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

JS Faith is what we fall back on when reason and evidence That the sun will rise for you tomorrow is a matter of faith. You believe in something. Maybe abiogenesis. Maybe the multiverse. If you are one who believes in such things your belief is a matter of faith. If you believe in something else about how everything came about, that is also ultimately a matter of faith.tribune7_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

T7
Reason tells you that everything is ultimately a matter of faith.
I would disagree. Faith is what we fall back on when reason and evidence do not, or can not, support our opinions.JSmith_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

CR @ 335: "Why should I care about God’s purpose for me?" Because you are destined for Hell without His gift of salvation. You are condemned already. And please don't get all moralistic on me. In your a/mat world there are no real morals... just opinions that come and go over time. Your opinions mean very little to me, and I am sure that my opinions mean very little to you.Truth Will Set You Free_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Reason always has its way first. Reason tells you that everything is ultimately a matter of faith.tribune7_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

@KF. Again, you're focusing on the wrong thing. It's not who should rule. This seeks an authoritative answer. Rulers are just a means to an end. What we need are good polices. Where they come from is irrelevant. So, what question should we ask? How we can we create a system by which we can correct errors. This includes removing bad polices and bad rulers. And both of these things should be possible without violence. Mistakes are inevitable. There are no infallible sources of good policies. You're just advocating some other ruler, who you happen to think is infinitely wiser and cannot lead us into error, which isn't actually an improvement. So, it's unclear how I fit your atheist / materialist profile.critical rationalist_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

KF that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . Which sums up the fight. It's not about "science" but truth. Science is a means not an end. While it deserves respect it does not deserve worship. In fact, worshipping science is anti-science. Truth, of course, is an end and the Spirit of Truth is worthy of worship.tribune7_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn’t matter.
Ultimately doesn't matter?. Why should I care about God's purpose for me? Reason always has its way first. It's unclear how being held responsible for the sins of the "first man", Let alone how being held responsible by eternity of torture, serves any purpose beyond trying to reconcile the belief in a perfectly good God and human behavior. Apparently, the only solution your "super being" could come up with is to attempt to coerce us via the threat of eternal violence. You'll have to excuse me for not finding that very moral solution. It sound like something fallible human beings would come up with several thousand years ago. Why would you think I'd somewhat find that any more acceptable, for some eternity, after I die, than I do now?
“I ask you in return: are you a benevolent or a malevolent god? If benevolent, then what do I have to fear? If malevolent, then I disdain to fear you. We Athenians are a proud people – and protected by our goddess, as you surely know. Twice we defeated the Persian Empire against overwhelming odds,* and now we are defying Sparta. It is our custom to defy anyone who seeks our submission.”
critical rationalist_{January 18, 2018
January
01
Jan
18
18
2018
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

F/N2: Likewise, let us understand that the evolutionary materialism just exposed (with implications for fellow travellers also) is hardly new. And its consequences for the community were forever exposed i/l/o the collapse of Athens through the Peloponnesian war and its aftermath:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
The lessons of sound history were paid for with blood and tears. Those who refuse to heed them doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over and over again. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

F/N: For record, let us note a key remark by Provine at the 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
Let us never forget this, or its significance. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

ET @ 331: True indeed.Truth Will Set You Free_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter. from moral relativismET_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Since I don’t go killing and robbing, it’s not a fact. (Nor do the many materialists that I know, to the best of my knowledge.)
Clueless- the SOCIETY is NOT materialistic.
You, in #326, when you said “otherwise”.
That doesn't follow. I was talking about SOCIETY.ET_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

ET,
It’s a fact, not a sentiment.
Since I don't go killing and robbing, it's not a fact. (Nor do the many materialists that I know, to the best of my knowledge.)
Who says that I don’t?
You, in #326, when you said "otherwise".goodusername_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

goodusername:
I don’t think that sentiment is as common as you think, but I’m glad you’re not a materialist.
It's a fact, not a sentiment.
Can you explain specifically why you don’t go killing and robbing?
Who says that I don't?ET_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

ET,
As a society we gave up on materialism otherwise we would be killing and robbing as there wouldn’t be any reason not to.
I don't think that sentiment is as common as you think, but I'm glad you're not a materialist. Can you explain specifically why you don't go killing and robbing?goodusername_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

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.
As a society we gave up on materialism otherwise we would be killing and robbing as there wouldn't be any reason not to.ET_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

KF,
GUN, sez who? KF
Can you be more specific - which part? Are you asking who sez that children don't like to have a man punching them in the face? Or that people generally don't want to live in a society where they can be legally killed? Or, what?goodusername_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

GUN
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.
Even herd animals have figured this out. It is strange to me why people who claim to be much smarter than these herd animals have such a hard time with this.JSmith_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

GUN, sez who? KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

WJM,
Are you familiar with the philosophy of “Might Makes Right?” It appears that is what you are wittingly or unwittingly espousing – that whatever we think is good is in fact good (in the only way a moral good can be a fact – personal feeling, preference, subjective thoughts, views), and that we have the self-asserted right to enforce those goods on others, have we the power and inclination to do so.
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? Do only sane people then behave as if might makes right? 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. 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). 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. 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. 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.goodusername_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

CR, for years you have laboured long and hard at UD to undermine knowledge, but are now appealing to knowledge.
Suggesting someone is mistaken about what knowledge is and how it grows is an example of undermining knowledge?critical rationalist_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

@WJM If moral knowledge isn't about solving concrete moral problems, then what is it for? I would suggest assuming it's not is missing the point of morality as a whole. This entire thread is concerned about justifying their position based on a source and therefore ignores what seems to be the real issue. Can we apply it when we need it, in practice. That's my point.critical rationalist_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

CR, for years you have laboured long and hard at UD to undermine knowledge, but are now appealing to knowledge. Give us one good reason that we should not view you as a sock-puppet troll persona? KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

moral relativism: Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. JSmith:
How would I know? I’m not a moral relativist.
So you do not accept evolution by means of blind and mindless processes? There may be hope for you, however slim.ET_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

CR @311 said:
Why do you think I’d believe torturing a specific toddler to death would somehow “satisfactory guarantee” that I could eliminate all cancer in the world? Does the toddler possess that knowledge and I have to torture it out of it? Toddlers cannot even conceive of explanatory theories at all, let along an explanatory theory of how to eliminate cancer.
Talk about missing the point! OMG!!!William J Murray_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

My point is, when we try to take the idea of a infallible source seriously, for the purpose of criticism, the actual process of “appealing to” any such source, in practice, is effectively equivalent to the process when we do not hold a source as infallible. The idea that there is some key difference doesn’t surive criticism. Reason always has its way first.critical rationalist_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

TWSYF
JSmith everywhere: Why should anyone pay attention to you and your self-defeating moral relativism?
For someone who shouldn't be paid any attention to, there are several threads now of people doing just that. All for me saying that all moral values are open to questioning. Which isn't even an opinion. It is a statement of fact.JSmith_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

The point of my questions is to encourage you to think more deeply. When you say that a thing (moral value) “can be more or less absolute,” you are using bad logic. It is a nonsensical statement and a problem that needs to be explored. So it is with some of your other statements.
As I’ve pointed out, when faced with the question if there is such a thing as objective moral values, people have put forward a specific example of a proposition that was objectively morally wrong. My question is, by what process did they end up with that particular proposition? Of of all those they considered, did they not choose that proposition as to best to make their point? And how might they have reached that conclusion as to which proposition would be best? Did they not quickly stop and try to question which ways or reasons there could be exceptions to that proposition? If not, then it’s unclear why that specific proposition chosen, out of all those considered, as a shining example of something that is objectify morally wrong. Was it select arbirtararlly? What happen there? Again, words are shortcuts for ideas. And we should be willing to adopt the terminology of others when having a discussion.critical rationalist_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

JSmith everywhere: Why should anyone pay attention to you and your self-defeating moral relativism? It is...well... self-defeating.Truth Will Set You Free_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

SB, recall, you are dealing with a troll persona, one that has dismissed the key distinction between is and ought as nonsense and as a mere -- presumably empty -- talking point. Blend in radical, self referentially incoherent and infinitely regressive fallibilism and we get a picture of utter incoherence. Somewhere in there we will find a mish-mash of subjectivism, diminishing moral truth and principle to values that are figments of delusional minds that are delusions of neuronal electrochemistry, compounded by manipulation of power elites in a community and so forth, with Alisky agit prop tossed in for good measure. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply