Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?

_{Barry Arrington

January 11, 2018

Intelligent Design}

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

CR @5 What you are referring to is The Apocryphal; books and church teachings written to support and secure the churches interests, which have nothing to do with the fundamental teachings of the bible. That's why they are not included or printed separately from the main bible... Just to emphasize your point, the catholic church wanted to include those books with the bible because: "...This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit..." In other words, those writings support the teachings the church made up for control, like purgatory... I don't know where teachings like internal tournament and purgatory fit, but they don't fit with any morality I know about and definitively not with God's....J-Mac_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Dick @2 You are right of course. And why is that we are still having discussions about it? For atheists there is no ethics other than personal preference and/or the contingent rules of society. An atheist is ultimately a nihilist wrt ethics.
In a world where physics fixes all the facts, it’s hard to see how there could be room for moral facts. In a universe headed for its own heat death, there is no cosmic value to human life, your own or anyone else’s. Why bother to be good? ... First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us. Second, if we admit to being nihilists, then people won’t trust us. We won’t be left alone when there is loose change around. We won’t be relied on to be sure small children stay out of trouble. Third, and worst of all, if nihilism gets any traction, society will be destroyed. We will find ourselves back in Thomas Hobbes’s famous state of nature, where “the life of man is solitary, mean, nasty, brutish and short.” Surely, we don’t want to be nihilists if we can possibly avoid it. (Or at least, we don’t want the other people around us to be nihilists.) Scientism can’t avoid nihilism. We need to make the best of it. .... To avoid these outcomes, people have been searching for scientifically respectable justification of morality for least a century and a half. The trouble is that over the same 150 years or so, the reasons for nihilism have continued to mount. Both the failure to find an ethics that everyone can agree on and the scientific explanation of the origin and persistence of moral norms have made nihilism more and more plausible while remaining just as unappetizing. [Rosenberg, 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality', ch. 5]
Origenes_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

StephenB, To explain how morality is objective would help to explain what an objectivist means when they say the answer to a moral question is right or not. And vice versa. Thus the two statements are obviously related, and there shouldn't be any confusion, as it's clear that the question meant "right answer" in an objective sense. But to put the two statements in a wider context (and why there should be an even less chance of confusion), in the post where the questions came from (the link is in #3) I begin by envisioning a machine that answers objective questions. It gives answer to math questions, and questions as to which rock is larger, heavier, etc. I then mention the difficulty of envisioning such a machine that answers questions on morality and mention that this points to subjectivity. It's then that the two statements appear. The statements are in the context of a machine that gives right answers to objective questions. If (somehow) there was still any confusion, that should evaporate as the whole second half of the post was an explanation of how *I* (and IMO we) get answers to moral questions, and also an explanation for why I believe it points to morality being subjective. Thus the crux of the question was an attempt to have moral objectivists explain how they believe morality differs from moral subjectivists.
When we discuss objective morality we are simply referring to the morality proper to human nature, which is obviously an objective reality in itself. Among other things, the nature of a human being is to use his faculties of intellect and will to make decisions that will help him obtain those things that are objectively good for him. Thus, morality must be an objective set of guidelines to help humans achieve an objective end (what is good for them).
That's an interesting description of morality because I think it's one that virtually all (certainly most!) materialists/atheists would agree with (for the most part). Even most atheist parents teach their children morality because 1) they don't want their children harming others and 2) it will generally lead to a happier more fulfilling life. In other words, it is good for them.goodusername_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

StephenB writes,
When we discuss objective morality we are simply referring to the morality proper to human nature, which is obviously an objective reality in itself.
As we have been discussing, conclusions follow from premises. Stephen assumes, because it is "obvious" to him, that an objective human nature exists that has the qualities (more assumptions) from which he can conclude objective morality exists. This is a closed system that is somewhat analogous (see note below) to the three geometries issue that I have been discussing in the other thread. He assumes in his premise ("objective" human nature) that which is necessary for his conclusion. To one for whom Stephen's assumptions are not obvious, the conclusion about objective morality has no weight. His line of reasoning is internally self-consistent, much as each of the three geometries are, but that in itself is not evidence that his view is in fact consistent with, or an accurate description of, reality, nor is it evidence that other equally self-consistent views about the nature of human beings and their moral sense can't exist. To carry the analogy further, Stephen/Barry/kf/wjm et al claim that one who doesn't accept their premises and resulting conclusions about morality are being inconsistent if they even use the word "ought" and its associates. The problem with this argument is that it is applying criteria from one system to another, and then claiming that system B is faulty because it doesn't meet the criteria of system A. This is sort of like a person on a Euclidean plane saying to one on a sphere, "You can't really call this figure a triangle because the sum of its angles is not 180°" The objection is irrelevant: we don't expect triangles to have angle sums equal to 180° on a sphere. Likewise, those of us who deny objective morality have other ways of understanding human beings moral sense and judgments, so the claim that our system of thought is faulty because it has no objective moral criteria is irrelevant. Note: I'm aware that all analogies are incomplete, and meant to be "food for thought", suggesting similarities and differences to discuss, but not meant to state absolute parallels. Of course, there are certain significant ways in which mathematical systems such as the three geometries are not like our beliefs and understandings about human nature.jdk_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

So, Barry wins the argument because someone used the word “right”. When your only argument for something revolves around arguing over what a word really means, you are wallowing with the pigs for the best slop. But since Barry is the head hog, KF, WJM and SB will have to settle for sloppy seconds.JSmith_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

GUN
Although, I’m now sure what “objective” even means when referring to morality. What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?
The problem with this formulation is that the second question is entirely different from the first one. Only the first question makes sense. If you had stayed with it, you would not have created so much confusion. When we discuss objective morality we are simply referring to the morality proper to human nature, which is obviously an objective reality in itself. Among other things, the nature of a human being is to use his faculties of intellect and will to make decisions that will help him obtain those things that are objectively good for him. Thus, morality must be an objective set of guidelines to help humans achieve an objective end (what is good for them).StephenB_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Barry, I'l asking yet again: how have you managed to infallibly identify a source of objective morality, infallibly determine when to defer to it and managed to infallibly interpret it? For example, there are books that were left out of the Bible. From this article....
“Some scholars assert that the selection of books in the New Testament was rather arbitrary, and that the emergence of orthodox or ‘traditional’ Christianity was based not on its merit but on the politics of the winning side.”

Gnosticism comes from the Greek word for gnosis which means knowledge. It is a religion that claims to have secret knowledge above and beyond what most people have associated with religion. It includes ideas like what really counts is the spiritual. All matter is evil. God did not create creation, underling gods did. That creation was so flawed that matter will not be redeemed in you. This means that Jesus did not inhabit the flesh. There is no incarnation. It also means that there is no major discussion of sin and it also means that when the resurrection comes it will only involve your spirit going back to God. There is no resurrection of the body.
Why do you not defer to those books instead of, or in addition to, the books that are officially in the Bible? How did they get excluded in the first place? IOW, it's unclear how you can distinguish your idea of what God, justice, reception, etc. is from some supposed infallible source. Reason always has its say first. But, by all means, feel free to explain how you've managed to escape it. I won't be holding my breath.critical rationalist_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

GUN @ 3: "Don't believe your own eyes. Believe me." You are utterly shameless GUN. You said you don't know what it means to give a “right” answer to a morality question. Then you assured me that I had given a right answer to a morality question. No matter how you spin it, you are tying to have it both ways.Barry Arrington_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

First, at comment 12 GUN professed to not even know what the word “right” means:
Specifically, the question was what do those who say that morality is objective mean by the term? Here was the question:
Although, I’m now sure what “objective” even means when referring to morality. What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?
It's a question I often ask, and I've received an interesting mix of very different answers in the past. By some people's definition I am an objectivist, and sometimes I'm a subjectivist. I myself lean towards the view that morality is subjective for reasons described here (which is the same post where I posed my question): https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/would-moral-subjectivists-agree-to-math-and-logic-subjectivism/#comment-648209 As I explained in that post, I believe the reason why morality exists is because of empathy and certain desires - such as the desire to live, not be robbed, etc. And so when I see such things occuring to others, I say that such things are wrong/evil. Barry responded to the above question with this:
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?
I thought the question was a bit odd since I had already explained why I would say it is evil in the very post where he got the question. But I played along and answered the question anyway, pretty much repeating what I'd already said, in the hope that Barry might actually answer my question:
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. If there’s another way it is right, I don’t know what that would be.
In the past Barry claimed that materialists, in fact, don't get to say that something is evil, so I expected some explanation for why what I said is insufficient to call something evil, and (hopefully) explain what objectivists mean when they say something is wrong/evil. Instead, I got this response:
So you do know what it means to give a “right” answer to a morality question. Now having established that you are full of crap, we can safely disregard pretty much everything else you have to say.
I took this to mean that the explanation I gave for why something is evil is the same as the answer he would give - i.e. I gave the "right answer". In other words, it sounded like Barry was saying that my answer was sufficient to be a moral objectivist - and in fact I was "full of crap" for even suggesting that anything else was required to be an objectivist. This suprised me because Barry in the past had always maintained - for reasons still unclear to me - that materialists don't get to say that certain things are wrong or evil, but now he was affirming that I did get to say that certain things are wrong or evil. When, in surprise, I asked "So that’s all that’s meant by objective morality?" Barry's response was "There you go with the crap again. You know for a certain fact that statement is not true, but you can’t seem to stop yourself." So first I was full of crap for suggesting that something more than what I provided was needed to be a moral objectivist, and now I'm full of crap for suggesting the opposite. :-) Now Barry says:
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.
First, it should be obvious that when I asked the question, that I was asking what an objectivist means by morally right. I certainly wasn't saying that *I* don't know what I mean by morally right because I already explain what I mean by morally right in the very post where he got the question! Remarkably, Barry apparently interpreted the question to mean that I was actually asking him what he thinks I mean by "morally right". How or why anyone would interpret it that way is beyond me. Second, I don't know what he thinks I "walked back" when - again - I just repeated what I originally said in the post where he got the question. Anyway, I believe that the foundation of morality for both Christians and atheists is the same - empathy. Most Christians would view "torturing an infant for personal pleasure" was evil even if there was nothing in the Bible that could be interpreted as banishing such a thing. And most Christians would still view such a thing as evil even if they ceased being a Christian.goodusername_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

To answer the question posed by the title of the post, they deny it because their atheism demands that they do. Their syllogism runs as follows: 1.If there is no God there can be no objective moral obligations. 2. There is no God, therefore 3. there are no objective moral obligations. If they acceded to the claim that objective moral obligations exist they'd have to give up premise 2, and this many of them simply will not do.Dick_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Huxley
We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.
Barry
Huxley wanted to reserve the option of sleeping with his neighbor’s wife. So, no objective morality.
Absolutely right. This is the big secret that hides behind hyperskepticism and epistemologically driven morality. Subjectivism begins below the belt.StephenB_{January 11, 2018
January
01
Jan
11
11
2018
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 11 12 13

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply