What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

[ASimon]

An objective basis? And what might that be when morality is either an action or a description of an action? In my humble opinion, the lowest common denominator basis for morality is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.

I think the mistake many people make is that they think the bedrock of your basis for morality must be able to withstand utter skepticism. No branch of science can withstand utter skepticism, but this does not render science “subjective” or “unobjective.” Somebody can always articulate some sort of objection to any objective fact, but the mere fact that this can be accomplished does not mean we’re under burden to take the objection seriously.

 

[John21652]

An objective basis? And what might that be when morality is either an action or a description of an action? In my humble opinion, the lowest common denominator basis for morality is – The human person is worthy of profound respect.

On what basis do you make the claim that “The human person is worthy of profound respect.”

To say morality is either an action, or a description of an action is not quite correct. Morality is a noun and it describes a ‘system’ of behaviour. An act can be ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ according to the moral system so named.

So, to more properly rephrase my first sentence and question, On what moral basis, or according to which system of morality do you claim that “The human person is worthy of profound respect”?

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot might not have agreed with you!

 

[grannymh]

On what basis do you make the claim that “The human person is worthy of profound respect.”

To say morality is either an action, or a description of an action is not quite correct. Morality is a noun and it describes a ‘system’ of behaviour. An act can be ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ according to the moral system so named.

Yes, in addition to an action, morality can be a noun describing a ‘system’ of behavior. However, behavior implies action or non-action. Right?

So, to more properly rephrase my first sentence and question, On what moral basis, or according to which system of morality do you claim that “The human person is worthy of profound respect”?

Neither.
I base the claim on human nature’s objective existence.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot might not have agreed with you!

Human nature as an objective existence does not depend on Hitler’s, Stalin’s, or my Irish mother’s agreement.

By the way, I am glad to see you.

 

[grannymh]

I think the mistake many people make is that they think the bedrock of your basis for morality must be able to withstand utter skepticism. No branch of science can withstand utter skepticism, but this does not render science “subjective” or “unobjective.” Somebody can always articulate some sort of objection to any objective fact, but the mere fact that this can be accomplished does not mean we’re under burden to take the objection seriously.

If the basis for morality exists *both *objectively and universally, it then would exist independently of any kind of skepticism. A rather poor example would be an apple hanging from the top branch of a tree. The whole neighborhood could be utterly skeptical of it; however, skepticism, in itself, does not have the power to change the apple. To paraphrase your comment. The apple is not under burden to take the skepticism seriously.

 

[ASimon]

If the basis for morality exists *both *objectively and universally, it then would exist independently of any kind of skepticism. A rather poor example would be an apple hanging from the top branch of a tree. The whole neighborhood could be utterly skeptical of it; however, skepticism, in itself, does not have the power to change the apple. To paraphrase your comment. The apple is not under burden to take the skepticism seriously.

I think this is pretty much what I said.

 

[John21652]

Yes, in addition to an action, morality can be a noun describing a ‘system’ of behavior.

Semantics!
Morality is either descriptive, or normative and it refers to actions in the plural, or a code of actions, which means it is a collective, or mass, noun. We don’t go around saying “Granny should be congratulated for behaving morality this morning”, do we? We would say “she behaved morally this morning”, or perhaps, "she behaved according to the accepted norms of morality. Would we not?

However, behavior implies action or non-action. Right?

“Behaviour” is a noun. We don’t use nouns to describe other nouns, do we? Instead, we use adjectives. Thus, to describe a ‘behaviour’ in terms of morality, we would probably refer to the word ‘moral’, which be either a noun, an adjective, or even an adverb.

Neither.
I base the claim on human nature’s objective existence.

Surely, the statement “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” is a moral statement? In fact, it seems to be a moral imperative! If it is, then you have indeed based that statement on a moral base, because you included the word “respect”. From whence, then, did it come? Why is the existence of something a reason for respecting it?

Human nature as an objective existence does not depend on Hitler’s, Stalin’s, or my Irish mother’s agreement.

You claimed that “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” and I responded with the statement about Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Squillions of people who existed and whom I would assume had a “human nature” were not respected by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. They saw no reason to respect human nature just because it exists. Maybe they saw different human natures and decided to get rid of the human natures they didn’t like?!!

By the way, I am glad to see you.

Likewise. I’m never far away!

 

[Sair]

If the basis for morality exists *both *objectively and universally, it then would exist independently of any kind of skepticism. A rather poor example would be an apple hanging from the top branch of a tree. The whole neighborhood could be utterly skeptical of it; however, skepticism, in itself, does not have the power to change the apple. To paraphrase your comment. The apple is not under burden to take the skepticism seriously.

It’s one thing to state that a basis for morality exists - after all, human beings undoubtedly exist; it would take an extreme solipsist to deny this, and we are not under any burden to take solipsism seriously

Be that as it may, our mere existence in point of fact does not provide an adequate basis for anything like an objective morality. The universe is under no obligation to us just because we are here, and to put it bluntly, the fact that other humans exist does not, in and of itself, provide us with a reason to care about them.

But the vast majority of humans do care, and do form relationships and communities that enrich our lives and help us achieve our goals and satisfy our preferences. But here we are talking about more than just the objective existence of humans - when it comes to preferences, we are getting into the territory of subjectivity, and it has been my claim all along that without this subjectivity, there could be no values and no morality. We could be automata and still exist in an objective sense - but we would not then be moral animals.

The existence of human beings with subjective preferences and values is the basis upon which humanistic, atheistic morality is constructed. We value others and their preferences because we value ourselves and our own preferences. If we do not respect and value others, we may not expect to be respected and valued by them. Reciprocity is they key, and the roots of this may be seen in the communities of other social animals, such as wolves and chimpanzees - even they have a sense of fair play.

I suspect that when it comes to atheistic morality, what troubles many religious believers is the idea that there’s no divine overseer to enforce what people generally take to be right and wrong; that without a mandate from God, we are under no obligation to behave well towards each other. But such a concern, I think, overlooks two important points - one, any obligation we have towards each other exists because of our own interests as humans, not because of rules set down by a god; and secondly, even if there were a divine mandate, most religious believers would claim that people are free to follow God’s rules or not - the only difference being that if that rule-making god exists, there will be a day of reckoning when the rule-breakers will be punished. Atheists look forward to no such future judgement, and so must make their moral decisions on the basis of the here and now.

I think it does a disservice to many, if perhaps not all, religious believers to suppose that the only reason they value their fellows is because God told them to do so; yet that is what the OP and others would claim for atheists - that because we don’t believe anyone told us to do so, we have therefore no reason to respect and value ourselves or others. No reason, of course, but our own subjective nature.

 

[grannymh]

Semantics!

Yes. And the 73 definitions of moral, morality, morally, drive me up the wall.:banghead:
That is why I choose to go the objective reasoning route.

“Behaviour” is a noun. We don’t use nouns to describe other nouns, do we? Instead, we use adjectives. Thus, to describe a ‘behaviour’ in terms of morality, we would probably refer to the word ‘moral’, which be either a noun, an adjective, or even an adverb.

My intention is to point out that behavior implies that someone is behaving in some kind of way. When one observes behaving, one is observing some kind of action or non-action. If I don’t see you in some kind of action or inaction, how can I describe your behavior? Well, I could listen to someone else who has seen what you were doing.

By the way, is what you are doing (action or inaction) lots of fun?
Is what you are doing moral or…

If the action is moral, wouldn’t that show that you respect that person?
If the action is immoral, wouldn’t that show that you did not respect that person?
While your good actions show that the person is worthy of profound respect, your bad actions cannot change the nature of the human person. Killing a person takes away the life of the person but does not touch the spiritual soul. Killing a person does not limit God’s power to resurrect the body at the final judgment.

Why is the existence of something a reason for respecting it?

Emphasis mine.

A human being is not a “something”.
The human being is an unique person whose very nature, combines both the material *and *spiritual worlds. For theists, human nature is the pinnacle of creation, hand created, so to speak, by God Himself. It is because of Its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human body.

The human being is not a thing. She and he are each a person called by God to share in His life through knowledge and love. Each person shares in the dignity of the Image of God. This is why the human person is worthy of profound respect.

For non-theists, human nature is the pinnacle of creation. This is seen in comparison with other living organisms. The human being is not a thing, but rather a person with intellective powers and the ability to choose freely. While not affirming the existence of God, the non-theist can recognize the dignity of personhood and the non-material aspects of human interactions with others. The non-theist does not consider her or his nature essentially different from the nature of theists and thus, instinctively understands that she and he also are worthy of profound respect.

Both theists and non-theists have the capability to deny that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

You claimed that “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” and I responded with the statement about Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Squillions of people who existed and whom I would assume had a “human nature” were not respected by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. They saw no reason to respect human nature just because it exists. Maybe they saw different human natures and decided to get rid of the human natures they didn’t like?!!

Question? Did the horrible actions toward humans take away their spiritual soul?

 

[grannymh]

It’s one thing to state that a basis for morality exists - after all, human beings undoubtedly exist; it would take an extreme solipsist to deny this, and we are not under any burden to take solipsism seriously

My sincere apology. Unless I am allowed to demonstrate that both objective and subjective reasoning is inherent in human nature, (posts 312 & 316) I cannot respond to your post which only looks at one’s own subjective nature. Perhaps those two posts are on the silly side. Yes, they are rather silly, because sometimes that is the only way to escape the ivory tower of subjectivity.

I would appreciate it if you would read post 325. That is part of my defense of atheist’s moral rights. At least you will know that I care.

 

[John21652]

It’s one thing to state that a basis for morality exists - after all, human beings undoubtedly exist; it would take an extreme solipsist to deny this, and we are not under any burden to take solipsism seriously

Be that as it may, our mere existence in point of fact does not provide an adequate basis for anything like an objective morality. The universe is under no obligation to us just because we are here, and to put it bluntly, the fact that other humans exist does not, in and of itself, provide us with a reason to care about them.

If human existence does not provide an adequate basis for anything like an objective morality, as you say, then human existence must, by definition, give us a subjective morality. That means, of course, that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot gave their nations a morality which was as good as anyone’s. Furthermore, it validates anyone who didn’t like their morality and so put a bullet into them and so on and so on.

But the vast majority of humans do care, and do form relationships and communities that enrich our lives and help us achieve our goals and satisfy our preferences. But here we are talking about more than just the objective existence of humans - when it comes to preferences, we are getting into the territory of subjectivity, and it has been my claim all along that without this subjectivity, there could be no values and no morality. We could be automata and still exist in an objective sense - but we would not then be moral animals.

Oh Lordy. It fascinates me how you can state a definition of objectivity but then do amazing mental gymnastics to avoid actually naming it. If human existence is objective, as you say, then it must follow, as day follows night, that human nature must exist objectively. It is contrary to say otheriwse.

If morals represent the ordering of human preferences, then it follows as night follows day that there must be shared preferences around which a moral code is structured. If there are shared preferences, then they exist objectively. To be considered as being ‘objective’, they must be universal and mind independent. In other words, different people, in different places and different times, have those shared preferences. I’m sure you can think of lots.

The existence of human beings with subjective preferences and values is the basis upon which humanistic, atheistic morality is constructed. We value others and their preferences because we value ourselves and our own preferences. If we do not respect and value others, we may not expect to be respected and valued by them. Reciprocity is they key,

Once again you hyave given us an example of something that is objective. You are not accurate when you state that humanists and atheists base their morality on subjectivism. For humanists, man is the highest authority, but even humanists recognise a universal and therefore objective human existence on which to base a moraln code. many atheists do likewise.

and the roots of this may be seen in the communities of other social animals, such as wolves and chimpanzees - even they have a sense of fair play.

That broad sweeping statement is piffle. There are many social animals who are cruel to one another and for whom “tooth and claw” is the prevailing morality. The weak don’t survive and no-one look s out for them. To say, or suggest, that animals have a moral code is false.

I suspect that when it comes to atheistic morality, what troubles many religious believers is the idea that there’s no divine overseer to enforce what people generally take to be right and wrong; that without a mandate from God, we are under no obligation to behave well towards each other.

God gave man free will. It is because of the existence of free will that we need a moral code. If God was to become an enforcer, our wills wouldn’t be free, would they?!

Even without God sticking His finger into human affairs every day, we still have an obligation towards each other. Do we not? How so?

But such a concern, I think, overlooks two important points - one, any obligation we have towards each other exists because of our own interests as humans, not because of rules set down by a god; and secondly, even if there were a divine mandate, most religious believers would claim that people are free to follow God’s rules or not - the only difference being that if that rule-making god exists, there will be a day of reckoning when the rule-breakers will be punished. Atheists look forward to no such future judgement, and so must make their moral decisions on the basis of the here and now.

Because we need a moral code to govern our preferences does not mean those universal moral rules didn’t come from God. You are trying to make a connection which logically cannot be made. You are merely substituting one ‘faith’ for another. Scary, eh!?

I think it does a disservice to many, if perhaps not all, religious believers to suppose that the only reason they value their fellows is because God told them to do so; yet that is what the OP and others would claim for atheists - that because we don’t believe anyone told us to do so, we have therefore no reason to respect and value ourselves or others. No reason, of course, but our own subjective nature.

It is that firm belief in the value of subjectivity that gave rise to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Your continued reliance on subjectivity leads you round and round in circles with nothing on which to base right and wrong. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are the proof. In your world of subjective preferences being the basis of right and wrong, anyones notion of right and wrong is as good as anyone else’s.

 

[John21652]

Yes. And the 73 definitions of moral, morality, morally, drive me up the wall.:banghead:

Within philosophical and moral discourse, Granny, we need to define our terms. We need precision!

That is why I choose to go the objective reasoning route.

Excellent! That is exactly what I was trying to get you to say. However, in the one statement you gave us an objective fact and a moral statement, with no obvious connection.

My intention is to point out that behavior implies that someone is behaving in some kind of way.

Question - is every human action a moral action?

When one observes behaving, one is observing some kind of action or non-action.

Is it possible for humans to “non act”? Sleeping is an action. So too is relaxing. So to is not going to the rescue of someone who needs rescuing.

If I don’t see you in some kind of action or inaction, how can I describe your behavior? Well, I could listen to someone else who has seen what you were doing.

No, surely you wouldn’t rely on hearsay evidence!

…

If the action is moral, wouldn’t that show that you respect that person?
If the action is immoral, wouldn’t that show that you did not respect that person?

Not all morality involves other people. First and foremost, don’t we have a responsibility to ourselves?

While your good actions show that the person is worthy of profound respect, your bad actions cannot change the nature of the human person.

I have trouble with your notion of “profound respect”, which is a very profound concept. It assumes a lot. I, personally, would save the “profound” bit for those to whom I am close, such as parents, spouse and family. Everyone else just gets ‘respect’ with a small ‘r’ and then some get it under sufferance!

Killing a person takes away the life of the person but does not touch the spiritual soul. Killing a person does not limit God’s power to resurrect the body at the final judgment.

Very Catholic view. In terms of this thread, the Atheist will just say “piffle”, there aint no God and then where’s your argument?

Emphasis mine.

A human being is not a “something”.

Philosophically, a human being has to be a ‘something’. Otherwise a human being is a nothing, or no-thing. Once we establish that a human is a thing, we can then ascribe various attributes to that class of thing we call a human being. Once those attributes are ascribed, then we can say a human is a something which is different from other things. Finally, we can arrive at an objective description of what a human being is and of what constitutes ‘humanness’, or ;‘human nature’. If the attributes of the thing called human are really, really good and unique, you might even respect it. Then again, your respect might come about because the hings that constitute humanness are downright dangerous and so your respect is profound, just like it is for a tiger, or a rattlesnake!!

The human being is an unique person whose very nature, combines both the material *and *spiritual worlds.

All human beings? Most human beings? Some human beings?

For theists, human nature is the pinnacle of creation, hand created, so to speak, by God Himself. It is because of Its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human body.

This statement differentiated between certain types of human beings. You concentrated on that class of human beings called “theists”. What about the others? Do they think something else is the pinnacle of creation? The hubris of the humanists who bought about the Reformation also thought that human nature is the pinnacle of creation; so much so that they wrote their own rules.

The human being is not a thing. She and he are each a person called by God to share in His life through knowledge and love. Each person shares in the dignity of the Image of God. This is why the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Not convinced. See above.

For non-theists, human nature is the pinnacle of creation. This is seen in comparison with other living organisms. The human being is not a thing, but rather a person with intellective powers and the ability to choose freely. While not affirming the existence of God, the non-theist can recognize the dignity of personhood and the non-material aspects of human interactions with others. The non-theist does not consider her or his nature essentially different from the nature of theists and thus, instinctively understands that she and he also are worthy of profound respect.

Some theists thought otherwise. However, your comparison of those things called humans, who can be classified as theists and non-theists, seem to have something in common. That “something in common” must be something objectively discernable, or else there would be no agreement on man’s nature being deserving of respect (I’ll still leave off the ‘profound’ bit at this stage ). That would seemingly rule out the extreme moral subjectivity of the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, who would never, and could never, agree with your stement that human beings deserve profound respect. It would seem that (some) atheists and theists have common ground.

Both theists and non-theists have the capability to deny that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

So, both are capable of denying what is objectively discernable and of what it is to be right or wrong?

Question? Did the horrible actions toward humans take away their spiritual soul?

Your answer is a bit ambiguous. I take it the “their” refers to the bad dudes? If so, maybe they did lose their spiritual soul. I dunno. As for the victims, no, because they were innocents with just a different subjectivity from the baddies!!

 

[AitchB]

Atheists have moral rights as they exit. A moral right is universal by definition.

 

[grannymh]

Within philosophical and moral discourse, Granny, we need to define our terms. We need precision!

From what I have read in this thread and others, precision is a four-letter word.

Excellent! That is exactly what I was trying to get you to say. However, in the one statement you gave us an objective fact and a moral statement, with no obvious connection.

You are the second person to recognize objectivity.

Until people can get past the fact that objective reasoning exists, I will shy away from saying that the objective truth of “a human person being worthy of profound respect” is a moral statement.

Question - is every human action a moral action?

I don’t know.

Is it possible for humans to “non act”? Sleeping is an action. So too is relaxing. So to is not going to the rescue of someone who needs rescuing…

When talking about freewill, people consider it to be a choice between two actions. Actually there is a third choice which is neither action.

No, surely you wouldn’t rely on hearsay evidence!

I can be bribed with dark chocolate.

.

Not all morality involves other people. First and foremost, don’t we have a responsibility to ourselves?

Yes. You may go back to post 312 & 316 for my example.

I have trouble with your notion of “profound respect”, which is a very profound concept. It assumes a lot.

I snuck “profound” in so that eventually I would have a way to bring in God. I am only half as dumb as I look.

I, personally, would save the “profound” bit for those to whom I am close, such as parents, spouse and family. Everyone else just gets ‘respect’ with a small ‘r’ and then some get it under sufferance! Very Catholic view. In terms of this thread, the Atheist will just say “piffle”, there aint no God and then where’s your argument?

This brings up another issue which I have been waiting for. So far, no one has seriously talked with me about the problem of a person not deserving profound respect because of what she or he has done in an objective manner. And I am too exhausted to talk about it now. Besides, an atheistic “piffle” doesn’t do (what is that word which begins with s) when it comes to God and subsequently my arguement.,

Philosophically, a human being has to be a ‘something’. Otherwise a human being is a nothing, or no-thing. Once we establish that a human is a thing, we can then ascribe various attributes to that class of thing we call a human being. Once those attributes are ascribed, then we can say a human is a something which is different from other things. Finally, we can arrive at an objective description of what a human being is and of what constitutes ‘humanness’, or ;‘human nature’. If the attributes of the thing called human are really, really good and unique, you might even respect it. Then again, your respect might come about because the hings that constitute humanness are downright dangerous and so your respect is profound, just like it is for a tiger, or a rattlesnake!!
All human beings? Most human beings? Some human beings? This statement differentiated between certain types of human beings.

I like Catholicism because it is logical. Now I really appreciate its Catechism because it cuts to the chase with one sentence instead of the 289 sentences above. First sentence of paragraph 357. “Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone.”

Will have to finish this later.

:yawn:

 

[Sair]

If human existence does not provide an adequate basis for anything like an objective morality, as you say, then human existence must, by definition, give us a subjective morality. That means, of course, that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot gave their nations a morality which was as good as anyone’s. Furthermore, it validates anyone who didn’t like their morality and so put a bullet into them and so on and so on.

Morality is subjective. That is the whole point - if we were not beings with subjective preferences, there would be no morality. It wouldn’t matter to anyone whether Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot murdered millions, nor would anyone feel motivated to put a bullet into them.

Oh Lordy. It fascinates me how you can state a definition of objectivity but then do amazing mental gymnastics to avoid actually naming it. If human existence is objective, as you say, then it must follow, as day follows night, that human nature must exist objectively. It is contrary to say otheriwse.

How does human nature exist independently of humans? Human nature is nothing more or less than the way humans think and behave, and individual humans - even different groups of humans - think and behave in vastly different ways. Is it more human, for example, to nurture others or to kill them?

If morals represent the ordering of human preferences, then it follows as night follows day that there must be shared preferences around which a moral code is structured. If there are shared preferences, then they exist objectively. To be considered as being ‘objective’, they must be universal and mind independent. In other words, different people, in different places and different times, have those shared preferences. I’m sure you can think of lots.

Subjective preferences cannot be universal and mind-independent. Shared preferences are intersubjective, not things in their own right.

Once again you hyave given us an example of something that is objective. You are not accurate when you state that humanists and atheists base their morality on subjectivism. For humanists, man is the highest authority, but even humanists recognise a universal and therefore objective human existence on which to base a moraln code. many atheists do likewise.

Again, in case you missed it - subjective preferences form the basis for any moral code. If we were not subjective beings, we would have no morality, because none of us would care how we were treated or how we treated others. The most basic form of humanist morality comes from the fact that we do care, subjectively, about ourselves and those close to us; the essential assumption is that others do likewise, so we treat others as we would have them treat us. If we didn’t care, none of this would matter.

That broad sweeping statement is piffle. There are many social animals who are cruel to one another and for whom “tooth and claw” is the prevailing morality. The weak don’t survive and no-one look s out for them. To say, or suggest, that animals have a moral code is false.

For someone who objects to broad sweeping statements, you’re certainly good at making them! Humans treat each other (and many other animals as well) with staggering cruelty all the time, worse than that of any other animal on earth, yet you don’t on that basis exclude humans from consideration as moral animals. I don’t recall having said that other animals have anything as contrived as a moral code, in any case - only that they have a sense of fair play. You are far too quick to dismiss our hairier brethren.

God gave man free will. It is because of the existence of free will that we need a moral code. If God was to become an enforcer, our wills wouldn’t be free, would they?!

That’s a whole different debate regarding the existence or otherwise of free will; but you misunderstood my point - if the only difference between theists and atheists is their belief or otherwise in a god, then why would any theist question the basis on which atheists exercise morality unless they believe that God somehow creates and enforces morality? The only difference would appear to be a lack of posthumous retributive justice in a godless universe.

Because we need a moral code to govern our preferences does not mean those universal moral rules didn’t come from God. You are trying to make a connection which logically cannot be made. You are merely substituting one ‘faith’ for another. Scary, eh!?

Moral codes don’t govern our preferences - they arise from them. On a very basic level, most people prefer not to be maimed or killed, so the expression of that preference is not to kill and maim others lest they harm us in our turn. Reciprocity, see?

It is that firm belief in the value of subjectivity that gave rise to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Your continued reliance on subjectivity leads you round and round in circles with nothing on which to base right and wrong. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are the proof. In your world of subjective preferences being the basis of right and wrong, anyones notion of right and wrong is as good as anyone else’s.

Yet you believe that this all took place in a universe created and presided over by a fundamentally good god, who gave us morality. No matter what the moral code, you believe we are free to break it or keep it as we see fit. No amount of insisting that morality is universal and objective will change the fact that incredible atrocities were - and no doubt will be again - committed by those who ignore the subjective values of humans and attempt to impose their own form of objective morality, such that anyone who disagrees with it has to be summarily destroyed.

 

[grannymh]

Atheists have moral rights as they exit. A moral right is universal by definition.

Correct.

 

[John21652]

Morality is subjective. That is the whole point - if we were not beings with subjective preferences, there would be no morality. It wouldn’t matter to anyone whether Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot murdered millions, nor would anyone feel motivated to put a bullet into them.

Morality is not subjective. Personal preferences are. if morality is subjecftive, then Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot forced a morality on others that you would have to support as being “subjective morality”.

How does human nature exist independently of humans? Human nature is nothing more or less than the way humans think and behave, and individual humans - even different groups of humans - think and behave in vastly different ways. Is it more human, for example, to nurture others or to kill them?

You wrote that in response to me having written *"… If human existence is objective, as you say, then it must follow, as day follows night, that human nature must exist objectively. It is contrary to say otheriwse. *In order that you avoid the question, you once again sidestep the issue by introducing something that I never mentioned, which is represented in your question “How does human nature exist independently of humans?” Obviously, human nature is a part of human existence; hence my statement that if one is objective, then so too must be the other. If you accept that human nature exists objectively, which you have assented to in writing, then you should be able to give an objective answer to the last question you asked, which is “Is it more human, for example, to nurture others or to kill them?” Only obtuseness will prevent you from giving the logical answer.

Subjective preferences cannot be universal and mind-independent. Shared preferences are intersubjective, not things in their own right.

What a rediculously convoluted statement. It is devoid of any rational philosophical content. If subjective preferences cannot be universal, then they cannot be shared and they cannot ever then become intesubjective. Intersubjectivity requires an agreement that two or more subjects share the same experience. Answer this: is the desire to live a universal, subjective preference? Next, answer me this: is gravity merely an intersubjective experience?
Once again, only obtuseness will prevent you from giving the logical answers/

Again, in case you missed it - subjective preferences form the basis for any moral code.

You totally do not know what constitutes a moral code. A moral code by definition requires universality and objectivity. That’s why even the utilitarians like Bentham and Mill and more recently, Singer, have sought to universalise their moral code.

If we were not subjective beings, we would have no morality, because none of us would care how we were treated or how we treated others. The most basic form of humanist morality comes from the fact that we do care, subjectively, about ourselves and those close to us; the essential assumption is that others do likewise, so we treat others as we would have them treat us. If we didn’t care, none of this would matter.

You are here admitting that the objects of human desires are universal. Thus, ipso facto, they are objective.

However, you once again have sidestepped the question that moral subjectivists can never answer, which is* " It is that firm belief in the value of subjectivity that gave rise to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Your continued reliance on subjectivity leads you round and round in circles with nothing on which to base right and wrong. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are the proof. In your world of subjective preferences being the basis of right and wrong, anyones notion of right and wrong is as good as anyone else’s." *

Socrates said a moral code describes how we “ought” to live. How we ought to live requires objectivity to arrive at a validly consistent moral code.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Quite so, and what need have they to do so?

Our worth as human beings, in a naturalistic context, is only what we ascribe to ourselves and each other - a conglomeration of how we see ourselves, how we see others and how we treat others and expect to be treated by them.

If absolutely objective human worth existed, as the OP and others claim, then it would be rational to seek revenge upon nature for all the suffering and wasted life inflicted upon the human race through means of natural disasters, disease and other animals which from time to time succeed in killing humans. Yet those who believe in objective morality would exclude all in the objective universe from the moral realm, except humans.

Nihilism is not a logical consequence of atheism, but of the belief that human worth and human purpose must come from somewhere beyond human awareness in order to mean anything or to have any value. Couple that with the understanding that there isn’t anything else in the universe that is going to value us, other than ourselves, and you might well be led to believe that there’s no point to anything.

I couldn’t agree with you more, especially with the emphasized text.

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Sair
*
Our worth as human beings, in a naturalistic context, is only what we ascribe to ourselves and each other - a conglomeration of how we see ourselves, how we see others and how we treat others and expect to be treated by them.*

Criminals demonstrate the folly of believing our worth is solely what we ascribe to ourselves…

If absolutely objective human worth existed, as the OP and others claim, then it would be rational to seek revenge upon nature for all the suffering and wasted life inflicted upon the human race through means of natural disasters, disease and other animals which from time to time succeed in killing humans.

The implication that nature is responsible and should be punished is irrational.

Yet those who believe in objective morality would exclude all in the objective universe from the moral realm, except humans.

Objective morality includes the entire universe and is recognised by all rational beings.

Nihilism is not a logical consequence of atheism, but of the belief that human worth and human purpose must come from somewhere beyond human awareness in order to mean anything or to have any value.

Nihilism is the belief that nothing whatsoever is of any value - including the belief in human worth and human purpose

Couple that with the understanding that there isn’t anything else in the universe that is going to value us, other than ourselves, and you might well be led to believe that there’s no point to anything. Quite so, and what need have they to do so?

If we value ourselves **for no reason **our evaluation is valueless!

Our worth as human beings, in a naturalistic context, is only what we ascribe to ourselves and each other - a conglomeration of how we see ourselves, how we see others and how we treat others and expect to be treated by them.

“conglomeration” is a perfect description: “a sum total of many heterogenous things taken together” (arbitrarily) and “an occurrence combining miscellaneous things into a (more or less) rounded mass”! A delightfully authentic explanation of a materialist’s view of our worth as human beings…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I couldn’t agree with you more, especially with the emphasized text.

I dare say you would agree with anything that satisfies your humanistic flights of fancy.

 

[Sair]

Criminals demonstrate the folly of believing our worth is solely what we ascribe to ourselves…

Well, then, isn’t it just as well that the majority of humans hold some value for human life and potential? Without that, we’d have nothing to go on.

The implication that nature is responsible and should be punished is irrational.

Why, if human life has objective worth that is universally significant? Did your god create a universe that is ignorant of such worth? If so, why?

Objective morality includes the entire universe and is recognised by all rational beings.

Why only rational beings, if morality includes the entire universe?

Nihilism is the belief that nothing whatsoever is of any value - including the belief in human worth and human purpose

And as I said, nihilism does not logically follow from atheism, only from a belief that human worth must have a source beyond humans, coupled with the belief that no such source exists. If we are valuable to ourselves because of the kind of animals we are - subjective beings who are capable of enjoying life and pursuing goals - why question that simply because it lacks divine sanction?

If we value ourselves **for no reason **our evaluation is valueless!

So, obviously the value many of us hold for our own lives, due to the aforementioned enjoyment and potential for achievement, is worthless by itself, in your view?

“conglomeration” is a perfect description: “a sum total of many heterogenous things taken together” (arbitrarily) and “an occurrence combining miscellaneous things into a (more or less) rounded mass”! A delightfully authentic explanation of a materialist’s view of our worth as human beings…

Why is consistency necessary for our ability to value our own existence? Are we not versatile and adaptable animals? Can I not value both my literacy and my mobility, for example? My ability to cook and my ability to sew? My ability to sing and my ability to swim? My ability to love both humans and other animals? Humans are nothing if not generalists, after all - which is a large part of the reason for our evolutionary success, by the way…