Atheism, and how it relates to amorality.

Post Reply New Topic

These are the 3 points of moral realism:

1. Moral statements are the sorts of statements which are (or which express propositions which are) true or false (or approximately true, largely false, etc.);
2. The truth or falsity (approximate truth...) of moral statements is largely independent of our moral opinions, theories, etc.;
3. Ordinary canons of moral reasoning—together with ordinary canons of scientific and everyday factual reasoning—constitute, under many circumstances at least, a reliable method for obtaining and improving (approximate) moral knowledge.

The third is hard to justify.


Subjective theories of morality are wrong for the same reason why subjective theories of reality are wrong. Moral claims refer to facts, thus the view is wrong.


Basically, yes.... it is hard to imagine an Ideal Observer that wouldn't be a deity, but we could argue that a prophet could fill this role. In any case, I do see morality as inherently an element of religion... interestingly enough, I am reading a work by Emile Durkheim on religion, and to be honest, it seems as if he thinks that religion and morality are deeply linked, as Durkheim's thought draws a link between gods and things such as rights or flags or things like that as being representative of the same phenomena, and defines religion in relationship to a sacred and a profane, which seems to relate somewhat to moral claims.

Something that I wonder is why the Divine Command Theory is categorized as subjetivism rather than moral realism, if we assume that the judeo-christian God exists, the source of his morality would be independent of human thought, wouldn't that be considered objective morality (universalitism I think) rather than subjective to believers because of that? with the distinction of the ideal observer theory which fits with subjectivism more like the other.

I could say that I don't believe in moral realism, because morality is not a material thing that can be touched and measurable empirically rather seeming to be a human created concept out of necessity (that if morality was never imposed by a deity), I have taken somehow the existentialist approach about the issue, aiming to the concept of moral relativity, and history and anthropology seem to support that to be the case.

I believe what legato is probably arguing to be about invidisualist ethics (if I'm not mistaken) which I kinda find it problematic somehow to support, given that morality is needed to be supported and imposed by an entire group/society, in order to work, although I see a great connection between relativism and individualism (because it seems to go to that point)

About the ideal observer, I don't know how that works, is it about a hypothetical observer which we know it doesn't exist, but an abstract entity created for an impartial morality?

I don't think subjective theories to be entirely invalid, I mean, it can be said that the reason for morality and ethics to come to place has been out of necessity, and the ability of humans of cognition has had allowed the species to come up with a series of codes for behaviour and control as a way of living in a group and form societies and civilizations, which has evolved with time. I think some could argue that animals have their own way of handling their own organizations and humans with a "superior" mental ability, they have their own singular way, probably that would be what realists could argue, although it does make sense even if morality is subjective.

Basically, yes.

I think subjective theories usually don't grasp what it means to be moral. I mean, there is nothing wrong with viewing moral claims as subjective in a social science, simply because the truth of these moral claims is an ethical and epistemic question that is pointless to try to include, but I would argue that actual moral subjectivism just collapses on itself.

I would also tend to distinguish between a moral feeling, and morality though, simply because moral feelings do not seem to have necessary connections to moral facts, which can be seen in the phenomenon of moral conflict, where values can compete.

That doesn't really answer why I should hate such a philosophy,



Unless you took the view that there are no moral facts (moral nihilism) but then defined a functional morality along the lines of utilitarianism, social convention, egoism, etc.

Well, it is quite simple, really. It is objectively true, that we have a means of determining that moral realism should be hated and rejected, therefore we should hate it and reject it.


Well, you can't have morality and moral nihilism at the same time. What you'd then have would be fictions, and it would be sloppy to call your fictions the same thing as a non-existent thing. In any case, some formulations of egoism avoid the entire moral problem, simply by removing moral considerations from the decision making process. Take for instance homo economicus, he does not even have non-egoist input.

It is possible to reject a certain belief without actively hating it, and you didn't refute moral realism so much as demonstrate that it has some issues to overcome. Is moral nihilism the norm among experts in the field? I wouldn't know.


Then just redefine the word "morality" to mean something other than what you are currently describing it to mean.

On valuing life infinitely, what I meant to say is that my life became infinitely more valuable to me once I realized there is no such thing as eternal life. My life is short, finite, meaningful. Eternal life takes all meaning from life, and you'll realize that in your first billion years. Or maybe the trillion after that. Or the quintillion after that.

Then we are definitely not talking about the same thing. I am of the opinion that without critical thinking skills, morality would not exist. We would still be savages playing with rocks and sticks.

I already demonstrated my basis for those beliefs in my value of life statements earlier. If you simply don't want to recognize that as valid and discard it, that's fine, but at least realize that I provided a basis for my beliefs. Simply because you think it's not valid does not invalidate it, much like my thinking your reasons for believing in a God are not valid, but they are still valid to you.

My beliefs on morality are meaningful to me. Your choice to discard them is yours to make, however do not think that that decision makes these sorts of claims valid in any way.

Additionally, beliefs do not have to be meaningful to be logically believed. For instance, it is logical for me to believe that I will be safe when I drive into town, and to plan accordingly - however I don't have to attribute any sort of external meaning to this notion.

1. I believe morality is both real and subjective.
2. I believe that morality is subject to cultural, intellectual, and societal influences.

Where is your discrepancy? The fact that "real" implies that there must be some objective standard to reference? How about the electricity flowing through your neurons? How about societal manifestations of morality, often through crime and punishment? Those sorts of things are the objective reality that I reference to make the claim that morality is subjective.



No, there is still a good reason to argue that there is a blaringly obvious logical fallacy. This apologetic is a rather pathetic attempt. Either God endorsed slavery and vile actions in the OT, or he didn't. If he did, God is less moral than I am. If he didn't, the Bible is wrong. Period.

Last edited by Legato on 10 Jan 2009, 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, I'd say that the norm amongst the experts is moral realism based upon Kantian moral rationalism, but I am not an expert on their opinions, and I think that Kantian moral rationalism is just well.... literally made of fail. I mean, there is empirical evidence that the motivating force behind moral action is not based upon reason, so Thomas Nagel can just suck it.


Orwell, that's just sloppy, particularly since we already have terms that describe the latter. The reason why morality is used to describe the latter is really just sleight of hand.

The notion of infinite value is questionable, and in any case, all that matters is life on the margin for decision making, thus meaning that your life isn't infinitely valuable by any reasonable standard. Eternal life and meaning don't seem to contradict, as meaning from a phenomenal standpoint is a feeling, and from a teleological standpoint is a property of a being. The duration of life thus would not have a necessary connection.


There is no necessary connection. Even if we describe morality(incorrectly might I add) as social conventions, there is no reason to suggest that stick&rock savages would lack morality. And if we describe morality correctly, then the connection also still does not seem there. The only way I can see your view being plausible is if you are presupposing moral rationalism, but you don't seem as if you are within that school of thought, as you have already rejected moral realism.

Legato, you provided a *FLAWED* basis as it does not even address the issue. I am not going to recognize a basis that is invalid, and I know it to be invalid. I have even put forward arguments as to it's lacking validity and you have not invalidated these arguments.

Actually, there's the strange thing, Legato. As much as you attacked me on the definition of atheism, you still presume more than I have ever attempted to express about my belief structure. I have never declared that I believed in any deity, in any case, Legato, "valid to X" is relatively meaningless, reality is the set of objects that is objectively real, there is not "valid to me" or "valid to you", there is only "valid", and the only point in which "valid to X" is useful is where we lack the knowledge to declare a statement true or false. I've already presented the horns of the dilemma, done an analysis of morality, and so on, and to dismiss this only shows that your own failings.

Legato, the statement's intent, is to express that you are engaged in a logical contradiction that you have not bothered to meaningfully resolve. I discard your beliefs, because your beliefs are foundationless, it is like a materialist's claims to believe in a god, questionable to outright stupid.


Umm.... the belief that you will be safe when you drive into town depends upon the external facts that there are towns, and that you are driving. These are external to your belief, and your belief depends upon those facts, otherwise it is nonsense. As such, moral beliefs depend upon facts about the nature of morality, however, your beliefs are not based upon these facts, as you are talking about being safe when you drive into town, but essentially deny that towns and cars exist at the same time. That's a massive problem.


Real *does* imply an objective standard to reference. Electricity flowing through neurons is real. Societal actions are real. That societal actions are moral, is the question. To take you seriously, I would almost have to wonder if by your epistemic standards, you could say that god exists because people obey his rules. Such is ridiculous, whether or not people act on behalf of anything does not mean that it exists. I have already shown that moral language refers to an objective fact, and thus the belief in moral language would push you towards this moral fact. If you do not think that moral language is analytically valid though, then you cannot believe in morality. Thus, your claims about subjective morality are just wrong, as they are based upon a false and naive philosophy of language.


Where is the logical fallacy?

God did endorse them. God is more moral than you are. There is no contradiction.

Basically, your statement goes as follows:
"Morality is an expression of current cultural values
God has historically not abided by the rules of the current culture
Therefore God cannot be moral"
The issue though is that premise 1 is false. It is false based upon traditional thought about morality. It is false based upon an analysis of moral expressions. And heck, you are asserting the truth of 1 metaethical theory over tons of other metaethical theories that are significantly more accepted by academic analytic philosophers. In any case, if we are going to say that morality is an expression of current cultural values, then which culture shall we refer to? As individuals, we are able to pick and choose the culture we are ultimately going to be apart of, so, if you decided to join the KKK, then slavery would then appear right. So, then we have statements about morality that will then reduce to personal preference as people pick cultures, which basically will degrade morality to egoism, and egoism isn't moral by most cultures, which means that morality will be a contradictory notion, and contradictory notions are false notions. This means that your theory of morality is false, and that you do not have morality at all.

In any case, your argument strangely does boil down into the common Christian complaint that atheists reject God because they don't like him, as your argument against God is very much based upon people disliking his standards, but nothing more.

Damn I wish I had the time to continue, but I'll be back as I am much enjoying this discussion. You are probably right in that I have not resolved many problems in my conception of morality, and what we're doing now is assisting me in this process - which is why I enter into these sorts of discussions in the first place.

One comment on your last comment there... I object to your characterization of the reasons for my lack of belief in gods. I do not reject the claim of God's existence because of anything that we have discussed in this thread. If you would like me to detail the reasons I reject God's existence, then that will require another thread or a PM. The only thing that God has to do with this thread is this: If God exists as detailed in the Bible, then I reject the claim that God is moral - basically, God has a lot of explaining to do .

I actually don't care why you reject God. You can reject him for any reason you want. In fact, I think you could perhaps twist the matter of slavery into a discussion of an omni-malevolent god, and whether or not you would care to worship such a being. This is interestingly shown in a blog with the thought experiment of a place called "Eth" http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/god-of-eth.html It is sort of funny, and sort of true about theodicy.

In any case, I had to throw that at you simply because I think you lack consistency, thus making your rejection seem more like one of will rather than logic. Interestingly, there is a book by Albert Camus, called "The Rebel" where he talks about rebellion, and interestingly enough, rejecting God for personal reasons, and interestingly he argues that God must be good, but a person can reject God for the sake of goodness, and in doing so contradict all standards of goodness and fall into nihilism. Camus himself, was an atheist but also an absurdist, so the issue of rejecting values for the sake of values wasn't as much of a problem, and really part of his thoughts.

One could just as well compare rape with trespass since it could be said to be violating (trespassing against) the private person of a woman (or man or child). I could also say stars are pins in the night sky; this would be a metaphor, but it would not mean I actually conceptualize stars as pin points.

Most people, at least in the West, conceptualize rape as a discrete crime from theft and trespass, perhaps categorizing it mentally with other sexual crimes like sexual molestation, child pornography, sodomy/buggery, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.

I regret that I do not have the time to give this thread the response it needs, but I'll try to make a few replies:

I don't really want to turn this into an argument for or against atheism per se here, but obviously to an atheist, there are no sound rational arguments to support the existence of this being and no empirical evidence to set the probabilities in its favor. Using the existence of your deity as a premise is obviously going to be a nonstarter among mixed atheist/agnostic/theist company.

You seem to be reifying morality here and embracing some sort of Platonic idealism. Again, in addition to being an atheist, I am also a materialist, so an argument from idealism will again be a nonstarter. I obviously do not believe morality exists in the same sense that matter or energy do although this seems to be your position (i.e., ideas exist in some alternative plane of existence that is not dependent on a mind's pondering).

My understanding of morality is a bit more nuanced than any of the categories of meta-ethics the Wikipedia article you linked to mentions and is informed by psychology, sociology, and evolutionary theory as much as it is by moral philosophy. It might fall under subjectivism/relativism, but I'd say that's an oversimplification. I think it is an emergent property of our brains' processes.

As I understand it, morality has two primary sources:

• The individual
• Greater society

Both the individual's and greater society's (of course, only an aggregate of individuals) senses of morality are a biological drive, an adaptation humans have evolved in much the same way as we have evolved language, and the end result is a complex interaction between the two (much as our development of language). The problem is that morality seems to be probabilistic: One can say that killing tends to be wrong. The thought of doing harm to another unprovoked tends to induce a feeling of discomfort in most individuals, so greater society requires individuals to obey it (generally, let's not get into the Holocaust here). An individual, of course, may feel aggrieved for some reason or another (another moral feeling) and so feel the urge to take revenge for perceived wrongdoing; modern society prefers to arbitrate such disagreements nonviolently (and indeed may see the cause as lacking merit through its courts and arbitration systems), so here we have a possible conflict between individual and society. This is where a developed sense of morality requires more than mere feeling; the individual must absorb a careful understanding of his or her place in society: the advantages and disadvantages of having conflicts settled through social institutions and less precipitous action instead of through impassioned personal vendetta, the realization that some wrongs will never be righted, the understanding of the biases and limitations of the self. That said, most individuals will remain in a somewhat conflicted state such that, even if they accept the social contract, they may still feel a burning injustice at the wrongs society condones or even encourages (e.g., slavery in ages past, rampant abuses of power of the Bush administration). This enables them to take an unpopular stand when they feel there is a systemic wrong (after having accounted for the tension between selfish impulses and society's demands and still finding the grievance present). Another aspect of this reflective aspect of morality is the ability to contemplate another's point of view and to understand the contingencies, assumptions, and motives of another's behavior. This leads to a desire to improve the situation to prevent further problems rather than a cruel and barbaric infliction of punishment.

So what we end up with are complex layers of feelings, reasons, principles, and tensions between the self and others—some of which are determined by genetically inherited biology and some of which are determined by prevailing cultural norms. Rather than having certain answers of true or false, we apply hierarchies of moral feelings, reasons and principles, and understanding of the greater social context when we make moral judgments such that some acts will have a high probability of being judged wrong by a high proportion of people, some having a high probability of being judged right and just by most, some which are judged to have no moral relevance by most, and many cases that are in between. I think we'd be better off discussing what broader tendencies carry most weight in determining the morality of specific incidents rather than relying on simplistic principles (e.g., "killing is wrong," but then what about "self-defense" or "war"?) How do differences in personality affect moral judgment?

I don't find divine command theory convincing because I'm a materialist and an atheist, but I also find the theory wanting at a more essential level: Basically it begs the question. Morality is what God says is morality. So what is that? What God says it is! Philosophically, we know nothing more than before the question was posed. Even for a theist, valid questions can be raised: Is morality a simple deference to these perceived commandments, or does it require autonomous exercise of the individual's conscience? Are God's commandments automatically moral?

Unfortunately, this is about all the time I have for this thread for now but maybe I will return later to post again.

Well, right, but the argument presented by you was moral, not epistemic or ontological. Thus, I put forward a moral theory that would challenge your attack on morality.

No, my position isn't that morality exists in an alternative plane of existence, but rather that what is referred to when we talk about morals *must* logically exist in an alternative plane of existence, and that anyone who disagrees is confused. My position is not that morality must exist.


I somehow doubt that it really is more nuanced. I think that you have confused morality with non-moral psychological elements of reality, and that your confusion stems from that. The notion that morality is an emergent property from the brain is understandable, I have stated many times, that I think there are views that base moral truths upon the reality of the brain, such as moral rationalism, the issue is that I see those views as empirically faulty.


You seem to be a relativist, if I am not mistaken, you deny the existence of moral facts, but are not a divine command theorist, or a error theorist, or a noncognitivist. Because of this, I still advance the same attacks I think I advanced against relativism earlier:

How do we determine the relevant moral community? If the relevant moral community is selected by the individual, then doesn't morality fall strictly down to the individual? If morality falls strictly down to the individual, then isn't any talk about "moral" or "amoral" or "immoral" just a bunch of noise, because morality is just an expression of desire, and basically reduces down to an odd form of egoism, with odd psychological attachments? Or perhaps, doesn't this reduce down to non-cognitivism as the terms do not have meaningful reference?


Well, obviously not convincing. To be honest though, I see morality as a weak position to hold, and really find moral skepticism/nihilism to be the most convincing position. After all, it seems to me, that all moral positions must overcome Hume's Is-Ought problem, a problem that I also see as logically insurmountable, which means that either the solution must be doubtful but possible such as found in divine command theory, or it must not exist.

So tell me where you think God endorsed it.

Thank you.

I did spend many a year trying to use only logic and reason to decide/discover my spirituality, but we are talking about a world of feelings, beliefs, faith, all of which are a different aspect of life than logic. Logic sounds like a reasonable method to discover truth, but sometimes, it only confuses the situations more and make you miss a big picture.