Featured Yes, atheists can have objective morality

Sounds like 'a GREATER GOOD'.

Objective, or subjective?

 

Is this ‘objective morality’ for atheists?

 

No. It is subjective.
Pleasure for some is hedonism, sadism for others, romance for others and gluttony for still others. So “holistic pleasure for all human beings” is an imaginary construct that ignores the reality of human beings.

 

What Is Objective Information?
The word “objective” refers to factual, data-based information that is not informed by bias. Although feelings and personal opinions are not objective, objective data like facts or historical information can form the basis for an opinion or feeling. When someone gives you an objective assessment of a topic, it is formulated from data, verifiable facts, or other irrefutable evidence without considering the speaker’s personal feelings.​

So what are the unbiased FACTS and DATA about “long term holistic pleasure” upon which you draw your alleged “objective” conclusions?

[I have already listed several FACTS and DATA upon which I drew my contrary conclusions which you dismissed as “subjective” by fiat.]

 

Absent God, I do not believe anything worthwhile in human nature is “objective”. People are born male or female (objective). People want to survive (subjective). People love or hate (very subjective).

[I only answered because you quoted me. I really do not feel like I am contributing anything ‘edifying’ to this discussion and will probably seek another topic.]

 

That is arguing much the same as my posts. People inherently know there is a moral standard, because they appeal to it in some ways.

People will naturally appeal to the moral law when they feel violated. People tend to defend themselves against the moral law when they are accused of violating it, that is, they will claim valid exception to that moral law.

However, this is not the same thing as being able to objectively define what the moral law is. The point is that people naturally, inherently sense there must be one, because they need it for their own protection.

 

No. Even murder is subjective.

If I kill an enemy in war, it benefits me and harms them … so there is no “holistic pleasure for all human beings”. If he kills me, I am not better off, nor is my family.

If no one kills anyone, ever. Then the Psychopath continues on a rampage as the Police Officer does nothing to stop them. If the Police Sniper murders the terrorist, then the room full of hostages live. All SUBJECTIVE.

Where are your OBJECTIVE FACTS?

• Different races have different skin colors (an objective fact). … How does that create an Objective Natural Morality based on “long term holistic pleasure of all human beings”?

 

True for many people (perhaps even most, I have no statistical data) but not for Nihilists. There are MANY (too many) that hold to a world view of no objective morality [or truth] and live accordingly.

(I was one and I was not alone.)

 

First, I think you provide a great deal to this discussion, so don't despair.

As for nihilism, I'm not completely familiar with that version. Do you mean the nihilist absolutely does not care if you kiss him or cut him, that it is all one to him with no sense of justice whatsoever, that is, never a sense of feeling violated? Not that I'm planning to test it out, mind you.

 

AK, the references to atheists in your posts may apply to some atheists, but their morality in such cases does not emanate from their atheism.

There are plenty of hardcore neo-Darwinists who like to appeal to “survival of the fittest,” the cold, impersonal nature of the natural world, random chance, DNA determinism, etc., especially when railing against God, theists, or religion in general. I don't think I've ever heard one argue that they wouldn't mind if someone attempted to murder them, but that's a different matter.

 

There is no expectation that “life is fair”. Nothing that we are, nothing that we say and nothing that we do has any real meaning. It can be summed up in a philosophy of life as follows:

“You are born, you live, you die, and when you are gone, you don’t even leave a hole behind to show that you were here.”

In practical terms, there is no objective morality. People assign morality to all actions. If I lived in NYC today, killing a “Jew” or a “Black” would get me arrested, crucified in the press, and life in prison. In Germany in 1939, killing a Jew would get me a pat on the back and a promotion. In Alabama in 1900, killing a Black would be a reason to stop and take a photo to turn into a post card. Has the value of the life of a “Jew” or a “Black” changed … or do people define all morality subjectively? How about the cheers as OJ was acquitted for murdering his wife and the riots for a police officer not charged in the death of a black criminal? Is Justice really determined by RACE and WEALTH?

From this, some see a world where “it isn’t a crime to steal, it is a crime to get caught”. 100% subjective morality. That is “practical nihilism”. Buying a newspaper or shooting a rival are both just “actions” … there is no innate right or wrong to either. Every action carries risks and consequences. You do the action, you take the risk and you accept the consequences (of course you try like heck to avoid the consequences, but there is no sense that “this is unfair” … LIFE is unfair, if you don’t like it, then die.)

 

Respectfully, NOTHING produces happiness for all human beings.
Even in the wealthiest societies on earth, most are dissatisfied.

So where is the Objective data that this “happiness for all human beings” is more than “unicorn farts”?