Is "Common Sense" a Valid Source for Atheist Moral Norms?

[Vonsalza]

At least you’ve stopped putting that ridiculous blurb at the end of your posts. I’ll take that as confirmation of the fact that you know that I was right. No matter how vehemently you deny it.

Take it as you wish. We’re all guilty of confirmation bias from time to time.

I chose to not put it in because we’re no longer discussing something tangential to the OP. “Common sense” is not a valid source for atheist moral norms specifically because it is a logical fallacy ad populum.

 

[inocente]

“Common sense” is not a valid source for atheist moral norms specifically because it is a logical fallacy ad populum.

“argumentum ad nauseam (also known as: argument from nagging, proof by assertion). Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence.” - from the book blurb which you linked earlier.

:flowers:

Others who don’t accept your claim include:

*“On this point the common sense of mankind is in such complete accord” - Pope Pius XI w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html

“The teachings of Christ provide benchmarks to measure “normal” human behavior. It helps if we don’t kill each other, remain faithful in marriage, don’t lie and cheat, and so on. Common sense stuff. Christians of course do not have a monopoly on common sense.” - Father Jerry Pokorsky catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1203

“Jacques Maritain was one of the greatest thinkers in this century. …] Mortimer Adler, another Thomistic philosopher, but not a Catholic, writes that the thinking of Aristotle is the “common sense philosophy.” Ordinary people follow Aristotle, whether they know it or not, because their minds are “unspoiled by the sophistication and specialization of academic thought.” Adler suggests some people have been educated out of their common sense. …] Maritain would have agreed with Adler. There must be more common sense in the Church–that was his position.” - Catholic Answers Magazine

The Common Sense Book of Catholic Prayer and Meditation - st-anthonys-book-gift-shop-llc.myshopify.com/products/the-commonsense-book-of-catholic-prayer-and-meditation

“He grants a treasure of common sense to the honest.” - Proverbs 2:7 NLT*

 

[Vonsalza]

"argumentum ad nauseam (also known as: argument from nagging, proof by assertion). Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence."…

Sure, that’s a form of classic ad baculum fallacy. The “nagging” serves as “the stick” (baculum). I’m sure many accused Galileo of something similar to it when he kept stubbornly insisting that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.
inocente;14487500:

Others who don’t accept your claim include:
Pope Pius XI
Father Jerry Pokorsky
www.catholic.com

The Common Sense Book of Catholic Prayer and Meditation

Sure, because they can’t be wrong. There has never been a Pope, priest, catholic news source that has stated anything in error, ever! And never have any of those men reproduced their errors in their derived texts, ever!

I hope you detect the sarcasm. I understand it can be more difficult to convey in the written medium.

He grants a treasure of common sense to the honest." - Proverbs 2:7

Ah the “New Living” translation of Proverbs 2:7. Not recognized by Catholics and, from my own anecdotal experience, not used by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (those are “NASB” and “ESV” people).
“He will keep the salvation of the righteous, and protect them that walk in simplicity.” From Douay-Rheims
“He stores up sound wisdom for the upright; He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,” From NASB

I’m not necessarily against the use of “common sense” references when casually chatting up folks of like mind. It’s a social resonance that generates community - which is useful.
It is “common sense” at an “Atheist Alliance International” meeting that “there is no god”. It is also “common sense” during daily prayer at the Blue Mosque in Istanbul that “there is a god”.
However, that means “common sense” has zero place in debate, apologetics, inter-faith discussion and the like. Your “common sense” is not necessarily mine.

To allude, again, to the quote from Psychology Today, “'Common sense is neither ‘common’ nor ‘sense’”. It is ad populum fallacy.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14487500:

Pope Pius XI
Father Jerry Pokorsky
Catholic Answers Magazine

The Common Sense Book of Catholic Prayer and Meditation
Sure, because they can’t be wrong. There has never been a Pope, priest, catholic news source that has stated anything in error, ever! And never have any of those men reproduced their errors in their derived texts, ever!

The proud grandmother, watching her grandson on parade with the other soldiers, exclaimed : “Look, everyone but Vonsalza’s out of step!”

 

[EnosJadon]

If I say that it’s immoral for a black person to marry a white person, and you say that it’s not, how do you know which of us is right?

If I say that it’s immoral for a sixty year old man to marry a thirteen year old girl, and you say that it’s not, how do you know which of us is right?

If I say that it’s immoral to experiment on the few to help the many, and you say that it’s not, how do you know which of us is right?

Is the answer written down somewhere, or must I use common sense?

 

[Vonsalza]

The proud grandmother, watching her grandson on parade with the other soldiers, exclaimed : “Look, everyone but Vonsalza’s out of step!”

You defend your ad populum fallacy with more ad populum.

I smiled at that.

 

[Vonsalza]

If I say that it’s immoral for a black person to marry a white person, and you say that it’s not, how do you know which of us is right?

We don’t know. You have to prove it’s immoral and if I positively claim it isn’t, I have to prove that too. If we don’t have a moral basis we can agree on, we can’t know.
That’s a great example, actually. It’s “common sense” that interracial marriage is moral. 50 years ago in the rural south U.S., it was “common sense” that interracial marriage was an abomination.

If I say that it’s immoral for a sixty year old man to marry a thirteen year old girl, and you say that it’s not, how do you know which of us is right?

We don’t unless we can prove our own claims. That such a relationship may be prohibited by law STILL doesn’t “prove” its “wrong-ness”. It was against the law for women to vote when my great-grandmother was a little girl.

If I say that it’s immoral to experiment on the few to help the many, and you say that it’s not, how do you know which of us is right?

Same answer

Is the answer written down somewhere, or must I use common sense?

You must rationalize it and then prepare to defend the validity and soundness of your arguments.

 

[EnosJadon]

You must rationalize it and then prepare to defend the validity and soundness of your arguments.

And yet I assume that your argument is that there exists at least in some instances, universally accepted benchmarks for what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. And that such universally accepted benchmarks can only have come from God.

So that raises a couple of questions. What are these universally accepted benchmarks? And how am I to distinguish them from mere “argumentum ad populum”?

 

[Bradski]

And yet I assume that your argument is that there exists at least in some instances, universally accepted benchmarks for what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. And that such universally accepted benchmarks can only have come from God.

So that raises a couple of questions. What are these universally accepted benchmarks? And how am I to distinguish them from mere “argumentum ad populum”?

They are certainly not correct simply because most, or even all people believe them. We can’t vote on matters of morality.

And an argument from authority will also be rejected unless there is corroborating evidence for that particular view. ‘Cos I sez so’ doesn’t cut much ice.

Scripture? Well, written by the hand of man unless you want to claim that some of it is divinely inspired. And then we need to distinguish which bits are so inspired, because all of it surely is not.

And then there’s the matter of interpretation. Who’s is the correct one?

Look, I don’t mind who makes a case for a particular moral position and I don’t mind how many people believe it or where it originally comes from. If there is reasonable evidence to back it up, then I’ll have a tendency to accept it.

I can’t see how anyone could object to that, unless they admit that there is no evidence for the positions they hold.

 

[Vonsalza]

And yet I assume that your argument is that there exists at least in some instances, universally accepted benchmarks for what constitutes moral and immoral behavior… …What are these universally accepted benchmarks? And how am I to distinguish them from mere “argumentum ad populum”?

I’m afraid “universally accepted benchmarks” and “common sense” appear to be rather synonymous, at least in this context. It still a form of “everyone believes/recognizes/knows X”. That’s an ad populum, even if it hurts to admit it.

Now “X” may still be true, but you need the argument that made it true. “What goes up, generally, must come down” isn’t true on the basis of “common sense”. It’s true on the basis of General Relativity.

They are certainly not correct simply because most, or even all people believe them. We can’t vote on matters of morality.
And an argument from authority will also be rejected unless there is corroborating evidence for that particular view. ‘Cos I sez so’ doesn’t cut much ice.

On a purely rational basis, how very true. Welcome back!

Scripture? Well, written by the hand of man unless you want to claim that some of it is divinely inspired. And then we need to distinguish which bits are so inspired, because all of it surely is not.
And then there’s the matter of interpretation. Who’s is the correct one?

Sure! But per the OP, why would an atheist get morality from scripture? That’s a bit of a non-question for them, as I understand.

Look, I don’t mind who makes a case for a particular moral position and I don’t mind how many people believe it or where it originally comes from. If there is reasonable evidence to back it up, then I’ll have a tendency to accept it.

Which begs the obvious question, “what would objective evidence for morality even LOOK like?”
We love to say “genocide is obviously wrong” but “our” genocide of the Denisovians, Neanderthals and other hominids contemporary with Homo Sapiens promoted the success of our species. Veritably, natural selection is genocidal by the definition of the word.

I can’t see how anyone could object to that, unless they admit that there is no evidence for the positions they hold.

Absolutely. Two commonly cited sources for atheistic morality are “common sense” along with “innate altruism”.

“Common sense” is a logical fallacy and “innate altruism” is deceptive and thus false.
“Sacrifice with the expectation that it will be reciprocated” more honestly describes the innate mechanism of “reciprocal altruism” in the proper evolutionary context.

I’m just trying to figure out the source for atheistic morality that meets their own standard for “rational” and “evidenced”.

The only rationally evidenced moral schema that I’ve been able to identify is “right of might” where the only standard for “goodness” is the intersection of “desire” and “capability” to fulfill it. It is the “morality” of “natural selection”.
“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” - Thucydides (AND every bear, if they spoke English)

If there are others, I’m all ears (or “eyes”, as it were). “Common sense” and “innate altruism” are out.

 

[EnosJadon]

I’m afraid “universally accepted benchmarks” and “common sense” appear to be rather synonymous, at least in this context. It still a form of “everyone believes/recognizes/knows X”. That’s an ad populum, even if it hurts to admit it.

Now “X” may still be true, but you need the argument that made it true. “What goes up, generally, must come down” isn’t true on the basis of “common sense”. It’s true on the basis of General Relativity.

Thus it would seem that morals are simply those sets of behaviors that best serve to promote the survival of the species. Our perception of those morals as being somehow transcendent is nothing more than survivorship bias. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is morally superior only if those who subscribe to it prevail over those who don’t.

So does this mean that common sense is a valid source for “Atheist Moral Norms”? Yes, of course it does. Any source of moral norms is a valid source of moral norms. Whether we view them as such will depend upon whether or not they survive as our accepted set of moral norms.

Unless of course you choose to argue that moral norms aren’t merely evolutionarily advantageous standards, but are actually transcendent ones.

 

[Bradski]

Unless of course you choose to argue that moral norms aren’t merely evolutionarily advantageous standards, but are actually transcendent ones.

They are. Evolutionary advantageous, that is. And he does. Argue that they are actually transcendent, that is.

 

[Bradski]

On a purely rational basis, how very true. Welcome back!

That statement insinuates that I have been elsewhere with this viewpoint. I’m not unaware of the use of such statements in a forum environment. In any case, it goes without saying that it is incorrect. It has been pointed out enough times in this thread that you don’t appear to appreciate the difference between what is commonly known as common sense and accepting something simply because it is believed by a majority.

As regards the rejection of a viewpoint simply because it is a an argument from authority, I am glad you agree. Although it does appear to counter the view that ex cathedra pronouncements are infallible.

Sure! But per the OP, why would an atheist get morality from scripture? That’s a bit of a non-question for them, as I understand.

Needless to say, although it seems I have to say it, atheists don’t get their morality from any scripture. Which doesn’t necessarily mean that any given atheist would disagree with any given position found within scripture. Christian or otherwise.

Which begs the obvious question, “what would objective evidence for morality even LOOK like?”

Objective evidence doesn’t look any different when concerned with morality than it does when concerned with any other aspect of life. It’s evidence. And it’s…objective.

I’m pretty certain that you could define ‘evidence’ without a problem and that you understand the meaning of objective.

We love to say “genocide is obviously wrong” but “our” genocide of the Denisovians, Neanderthals and other hominids contemporary with Homo Sapiens promoted the success of our species. Veritably, natural selection is genocidal by the definition of the word.

You’ve already exhibited a limited understanding of evolutionary concepts. It might be to your advantage to skip trying to link it as a moral force in its own right.

Absolutely. Two commonly cited sources for atheistic morality are “common sense” along with “innate altruism”.

As has been shown, your idea of what common sense entails in regards to morality is lacking.

“Common sense” is a logical fallacy and “innate altruism” is deceptive and thus false. “Sacrifice with the expectation that it will be reciprocated” more honestly describes the innate mechanism of “reciprocal altruism” in the proper evolutionary context.

As has been pointed out, ad nauseum, you don’t seem to appreciate that ‘reciprocal altruism’ is an evolutionary term in itself describing altruism. They cannot be separated. When the term is used in a social context, it may well include the phrase ‘with the expectation’, but in evolutionary terms, unless you think that insects, fish, bats and birds act with an expectation of future benefits, then altruism and reciprocal altruism are interchangeable.

I’m just trying to figure out the source for atheistic morality that meets their own standard for “rational” and “evidenced”.

How did you mange to ask and answer your own question in such a short sentence?

The only rationally evidenced moral schema that I’ve been able to identify is “right of might” where the only standard for “goodness” is the intersection of “desire” and “capability” to fulfill it. It is the “morality” of “natural selection”. “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” - Thucydides (AND every bear, if they spoke English).

No, there are another three that we’ve already discussed and which you could identify. Morality as determined by authority, that derived from evidence and that from popular assent (which does not equate, as you seem to believe, to ‘common sense’). There is also revelation, which I don’t think we’ve covered.

Let me know your preference. You know mine already.

 

[Vonsalza]

That statement insinuates that I have been elsewhere with this viewpoint.

No it doesn’t. You said “I think I will bring my (name removed by moderator)ut into this rather frustrating episode with a simple quote from, albeit wiki, and then I’m done.” I was just welcoming you back. No need to unsheathe your sword… yet.

…you don’t appear to appreciate the difference between what is commonly known as common sense and accepting something simply because it is believed by a majority.

There is no difference.

As regards the rejection of a viewpoint simply because it is a an argument from authority, I am glad you agree. Although it does appear to counter the view that ex cathedra pronouncements are infallible.

Needless to say, although it seems I have to say it, atheists don’t get their morality from any scripture. Which doesn’t necessarily mean that any given atheist would disagree with any given position found within scripture. Christian or otherwise.

We’re discussing atheistic morality. Ex Cathedra decrees aren’t recognized by atheists, from what I understand. Same goes with Christian scripture.

Atheism isn’t “right” if "Christianity is “wrong”. That’s a false dichotomy. You must argue the validity of your moral belief on its own merit, even as that merit seems to be lacking.

Objective evidence doesn’t look any different when concerned with morality than it does when concerned with any other aspect of life. It’s evidence. And it’s…objective.

I’m pretty certain that you could define ‘evidence’ without a problem and that you understand the meaning of objective.

Good stuff! So what’s an atheist moral view beyond natural selection’s “right of might” and what’s the evidence for it? Thus far, you’ve failed to provide any.

As has been pointed out, ad nauseum, you don’t seem to appreciate that ‘reciprocal altruism’ is an evolutionary term in itself describing altruism. They cannot be separated.

To the contrary, they must not be deceptively conflated. “Innately sacrificing for the benefit of others” and “Innately sacrificing for others with the expectation that it will be returned in kind” are not the same. :hammering:
The second, which describes evolutionary “reciprocal altruism”, bears an obvious element of “quid pro quo” that is absent from the definition of “altruism” on its own.

They simply are not the same. Shall I parade the definitions of those different words again? You must not have read them these several times or you’d have seen the critical difference - expectation of reciprocation. That’s certainly less than “altruistic”.

Shall I also parade the “textbook example” of “reciprocal altruism” from your sources that describes low-ranking male baboons teaming up so they can have sex with females guarded by high-ranking male baboons? How very “innately altruistic” of them…

No, there are another three that we’ve already discussed and which you could identify. Morality as determined by authority, that derived from evidence and that from popular assent (which does not equate, as you seem to believe, to ‘common sense’). There is also revelation, which I don’t think we’ve covered.

Uh? You’ve already rejected morality by authority, you’ve provided no evidence, and “popular assent” is another word for “bandwagon”.

I’ll help you out here though; it is not an ad populum fallacy when popular belief is the question being asked. “80% of polled Aussies prefer Kraft Vegemite on their toast”. We could thus argue “Most Australians prefer Kraft Vegemite on their toast.”
However, this is not the same as “What should Aussies put on their toast?”. A doctor in Sydney may argue “salt-free vitamin paste”. Yuck.

No charge.

Let me know your preference. You know mine already.

To the contrary, the thread’s OP isn’t directed at my beliefs, it’s directed at atheism. Thus my beliefs are irrelevant to the question.

Again, atheism doesn’t get to be “right” if Christianity is “wrong”. If the Christian religion (and thus its moral derivatives) die from empirical rationalism, what does empirical rationalism replace those derivatives with?

“Thin Air”, from what I’m seeing. This may explain why non-religious affiliation appears to be shrinking as a percentage of population world-wide. It simply doesn’t seem to be able to replace the critical things it “breaks” like macrosocial morality and microsocial meaning.

 

[Vonsalza]

Thus it would seem that morals are simply those sets of behaviors that best serve to promote the survival of the species… …Unless of course you choose to argue that moral norms aren’t merely evolutionarily advantageous standards, but are actually transcendent ones.

Excellent, excellent, excellent! I’m so sorry I missed your post.

So then to the atheist, the moral compass of any particular action is whether it ultimately promotes their survival.

Theft, lying, murder, rape and genocide are perfectly excusable if engaging in those activities ultimately promote survival. Morality via natural selection.

The “Right of Might” in fullest of bloom! :flowers:

 

[EnosJadon]

I wrote this before your latest post, but rather than go back and rewrite it, I’ll simply post it as is and hope that it answers your objections.

Bradski:

…you don’t appear to appreciate the difference between what is commonly known as common sense and accepting something simply because it is believed by a majority.

There is no difference.

You seem to be stuck on the notion that common sense is a fallacy ad populum, which it logically isn’t. We can demonstrate this by showing that common sense often stands in direct opposition to popular opinion. In fact it’s common sense that recognizes popular opinion as an insufficient basis for fundamental truths. That people conflate the two is no justification to equate the two. They’re not the same.

Vonsalza:

Good stuff! So what’s an atheist moral view beyond natural selection’s “right of might” and what’s the evidence for it? Thus far, you’ve failed to provide any.

“Right of might” is a misnomer. Natural selection doesn’t differentiate on the basis of “might”. It differentiates on the basis of fitness for survival given a specific set of conditions. And it doesn’t care at all about popular opinion. So it’s ludicrous to believe that morals that have arisen through natural selection are the result of popular opinion, because natural selection doesn’t care about popular opinion.

So for an atheist, morals are logically those sets of behavior that are best suited for survival in a given set of conditions. It may be possible that there are conditions in which “Do unto others before they do unto you” is the superior moral standard. But it may also be true that any set of moral standards outside of a very narrow subset of possible standards are doomed by their very nature to fail.

It may be that when it comes to the survival of social groups there’s a core set of moral standards that are superior to all others, and which will always prevail.

But if this is true then why do morals appear to change over time? Because that’s the way natural selection works. There’s always variation within the norm, such that the norm fluctuates with changing conditions. Natural selection is adaptable, but extremes tend to be untenable. Morals that are based solely upon popular opinion tend to persist only as long as the conditions fostering them persist. They’re not self-perpetuating. In other words they’re not fundamental, and are quite often counterproductive to the viability of the group itself.

It’s quite possible that the natural evolution of large social groups will always produce a similar set of core moral standards, because those are the very moral standards that promote the viability of the group in the first place.

P.S. Yes, theft, lying, murder, rape and genocide are perfectly excusable if engaging in those activities ultimately promote survival. But the point is that it may be quite likely that when it comes to social animals such behavior doesn’t promote their survival. Therefore they won’t be perceived as morally acceptable.

Here again, there are always exceptions to the norm, such that instances where such behavior is accepted will always exist.

 

[Vonsalza]

You seem to be stuck on the notion that common sense is a fallacy ad populum, which it logically isn’t.

Unfortunately, it “logically” is. Specifically, it is a fallacy of logic. Again, “‘Common sense’ is neither ‘common’ nor ‘sense’”. Mine is not necessarily yours, yours is not necessarily mine.
You guys are holding on to this plain falsehood with almost religious fervor.

This is growing into quite the “Achilles Heel” of atheistic moral philosophy. Apologists take note.

We can demonstrate this by showing that common sense often stands in direct opposition to popular opinion.

Then your “common sense” simply doesn’t “jive” with the “common sense” of the person you’re debating with.

“Right of might” is a misnomer. Natural selection doesn’t differentiate on the basis of “might”.

Oh but it does. Now “might” may not necessarily mean “physical strength”. Homo sapiens certainly weren’t the strongest species in prehistoric Africa. Due to our relative explosion of intelligence, we were the most adaptive - unfortunately for the now-extinct hominids that were contemporary with us.
That intelligence certainly, most certainly counts as a source of “might”.
“Might” is simply whatever allows you to compete better for survival.

So it’s ludicrous to believe that morals that have arisen through natural selection are the result of popular opinion, because natural selection doesn’t care about popular opinion.

I think you’re right. How does this pertain to the source of atheistic moral belief?

So for an atheist, morals are logically those sets of behavior that are best suited for survival in a given set of conditions. It may be possible that there are conditions in which “Do unto others before they do unto you” is the superior moral standard…

Absolutely! My point exactly when I said that an atheist, on the basis of “right of might”, can justify any number of actions traditionally considered as abominable by the religious right up to and including rape and genocide.

It may be that when it comes to the survival of social groups there’s a core set of moral standards that are superior to all others, and which will always prevail.

Slobodan Milosevic couldn’t have said it any better. When your social group is threatened by another social group, thus fires the engines of “war” and “genocide” in the very name of group-survival. “We kill for the safety of our wives and children! And they will never threaten us again!”

But if this is true then why do morals appear to change over time? Because that’s the way natural selection works.

The specific mechanisms certainly do evolve. But the underlying “morality” never changes - survive to spread your genes!!!

Morals that are based solely upon popular opinion tend to persist only as long as the conditions fostering them persist.

I think you’re spot on - morality via democracy has obvious objections. Feel free to start a thread!

I want to know about atheistic morality; specifically if “common sense” works. It seems a fickle, invalid mistress. Its weaknesses are legion.

It’s quite possible that the natural evolution of large social groups will always produce a similar set of core moral standards, because those are the very moral standards that promote the viability of the group in the first place.

I think you’re right again, but the problem is empirically rationalizing them in a way suitable to atheism that doesn’t smack of religion. Without appeals to fickle and undeniably relative “common sense”, how does an atheist authoritatively identify and codify these in a way that appears non-arbitrary to greater society (if you don’t like the word “transcendent”)?

P.S. Yes, theft, lying, murder, rape and genocide are perfectly excusable if engaging in those activities ultimately promote survival…

A hard and oft hidden selling-point for atheism, I’m sure; even if some like genocide are exceptionally rare. Some, like rape, certainly aren’t.

 

[EnosJadon]

Again, “‘Common sense’ is neither ‘common’ nor ‘sense’”. Mine is not necessarily yours, yours is not necessarily mine.

We appear to be at an impasse as far as our understanding of “common sense” goes. But fortunately this doesn’t make any difference as far as the OP goes. Whether we use your concept of common sense, or my concept of common sense, it doesn’t make any difference. We can use common sense, popular opinion, holy scripture, divine revelation, or a magic eight ball to determine our concept of morality. It just doesn’t make any difference, because the active agent in the process isn’t the method by which we choose what’s moral, it’s the process by which natural selection chooses which of those sets of morals survives. It doesn’t matter where you start, you’ll always end up in the same place. With the fittest set of morals being the surviving set of morals.

Just like everything else morals evolved as a survival stratagem. They allow social groups to form a common identity and purpose despite conflicting individual interests. The more closely that the members identify with the group the more likely they are to defend the group against threats both internal and external. The group will protect itself if the members feel that they all share a common sense of identity, and that in the long run the interests of the group align with the interests of the individual.

All that natural selection cares about is whether or not the group’s set of morals achieves the goal of making its members better suited to survive. If that entails condoning murder, rape, and theft then so be it. But that isn’t the case, and never could be the case. A group that doesn’t provide for the welfare and safety of its members will inevitably lose the support of its members, and with it its survivability.

So social groups will always tend toward the same set of underlying principles, because those principles best provide for the welfare of its members, and the survivability of the group. It doesn’t matter where you start, or the process by which you choose them, the morals that you end up with will always be the same.

 

[Vonsalza]

We appear to be at an impasse as far as our understanding of “common sense” goes. But fortunately this doesn’t make any difference as far as the OP goes…

Respectfully, this isn’t an impasse. “Common sense” is demonstrably fallacious and supremely relative, thus it cannot be authoritatively nor validly used in an argument.
I sympathetically see that someone may not want to recognize this as the truth because maybe they’ve “hung a lot of hats” on “common sense”. The reaction is similar to a fundamentalist Christian’s when told “there is no physical proof for the existence of God”. I genuinely do understand.
Take the Idea and tinker with it. If you find an example of something undeniably and objectively true by virtue of “common sense” alone and absolutely nothing else explains it; post it for consideration!

As to whether it relates to the OP, the question is one of validity. “Common sense” is fallacious and thus invalid. It is quintessentially pertinent.

That’s not to say it doesn’t have uses! It’s “common sense” that “you need to refuel your car when you get low on fuel”. It’s just more fully explained as “You need to refuel your car very soon after the fuel-light comes on because you will soon be stranded on the side of the road if you don’t and you presumably don’t want that to happen”. Saying “common sense” was so much faster!

We can use common sense, popular opinion, holy scripture, divine revelation, or a magic eight ball to determine our concept of morality. It just doesn’t make any difference…

The functional purpose of morality isn’t purely for you. It is also (maybe more importantly) for the establishment of the rules of conduct between multiple people. In order for folks to agree on a similar moral schema, that schema must at least appear non-arbitrary or it simply won’t function. “Take your rules and stick 'em!”

It doesn’t matter where you start, you’ll always end up in the same place. With the fittest set of morals being the surviving set of morals.

Your problem arises by conflating “goodness” with “fitness”. While this may be an honest equality within atheism, I’m not sure it’s commonly held; even by atheists. This certainly appears like a good argument for “right of might”.

If that was an argument for ending up at the same morals, contemporary news and history both zealously disagree. In the Khanate, women were a possession and the rape of the conquered was practically a moral obligation. The American Invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan has proceeded under starkly different rules. The rape of the local women is to be vigorously punished as a matter of policy.

The group will protect itself if the members feel that they all share a common sense of identity, and that in the long run the interests of the group align with the interests of the individual.

I think you’re spot-on. The big question is this: What provides the common identity for an atheist? The rejection of god? Is that enough to provide a common moral view held by all participants? What “tribal leader” enforces those rules when broken?
E.O. Wilson in his “Social Conquest of Earth” (who is an atheist as well as a brilliant naturalist) posits that the idea of “us” only derives value when you can also identify a “them”. Thus evolved tribal morality can only pertain to the tribe and not all humanity; as including “all humanity” in your tribe would render tribal membership meaningless. Quite a conundrum.

All that natural selection cares about is whether or not the group’s set of morals achieves the goal of making its members better suited to survive. If that entails condoning murder, rape, and theft then so be it. But that isn’t the case, and never could be the case. A group that doesn’t provide for the welfare and safety of its members will inevitably lose the support of its members, and with it its survivability.

The issue is with the part you under-lined. Murder, rape and theft have all been virtuous when applied to people outside the tribe. History is sadly stuffed with examples.

So social groups will always tend toward the same set of underlying principles, because those principles best provide for the welfare of its members, and the survivability of the group. It doesn’t matter where you start, or the process by which you choose them, the morals that you end up with will always be the same.

If that’s true, how do atheists identify what those principles are, codify them and enforce them? The religious generally have a “divine cop” for those that successfully evade temporal authority. What does an atheist have?

 

[EnosJadon]

Take the Idea and tinker with it. If you find an example of something undeniably and objectively true by virtue of “common sense” alone and absolutely nothing else explains it; post it for consideration!

I am.