce. Remember, he has nothing better to do than stew over real or imagined insults. Propeller Head knows just about everything there is to know about computers and the internet, and is indignant (which is what makes him or her a troll) that you don't. Rebel Leader has an uncanny ability to upset the settled order of a discussion forum. Filibuster attempts to influence the forum simply by holding the floor with monotonous hectoring and prodigious output of verbiage. see other troll types at illustrated Flame Warrior Roster, which, notably, includes more than just trolls, but the "good guys" that help fight them off and defend communities from them, such as "Admin", "Diplomat", "Eagle Scout", etc. 2003-03-26 LGF blog comments: Peace Troll Taxonomy 101 by LGF user "Caton". Excerpted: "Jihadi" troll anti-Semitic troll "control" troll "bolchevik" troll 'mongrel' trolls 2006-12-16 Time Magazine: Making Mischief on the Web by ANA MARIE COX Concern troll is more subtle than your standard troll, and posts comments that appear to be sympathetic to the topic being discussed but who, in reality, wishes to sow doubt in the minds of readers . . . >> I should add to this that one of the favourite troll tactics is a propaganda device pioneered by Hitler and Goebbels, the turn-speech false or strawman accusation that projects blame to the despised or targetted other in order to hide behind the squid ink cloud thereby created. Sometimes, to attack further through ad hominems, sometimes to escape behind the confusion created. Quite often, the real problem is captured by this: he hit back first. So, who hit first?kairosfocus
January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
MB, suit yourself. Let's just say that when trolls take on a decent woman and try to trash her in ways that we have seen, they deserve a haymaker. Meanwhile, we will take due note of Ab's exposure that beyond JS there are other "sock[puppet]" personas popping up in and around UD at rhetorically convenient times and coming from that source; a key sign is that such are not honest participants in discussion on the merits. KFkairosfocus
January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
“MB, troll hangout. KF” I’m sure that you will forgive me if I decide that for myself.Molson Bleu
January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
MB, troll hangout. KFkairosfocus
January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
“FYI-FTR 2: JS, “sock[puppet]” troll persona — the unmasking (by Ab at a notorious objector site)” Thank you for pointing me to this site. Very informative.Molson Bleu
January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
WJM @ 347: Brilliant.Truth Will Set You Free
January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
JSmith is no longer with us? Good riddance!Truth Will Set You Free
January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
And meaning, I rely on myself, family and friends to bring meaning to my life. . . .That is good, but that is not a reason thing. JS, if you are banned such is life, but I want to elaborate on this. We started discussing faith vs. reason and I tried to make the point that the concepts are not in opposition to each other, and in fact you can't have reason without faith. You brought up emotion as something that provides meaning to life, and I agree with you albeit it was not something that relates to the specifics of our discussion. You don't need faith to have emotion -- in fact I think emotion is inherent to our nature -- but faith-directed reason-defended rules are required so that the good emotions that make us happy don't die. Examples would be don't cheat on your spouse, don't lie to your friends, don't bully, don't be disloyal, share, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you etc. The inclination to do these things is also inherent to our nature. If we didn't have faith to work against our immediate desires we would never gain the greater things.tribune7
January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
JSmith is no longer with us.Barry Arrington
January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
FYI-FTR 2: JS, “sock[puppet]” troll persona — the unmasking (by Ab at a notorious objector site) -- here.kairosfocus
January 19, 2018
January
01
Jan
19
19
2018
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
And meaning, I rely on myself, family and friends to bring meaning to my life. That is good, but that is not a reason thing.tribune7
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
T7
The consistency of nature, the purpose of existence, that there is meaning, that it isn’t all a dream.
I would agree that nature is consistent for moderately long periods of time, but over millennia, not so much. With regard to purpose of existence, I think that we do ourselves a disservice by assuming this is the case. And meaning, I rely on myself, family and friends to bring meaning to my life.JSmith
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Are you stating that reason can only be achieved after we have faith in the existence of rules of logic? Or do you mean more? The consistency of nature, the purpose of existence, that there is meaning, that it isn't all a dream. It is certainly natural to assume these things, but what if you question your assumptions? You will find you can't prove them. You have to live by faith.tribune7
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
T7
Something else you are missing is that reason is not a means but an end. Reason is only acheived when you have found the faith to understand that there are rules and consistency and purpose.
I have to be honest and say that I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you stating that reason can only be achieved after we have faith in the existence of rules of logic? Or do you mean more?JSmith
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
PS: Simon Greenleaf:
Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [--> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. [--> that is, his focus is on the logic of good support for in principle uncertain conclusions, i.e. in the modern sense, inductive logic and reasoning in real world, momentous contexts with potentially serious consequences.] Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. [--> the issue of warrant to moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt; and the contrasted absurdity of selective hyperskepticism.] The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. [--> moral certainty standard, and this is for the proverbial man in the Clapham bus stop, not some clever determined advocate or skeptic motivated not to see or assent to what is warranted.] The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. [--> pistis enters; we might as well learn the underlying classical Greek word that addresses the three levers of persuasion, pathos- ethos- logos and its extension to address worldview level warranted faith-commitment and confident trust on good grounding, through the impact of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in C1 as was energised by the 500 key witnesses.] By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind [--> in British usage, the man in the Clapham bus stop], beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal [--> and responsible] test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [= definition of moral certainty as a balanced unprejudiced judgement beyond reasonable, responsible doubt. Obviously, i/l/o wider concerns, while scientific facts as actually observed may meet this standard, scientific explanatory frameworks such as hypotheses, models, laws and theories cannot as they are necessarily provisional and in many cases have had to be materially modified, substantially re-interpreted to the point of implied modification, or outright replaced; so a modicum of prudent caution is warranted in such contexts -- explanatory frameworks are empirically reliable so far on various tests, not utterly certain. ] [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]
kairosfocus
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
JS, many have been taught -- erroneously -- to believe that faith means BLIND, IRRATIONAL BELIEF. This is a fallacy, and often a slur. There is reasonable, responsible faith, and there is unwarranted, dangerously unsound belief. This includes the flip side of selective hyperskepticism. For if one disbelieves what per reasonable warrant s/he should accept and be willing to act on with much at stake, then necessarily s/he also hypercredulously accepts things s/he should not. That is how marches of folly get started. A good place to begin sorting such out is with worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties. Yes it is painful and difficult [a key message in the Parable of the Cave], but in the end it is the sound way. KFkairosfocus
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
JS That's all one can ask.tribune7
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
J7
Something else you are missing is that reason is not a means but an end. Reason is only acheived when you have found the faith to understand that there are rules and consistency and purpose.
I'm not sure if I believe you about this. I will have to think about it a bit.JSmith
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Now you are just extending the definition of faith to the absurd. No, I'm taking it to the literal, and logical, end. you can argue that we take everything on faith. Do you remember what you were responding to back at 340? Actually, what I'm saying is that we do, ultimately, take everything on faith. Something else you are missing is that reason is not a means but an end. Reason is only acheived when you have found the faith to understand that there are rules and consistency and purpose.tribune7
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
T7
And the reality is that you can’t prove anything you believe to the standard that you demand. You cannot prove you are not a small part of a great artificial simulation, a mere battery powering the Matrix.
Now you are just extending the definition of faith to the absurd. If you want to be completely absurd, you can argue that we take everything on faith. But there is a huge difference between the level of faith required to accept gravity, nuclear physics and plate tectonics, and the level of faith required to accept the resurrection of Christ, Bigfoot or UFOs.JSmith
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
JS Faith: “belief that is not based on proof.” And the reality is that you can't prove anything you believe to the standard that you demand. You cannot prove you are not a small part of a great artificial simulation, a mere battery powering the Matrix. Did you ever seriously reflect on all the things that you believe that you can't prove? Why are you here, for instance. Accepting things on faith does not mean that they are not true or that they did not happen, just that they are not supported by compelling evidence. Again, we all have to live by faith. Even arithmetic can't be proven completely.tribune7
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Bob O'H said:
Interesting. Before, you interpreted the tendency to enforce morality as behaving as if morality were objective, but now it’s behaving as if one believes that might makes right?
Everyone is willing, to some degree, to enforce their morality on others. Normally, that kind of behavior is due to values considered to be objective - like scoring a math test, engineering principles, etc. Thus, "everyone behaves as if morality is objective" - objective like math, load bearing capacities, basic physics, etc. However, we were exploring a morality presumed to be subjective, so it cannot be referring to an objective standard. How then to account for your willingness to enforce your personal morality on others when there is no objective standard? The logical reasoning from the premise of no objective standard in morality led us to the "might makes right" paradigm as explained above.
If, during my attempt to rescue someone from being pummeled, I result in getting pummeled myself, I’m certainly not going to interpret that as the man doing the pummeling as being “right.” I don’t care how “mighty” he is, it means zilch to me when it comes to morality. Having “might” doesn’t make him right – merely victorious.
Unfortunately, you're being hypocritical here - probably unwittingly. If you define morality and the right to act on that morality as what the individual decides is moral and enforcing it however they see fit, the necessary logical conclusion is that you are both being equally moral, the only difference being which of you is better equipped to do the enforcing. Don't misunderstand the concept of "might makes right" for "whoever wins is moral, whoever loses is immoral". All it means is that might (in whatever form) is what empowers your self-asserted "right" to enforce your personal morality on others. IOW, might (in whatever form, along with willingness to use it) is the proper judge of which competing moral view should win out.
But I think I may see what you’re getting at. You’re saying that by interfering, that we act as if morality is more than just personal beliefs/feelings that we enforce on others, and thus we’re behaving as if morality is something bigger than us (and something objective).
Yes.
I think you’re half right (if I understand you correctly): the premise is right, but the conclusion is wrong. You’re correct that by interfering I’m acting as if my desires to not be killed/robbed/punched in the face are more than personal quirks. Part of empathy is “theory of mind”, the understanding that such desires are shared by (almost) all others. Thus I’m behaving in a way that not only is the way that I want to behave, but is the way that I would want others to behave, and is the way that pretty much everyone else would want me to behave.
The problem is that no matter what your personal theories, justifications or rationalizations are, by your own admission others are not bound to those same views. Regardless of how deep you go into your own, personal, subjective perspective, they carry no more objective moral value than the other guy who just gets off on beating up kids.
Thus the reason someone interferes is not because they believe that morality is objective – or that they believe that might makes right – it’s because they aren’t a complete sociopath.
I agree with the above; the problem is that this is where the logic necessarily ends up. The necessary logical conclusion of subjective morality is "might makes right". I realize nobody outside of sociopaths would accept "might makes right" as their moral maxim or principle, and that is exactly the point here. Moral subjectivists usually float in an unexamined and untenable position that cannot be supported rationally. This is why the heavyweight atheists/moral subjectivist philosophers all understand this problem. The brave ones, as BA, KF and others continually point out, admit moral subectivism necessarily means might makes right and will-to-power. There is no third option. Enforcing moral views on others either means you agree objective moral values exist which give you the ability to recognize evil and the right - the obligation - to intervene, or else it's just a competition between two equally moral people to see who can overpower - in some way - the other.
There’s also “social contract” stuff going on. As a society, we give up the right to kill and rob as it means others won’t have the right to kill and rob us. It’s the kind of society that pretty much everyone wants to live in. It’s pretty much the only way to have a society.
This isn't a solution to the problem of the rationality of subjective morality; in fact, it exacerbates the issue. If society thinks something is moral, and you as an individual feel strongly it is not, on what basis do you disobey or try to change society? Again, it all boils down to equal morality (morality defined personally and subjectively) and power differential. If morality is subjective, Bob O'H, there is no such thing as objective immorality. The only way to decide if someone else is behaving immorally is to ask them if they are behaving immorally. It would be the same thing in principle as saying someone is eating food they don't like because you don't like it. You don't get to judge their personal preferences by your own, do you? You can say you don't like it, or that an act would be immoral for you to do it, but you cannot say it is immoral for someone else because you do not know their moral system. The only way to point at someone else and say that what they are doing ***is*** wrong is if that behavior meets an agreed objective standard of wrongness - like looking at someone else's answer on a math quiz and saying "they're wrong". You can't look at someone's answer for "what is your favorite food" and say "they're wrong"; you have no logical, objective standard by which to look at the moral behavior of others and say "they're wrong"- if you claim to be a moral subjectivist.William J Murray
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
T7
What you are missing is that faith can be — and should be — grounded in reason.
Faith: "belief that is not based on proof." We all take many things on faith that are not based on proof. Although there are significant portions of the bible that can be corroborated independently, there is also much of it that must be taken on faith because it cannot be be supported through reason and compelling evidence. This would include things like the Garden of Eden, Noah's flood, Christ's resurrection, etc. Accepting things on faith does not mean that they are not true or that they did not happen, just that they are not supported by compelling evidence.JSmith
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
JS:
Faith is what we fall back on when reason and evidence do not, or can not, support our opinions.
Spoken just like a good little troll. Actually, we must all have worldviews and face the trilemma: infinite regress, circularity in the root or a finitely remote set of first plausibles that we have good reason to believe can hold their own in the face of comparative difficulties. The first is instantly absurd, we cannot get started. The second begs big questions. Only the third is a responsible option: a reasonable faith that acknowledges self-evident plumbline first principles but realises that such will never be enough to frame a full worldview. We must all walk by faith, the issue is to do so reasonably and responsibly. The further observation is, evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers isn't doing so good. It is self-referentially incoherent, unable to account for reasonable, responsible freedom. It has no world-root is capable of grounding ought. And more. Never mind the lab coat. I suggest that you think again. KFkairosfocus
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
CR, where did I focus on who should rule, save in the rather specific context of the ship of state? Where Plato's Socrates basically says that wisdom, adequate knowledge, sound character and good intent should be marks of political leaders rather than cynical manipulation, malevolence, incompetence, deceit, imprudence and folly. Do you disagree, thanks for letting us know in advance. KF PS: Bad, unsound rulers predictably make very poor policy decisions. Just like bad doctors and bad military commanders. As happened to Athens.kairosfocus
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
That the sun will rise for you tomorrow is a matter of faith. . . .No. It is a matter of reason supported by evidence. Actually, for about 150,000 people the sun will not rise tomorrow :-) I believe that if I jump off a 20 story building that I will fall, most likely to my death. What you are missing is that faith can be -- and should be -- grounded in reason.tribune7
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
T7
That the sun will rise for you tomorrow is a matter of faith.
No. It is a matter of reason supported by evidence.
Maybe abiogenesis.
I agree that we both rely on faith for our opinions on this.
Maybe the multiverse.
Might be an interesting thought experiment, but nothing more.
If you believe in something else about how everything came about, that is also ultimately a matter of faith.
Not necessarily so. I believe that if I jump off a 20 story building that I will fall, most likely to my death. Since I have never personally tested this, you might argue that my argument is based on faith, not reason, but that would violate KF's "credible warrant" argument. So I suggest that your disagreement is with KF, not with me.JSmith
January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
1 2 3 13

Leave a Reply