Can Objective Morality Exist In An Atheistic World View?

[John9]

Care to expand? I don’t at all understand your post.

 

[upant]

Well, when all you guys get consensus on all moral problems you be sure to let me know.

It is call the catechism, other religions are wrong.

And what’s your objective mechanism for separating the law from the manipulation?/

The Holy Spirit working through the church fathers, the truth has already been given, start with the catechism

 

[Freddy]

Care to expand? I don’t at all understand your post.

It doesn’t mean strongest or most poweful. It means best suited to the environment. Those that ‘fit’ best. And those that fit best are…the fittest.

It could mean that the smaller (and weaker) creatures survive longer than their larger (and stronger) counterparts.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Well, when all you guys get consensus on all moral problems you be sure to let me know.

It is call the catechism, other religions are wrong.

I didn’t really think it was going to be that simple! Glad we have that sorted out.

 

[upant]

I didn’t really think it was going to be that simple! Glad we have that sorted out.

It really is that simple. Jesus is the answer

It takes more faith to believe that matter always was and will be.

 

[John9]

That’s a good explanation. I guess I was thinking more of the sort of social Darwinism that motivated eugenicists like Margaret Sanger.

 

[Freddy]

That’s a good explanation. I guess I was thinking more of the sort of social Darwinism that motivated eugenicists like Margaret Sanger.

I appreciate that. But Sanger’s view of evolution (or Darwinism as she might have said) was utterly misconceived. You might as well blame Newton if you fall off a cliff.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Can a Christian convince themselves they’re following the moral code given by God when they are in fact not?

There are many different Christian denominations, some more permissive than others, so, yes.

 

[Dan123]

The Holy Spirit working through the church fathers, the truth has already been given, start with the catechism

But only if Catholicism is true, if it’s not true then neither are your assertions. That’s always going to be the issue in these kinds of discussions. Every religion, every denomination, thinks they have the right answer, and they all think the others are wrong or misguided.

So as accusations of secular morality being merely subjective are levied against atheists, somehow the plank in your eye prevents you from seeing your own ideas of morality are just as rooted in subjectivity. Civilization is us all agreeing collectively on the value of some of those share yet subjective foundations, and from that agreement there can be objective moral conclusions drawn for many acts, which is basically how I answered the OPs question above.

There are many different Christian denominations, some more permissive than others, so, yes.

I appreciate you engaging with the actual question, so many seem to dance around questions like that. It doesn’t reflect badly on anyone or their faith to recognize that there are difficult questions in the world, and even if there are right and wrong answers our path to find them isn’t going to bring us all to the same destination, nor at the same time.

 

[upant]

But only if Catholicism is true,

The church Jesus founded is the true church

Every religion, every denomination, thinks they have the right answer, and they all think the others are wrong or misguided.

Only one can be true

your own ideas of morality are just as rooted in subjectivity

Nope, our morals are from God and can’t be changed. If an atheist no longer believes in something he can change it. You can’t change God’s law

Civilization is us all agreeing collectively on the value of some of those share yet subjective foundations

When has there been one universal secular moral?

there can be objective moral conclusions drawn for many acts

Until somebody changes it. You have no foundation to fall back on

Again abortion is the classic example

 

[Dan123]

Dan123:

Every religion, every denomination, thinks they have the right answer, and they all think the others are wrong or misguided.

Only one can be true

Not every religion is mutually exclusive with every other. And they could all be wrong as well. The question OP asked concerned an atheistic worldview.

Nope, our morals are from God and can’t be changed. If an atheist no longer believes in something he can change it. You can’t change God’s law

But your adherence to Christianity is subjective. Your adherence to Catholicism is subjective. You may feel you good reason to believe them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t subjective.

When has there been one universal secular moral?

Never said there was a universal one. When has there been one universal religious moral? Try to answer without throwing every other religion in the garbage.

You have no foundation to fall back on

Again abortion is the classic example

The foundation you fall back on is the same foundation all Catholics have, and yet many are prochoice. You can say they aren’t following the right moral code, they might say the same about you.

 

[po18guy]

No. Atheists have obtained their morality from the surrounding world - which has acculturated them. Without a unifying law; without a consistent standard, morality is subject to the shifting winds.

 

[upant]

Never said there was a universal one. When has there been one universal religious moral? Try to answer without throwing every other religion in the garbage.

The truth is that there is only one true religion. That religion has universal morals. You can what if all day long.

and yet many are prochoice

So what? They are wrong because it is against church teaching, it isn’t about individual choice, they don’t get to make their own rules. The church does offer confession so they can be right with God.

 

[Dan123]

They are wrong because it is against church teaching, it isn’t about individual choice, they don’t get to make their own rules.

Following the Catholic Church is an individual choice.

Do you not want it to be? Do you want people brought to God by force? Do you want their free will violated?

 

[upant]

Following the Catholic Church is an individual choice.

The rules are set, you don’t bring or make your own.

 

[Dan123]

The rules are set, you don’t bring or make your own.

But believing the Catholic Church is able to accurately communicate those rules to you is subjective.

 

[upant]

But believing the Catholic Church is able to accurately communicate those rules to you is subjective.

Nope, it is faith in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Quasi_Tenebrous]

But believing the Catholic Church is able to accurately communicate those rules to you is subjective.

Probably an imposition on my part, but…

In the context of one of the meta-ethical question you and the goodman Upant are discussing (is morality objective or subjective?), this really isn’t relevant. The question of whether right action is subjective is an ethical question, not an anthropological one. All that you’re saying here is that belief is an act of the will - which both you and Upant agree on. The confusion between the ethical and anthropological question is also present in this post:

But your adherence to Christianity is subjective. Your adherence to Catholicism is subjective. You may feel you good reason to believe them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t subjective.

This could only be relevant if Upant is claiming that the adherence to something does not involve an act of the will.

What Upant is claiming is that, even if no human being were around to give assent by an act of the will, the universal moral claims present in Catholic doctrine would still exist. Hence, you are incorrect to call them subjective merely on the basis that, anthropologically speaking, adherence to them implies an act of the will.

 

[Quasi_Tenebrous]

The rules are set

That is debatable, to say the least.

 

[blackforest]

Or they may say that it is based on some other principle that isn’t relativist. Like a Socratic justice system, or an existentialist ethic.

I haven’t yet heard this argument, but I’m open to it.

It might look less stable if you make sure you’re considering all concepts of god/gods across all cultures and history. Then consider all the various denominations of each of those. The moral issues they have in common are the ones you all have in common with atheists too.

This factor alone may bolster the case for some “universals.” Aren’t there 26 versions of the Golden Rule?