What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

[Reivax]

In that case the sole evidence is for subjective reality! Unless of course you are a total nihilist… but then the rest is silence…

Well as I said earlier, it is indeed possible that objective morals do exist, but so far there has been no way to prove this. So all we have is a subjective interpretation of morality for the time being. If tomorrow it was proven that objective morality exists. I would have reason to believe it. And I am definitely not a nihilist. I am open minded, but not so open minded that my brains fall out. The scientific method is self correcting, and has provided you and I with the devices that we are currently communicating. Scientific knowledge works and is extremely useful.

 

[grannymh]

There is no way that I can sort out all the well stated arguments going before this and most likely coming after.

I do remember a comment about observing myself and other people – that my conclusion was based on faith.

Perhaps, I should have stated I was using the scientific methods of evidence, observation, comparison, analization, evaluation, falsification, prediction, and repeatable conclusions.

If anyone is unfamiliar with these elements of natural science, please let me know and I will explain further.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well as I said earlier, it is indeed possible that objective morals do exist, but so far there has been no way to prove this.

That goes for the objectivity of physical reality to, yes?

 

[Reivax]

That goes for the objectivity of physical reality to, yes?

Yes, reality is objective, but that does not mean everything that is imagined is objective. Abstractions can be created and are, all the time. What’s to say that my invisible friend Jim does not exist? The difference between Jim and morality, is that morality is a more necessary component of societal interaction and sustainability, we rely on morals to survive, Jim serves no purpose.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” - Philip K. Dick

If humans as a species were wiped out, their sense of morality would disappear also. But the world would not cease to exist, the earth would still exist as we knew it.

I’ve finished with arguing why one cannot obtain moral objectivity, but now I’ll look at objective morality for what it ‘predicts’ and says about the universe and why it is improbable.

If morals were objective, wouldn’t it be possible for hypothetical, sentient extra-terrestrial civilizations to also come to know them, just as we supposedly did? They should be able to know that rape is wrong, murder is wrong, abortion is wrong (perhaps they are asexual), and that other things that pertain strictly to humans are wrong etc. I’ll let you answer this next question, because to be honest, I think it is more likely that you’ll have more knowledge in this area than I do, as it is your belief, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here…Is it blasphemous to believe that Jesus or another Son of God, died for the sins of these hypothetical alien races, and revealed to them the ‘truth’?

According to R. W Hepburn, to adopt moral objectivism is
“… to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_morality

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, reality is objective

You have scientific evidence that your experience of physical reality is not subjective?

 

[grannymh]

I’ve finished with arguing why one cannot obtain moral objectivity, but now I’ll look at objective morality for what it ‘predicts’ and says about the universe and why it is improbable.

Moral objectivity, objective morality, subjective and relative morality, moral rights are all descriptions describing actions. As such, these can be argued about until the cows come home because actions are temporary events. Or they can be argued for hundreds of posts because these words are also adjectives. Or they can be argued about forever because people do not understand the foundation word “objective” as being different from the foundation word “subjective”. Therefore, the main truth about morality is totally ignored.

What is being ignored is that to evaluate human actions as moral or immoral, one has to have a firm understanding of what is the universal basis for evaluation or what is the source for evaluation which is found in our temporal, material, physical world – this is the place where human persons live.
.
Philosophy, science, religion, humanism, utilitarianism are all means or approaches for finding the single basis for evaluating actions as moral or immoral. But that involves stepping out from one’s comfort zone whether it is atheistic or non-atheistic.

 

[tonyrey]

In that case the sole evidence is for subjective reality! Unless of course you are a total nihilist… but then the rest is silence…

Do you believe it is immoral to refuse to accept the truth that something you do will harm some one? Or to act against your conscience?

So all we have is a subjective interpretation of morality for the time being. If tomorrow it was proven that objective morality exists. I would have reason to believe it. And I am definitely not a nihilist.

If you’re not a nihilist you must believe in the objective value of reasoning.

I am open minded, but not so open minded that my brains fall out. The scientific method is self correcting, and has provided you and I with the devices that we are currently communicating. Scientific knowledge works and is extremely useful.

Useful within the limited sphere of physical causality…

 

[Reivax]

Do you believe it is immoral to refuse to accept the truth that something you do will harm some one? Or to act against your conscience?

I’m not sure what you are asking here. I subjectively believe that it is immoral to be dishonest for no good reason. A good reason perhaps would be if a female asked me how I thought she looked in a dress, and if I genuinely thought it did not look good on her, I would probably lie to her for the sake of her feelings. I’m not sure if that answers your question though?

If you’re not a nihilist you must believe in the objective value of reasoning.

This is simply a false dichotomy. If you’re not A (a nihilist) you must be B (a moral objectivist). You’re ignoring the other possibilities. Nihilism is simply the philosophy that life is meaningless. While I believe that objective moral truths can’t be discovered, I do believe I can create my own subjective meaning, therefore, life is not meaningless, meaning is simply created. It simply does not follow that a life without objective moral truths has no meaning. But of course you’d have to define by what you think meaning is.

Useful within the limited sphere of physical causality…

No. There is no reason to believe that there is any other spheres, such as the suggested non-physical sphere, so it is reasonable to conclude that the scientific method is useful in the only known and probably sphere of reality. That is not to say that a non-physical sphere does not exist, but I seriously doubt we could ‘know’ it.

 

[Reivax]

You have scientific evidence that your experience of physical reality is not subjective?

This is not an easy thing to prove. Science does however, in the field of neuroscience, explain how consciousness is an emergent property of neuron networks. Science can’t prove that we interpret the world in the same was that everyone else does, but it does point towards it, I understand objective physical laws, a friend understands physical laws, we do a scientific experiment, we get the same results. So it is reasonable to think so. It is more likely that there are physical, objective facts out there that we can come to realize. However, even if this is not the case it does not follow that there are objective morals. Some have argued that our senses are by nature biased and fallible so we cannot rely on them, this is often referred to extreme skepticism or extreme empiricism.

 

[Sair]

I’m not sure what you are asking here. I subjectively believe that it is immoral to be dishonest for no good reason. A good reason perhaps would be if a female asked me how I thought she looked in a dress, and if I genuinely thought it did not look good on her, I would probably lie to her for the sake of her feelings. I’m not sure if that answers your question though?

What you’re touching upon here, I think, is the complex web of cause and effect of which we are all parts. In consideration of which, by the way, it may be as well to give an honest response to someone who asks your opinion on how they look in a particular outfit - you may spare them further embarrassment if you’re up-front with them

This is simply a false dichotomy. If you’re not A (a nihilist) you must be B (a moral objectivist). You’re ignoring the other possibilities. Nihilism is simply the philosophy that life is meaningless. While I believe that objective moral truths can’t be discovered, I do believe I can create my own subjective meaning, therefore, life is not meaningless, meaning is simply created. It simply does not follow that a life without objective moral truths has no meaning. But of course you’d have to define by what you think meaning is.

If you’ll permit me, I would venture my own thoughts on this issue - claiming that life must have ‘meaning’ seems to me to be a disavowal of any importance mere existence may have to those who exist, absent some cosmic, eternal point of reference by which we might claim our lives matter to anyone other than ourselves and those who subjectively care for us. The very concept of meaning, used in this way, implies that our existence must refer to something other than our lives - some universal, eternal something that underwrites our lives and gives them an importance that we can fall back upon if we happen to despair of our own subjective value. What this something is, however, seems also to depend upon subjective value.

No. There is no reason to believe that there is any other spheres, such as the suggested non-physical sphere, so it is reasonable to conclude that the scientific method is useful in the only known and probably sphere of reality. That is not to say that a non-physical sphere does not exist, but I seriously doubt we could ‘know’ it.

I am pretty much totally in agreement here, in that the claim of a ‘non-physical’ sphere of existence appears to be based upon a misplaced confidence in our knowledge of the physical sphere - such that we know, unequivocally, what its limitations actually are. One frequently sees the claim that such-and-such a phenomenon ‘cannot’ be physical, even if aspects of that phenomenon can be detected and measured by scientific investigation.

As you’ve said before, Occam’s razor suggests that the simplest explanation that covers all the apparent facts is most likely the correct explanation; the problems arise when we have partial scientific explanations for some phenomena that leave the way open to insistence that science will never find an adequate explanation…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is not an easy thing to prove.

I did not ask if it was easy. I asked if you believe that there is scientific evidence that physical reality exists beyond the experience of your subjective mind?

 

[tonyrey]

Do you believe it is immoral to refuse to accept the truth that something you do will harm some one? Or to act against your conscience?

How can you believe objectively?
.

…that it is immoral to be dishonest for no good reason?

Is that just your opinion? Are people entitled to reject it and harm others to their heart’s delight? If not why not?

If you’re not a nihilist you must believe in the objective value of reasoning.

This is simply a false dichotomy. If you’re not A (a nihilist) you must be B (a moral objectivist).

I specified the objective value of reasoning, nothing else.

You’re ignoring the other possibilities. Nihilism is simply the philosophy that life is meaningless. While I believe that objective moral truths can’t be discovered…

They obviously can’t be discovered if they don’t exist!

… I do believe I can create my own subjective meaning, therefore, life is not meaningless, meaning is simply created. It simply does not follow that a life without objective moral truths has no meaning. But of course you’d have to define by what you think meaning is.

I certainly don’t believe meaning is arbitrary and fictitious. If something is meaningless it is purposeless - unless the purpose is arbitrary. Why couldn’t we claim that the meaning of life is to be found in suicide?!

Useful within the limited sphere of physical causality…

No. There is no reason to believe that there is any other spheres, such as the suggested non-physical sphere, so it is reasonable to conclude that the scientific method is useful in the only known and probably sphere of reality.

Can you explain truth, freedom, justice and love scientifically?

That is not to say that a non-physical sphere does not exist, but I seriously doubt we could ‘know’ it.

Don’t you know your mind? How do you apply the scientific method to it?

 

[grannymh]

Pardon me for getting into the middle of a conversation. I have one last point about moral objectivity.

Moral objectivity, objective morality, subjective and relative morality, moral rights are all descriptions describing actions. As such, these can be argued about until the cows come home because actions are temporary events. Or they can be argued for hundreds of posts because these words are also adjectives subject to subjective reasoning. Or they can be argued about forever because some, not all, people have difficulty understanding the foundation word “objective” as being different from the foundation word “subjective”. Therefore, the main truth about morality can be totally ignored.

What is being ignored is that to evaluate human actions as moral or immoral, one has to have a firm understanding of the universal basis for the evaluation. In other words, we need to be clear about the source for evaluating morality [sic] actions. The source can be found in our temporal, material, physical world – this is the place where human persons live.
.
Philosophy, science, religion, humanism, utilitarianism are all means or approaches for finding the single basis for evaluating actions as moral or immoral. But that involves stepping out from one’s comfort zone whether it is atheistic or non-atheistic. It involves seeing the individual person as a human person worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[asdf12]

… died ((
I always look here yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html
Death when it comes will have no denial.

 

[tonyrey]

1. If morality is only a set of physical preferences morality doesn’t exist.

Morality doesn’t exist if a person is a physical machine.

2. It doesn’t make sense to refer to “subjective” if all human activity consists solely of physical events.

Why? Do you think every event affects every physical being in the same way?

How else?

Just how narrowly do you define ‘physical’?

As narrowly as scientists! That which can in principle be observed with the senses.

3. The logical consequence of reducing persons to things is that the distinction between subjects and objects ceases to be valid.

Not at all - subjective perception is a physical process; as are the biochemical interactions that cause subjective experiences.

What causes subjective experiences to differ from biochemical interactions?

4. You remove not only God from the scene but yourself - and everyone else!

Do you imagine you exist independently of the web of cause and effect?

I know that physical determinism excludes self-control.

What evidence, other than subjective intuition, do you have for such a supposition?

The legal presumption that a person has the ability to exercise willpower or to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgement.

It may well be that the only reason we feel that ‘we’ are floating, independent entities who make random decisions independently of circumstances is that consciousness does not encompass all the circumstances leading to our choices.

A straw man! Who feels that ‘we’ are floating, independent entities who make random decisions independently of circumstances?

But at the end of the day, who or what else are you going to hold responsible?

Your self! No one makes your decisions for you - as far as I know…

 

[tonyrey]

Pardon me for getting into the middle of a conversation.

No need for pardon! The more the merrier.

Moral objectivity, objective morality, subjective and relative morality, moral rights are all descriptions describing actions. As such, these can be argued about until the cows come home because actions are temporary events. Or they can be argued for hundreds of posts because these words are also adjectives subject to subjective reasoning. Or they can be argued about forever because some, not all, people have difficulty understanding the foundation word “objective” as being different from the foundation word “subjective”. Therefore, the main truth about morality can be totally ignored.

What is being ignored is that to evaluate human actions as moral or immoral, one has to have a firm understanding of the universal basis for the evaluation. In other words, we need to be clear about the source for evaluating morality [sic] actions. The source can be found in our temporal, material, physical world – this is the place where human persons live.
.
Philosophy, science, religion, humanism, utilitarianism are all means or approaches for finding the single basis for evaluating actions as moral or immoral. But that involves stepping out from one’s comfort zone whether it is atheistic or non-atheistic. It involves seeing the individual person as a human person worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

Some people regard their pets as worthier of profound respect than human beings they don’t know…

 

[Sair]

Morality doesn’t exist if a person is a physical machine.

I and most naturalists would beg to differ on this point:

“In principle, there’s a complete causal story to be told about human action that runs from perceptual (name removed by moderator)ut to behavioral output, a story that need not invoke an immaterial agent exerting freely willed control independent of the brain’s workings. If we’re to hold each other responsible on a scientific understanding of ourselves, then it seems the brain’s control capacities must suffice.” - quoted from this article.

How else?

How a physical being is affected by an event depends upon each being’s circumstances in relation to that event - hence subjectivity.

As narrowly as scientists! That which can in principle be observed with the senses.

As, in principle, can the processes of human decision making.

What causes subjective experiences to differ from biochemical interactions?

It’s quite likely that subjective experience simply is internal perception of biochemical interactions. What else might it be?

I know that physical determinism excludes self-control.

Unless the self contains the physical control mechanism.

The legal presumption that a person has the ability to exercise willpower or to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgement.

A legal presumption quite compatible with a physicalist interpretation of human action and decision-making.

A straw man! Who feels that ‘we’ are floating, independent entities who make random decisions independently of circumstances?

The logical implication of a dualistic approach and the assumption of contra-causal free will is that at some point, there is an unmoved mover involved in the process of human decision-making. If you don’t believe this is so, why so rail against a physicalist understanding of human moral behaviour?

Your self! No one makes your decisions for you - as far as I know…

That’s precisely my point - whatever processes go into determining my actions, at least some of those processes are part of what, for all intents and purposes, must be considered me.

 

[grannymh]

I and most naturalists would beg to differ on this point:

“In principle, there’s a complete causal story to be told about human action that runs from perceptual (name removed by moderator)ut to behavioral output, a story that need not invoke an immaterial agent exerting freely willed control independent of the brain’s workings. If we’re to hold each other responsible on a scientific understanding of ourselves, then it seems the brain’s control capacities must suffice.” - quoted from this article.

What can I offer? This kind of mind-body dualism appears to be far from human’s single nature described by Catholicism.

 

[tonyrey]

Morality doesn’t exist if a person is a physical machine.

Responsibility is not an attribute of a mechanistic process. Do you regard a computer as responsible? If not why not?

How a physical being is affected by an event depends upon each being’s circumstances in relation to that event - hence subjectivity.

Subjectivity entails privacy - which would no longer exist if all mental events were explained by science.

As narrowly as scientists! That which can in principle be observed with the senses.

As, in principle, can the processes of human decision making.

An unsubstantiated claim…

What causes subjective experiences to differ from biochemical interactions?

It’s quite likely that subjective experience simply is internal perception of biochemical interactions. What else might it be?

What is the nature of that internal perception?

I know that physical determinism excludes self-control.

Unless the self contains the physical control mechanism.

Precisely where would that be located?

The legal presumption that a person has the ability to exercise willpower or to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgement.

A legal presumption quite compatible with a physicalist interpretation of human action and decision-making.

How?

A straw man! Who feels that ‘we’ are floating, independent entities who make random decisions independently of circumstances?

The logical implication of a dualistic approach and the assumption of contra-causal free will is that at some point, there is an unmoved mover involved in the process of human decision-making. If you don’t believe this is so, why so rail against a physicalist understanding of human moral behaviour?

If the buck doesn’t stop with us we’re not responsible for what we do. You implicitly regard “the physical control mechanism” as an unmoved mover. Otherwise the mechanism is moved - and controlled -by forces beyond itself.

Your self! No one makes your decisions for you - as far as I know…

That’s precisely my point - whatever processes go into determining my actions, at least some of those processes are part of what, for all intents and purposes, must be considered me.

In the case of a person the parts don’t make the whole because the whole is not responsible for what the parts do.

 

[Reivax]

How can you believe objectively?
.Is that just your opinion? Are people entitled to reject it and harm others to their heart’s delight? If not why not?
I specified the objective value of reasoning, nothing else.

Yes, it is just my opinion. But an opinion can still have a rational basis, it does not have to be whimsical.

They obviously can’t be discovered if they don’t exist!

Yes, but they can be invented.

I certainly don’t believe meaning is arbitrary and fictitious. If something is meaningless it is purposeless - unless the purpose is arbitrary. Why couldn’t we claim that the meaning of life is to be found in suicide?!

The problem is, you’ve made a conclusion, and you’re making up the premises, I’m still yet to see strong evidence that objective morals do exist. I should not have to to prove they don’t exist either, the burden of proof is on you to prove this positive. Otherwise every time I made up an invisible abstraction or entity, I could make you disprove it, while it would logically follow that I should be the one providing evidence for it.

Can you explain truth, freedom, justice and love scientifically?
Don’t you know your mind? How do you apply the scientific method to it?

They are all explainable by biochemical processes, some of which we don’t pretend to understand. The brain is indeed very complex, but we are well on our way to understanding it.

Another problem with objective morality is, by claiming to know it, you are claiming to know fundamental moral laws that everyone has, which remain true for everyone, everywhere, so you can say to everyone what is right, and you can enforce it. While you don’t have to enforce it, many do, such as the terrorist. This is one social reason why objective morality is flawed. There is nothing to stop the subjective moralist from doing anything either, but they at least have more scope when using reason. They can question the utility of universals. Thing being said, it is just convenient that I share more in common with Catholic morality than say Evangelical morality. As an ancient Grecian philosopher said: “Wisest is he who knows he does not know”. I don’t claim to know, but I do claim to know what I think is most reasonable, I could be wrong again, but this is assuming that logic and reason are inherently flawed.