Featured Why Atheists cannot account for Objective Moral Truths

One of our members started a now closed thread arguing why he believes that Atheism can account for objective morality.

This is a good discussion to have, and I appreciate his willingness to argue an opinion on the topic although I disagree with him.
To recap: He was responding to a classic argument for God's existence which is commonly constructed thusly:

1.) If God does not exist objective moral truths do not exist
2.) Objective moral truths do exist
3.) Therefore, God exists.

An important point to understand about this argument is that it really cannot prove God's existence by itself.
It's purpose is to force the non-theist to purchase their view at a high cost.
To wit: it doesn't (if a sound argument) force the non-theist to believe in God...it forces them to take an untenable and uncomfortable position they do not otherwise wish to take:
Namely, It's designed to force them to accept that there are no objective moral truths whatsoever.

Few people wish to do this.

I would like to continue challenging him on this topic because it is a worthy discussion. But, I wish to categorically state that I have absolutely no lesser opinion of his sincere Christianity or Spiritual life because he has been willing to suggest that a commonly used argument by Theists is mistaken.

It is good and righteous to seek truth and to even critique a commonly held argument often made by believers.
He is not wrong to challenge us to hone our blades in understanding our faith.

The original form of the "Ontological Argument" for God's existence was initially challenged most vehemently by a fellow Theist, Philosopher and Monk named Guanilo....
Guanilo was hardly trying to prove God did not exist...but only that Anselm's argument was invalid.
Guanilo constructed a counter-argument to Anselm now commonly called "Guanilo's Island":

Whether or not either argument holds is not my point here, only that I appreciate the poster for daring to suggest that we as believers might hone our blades more perfectly.


However, I would like to launch in this post a further critique of his view and my objection works as follows:

His view of morality cannot account for punishment or requirement that all persons be compelled by law to follow objective moral truths in an atheistic framework. I'll explain:
One fact of accepting the existence of objective moral truths is that it seems incumbent upon society as a whole to enforce those moral principles even by force, policing, imprisonment, death etc....
Thus, if a particular member of society does not abide by them, or agree with those principles...it is fair and just to punish them and or to at minimum compell them in some way to adhere to those principles.

Put differently, we assume they know right from wrong in the same way everyone else does and they are therefore accountable to abide by that innate rule of law in the same way the rest of society does.

But, this cannot hold.

A genuine Psychopath who feels absolutely no guilt whatsoever for committing crimes cannot be said to have the same moral compass as the rest of society...Furthermore, the fact that the majority of society may hold a different moral compass than the psychopath cannot objectively demonstrate that the psychopath's morality is objectively wrong....It would only establish that the psychopath's morality is in the minority.

Psychopaths absolutely exist. (I tend to think that a genuine psychopath is demonically influenced/possessed)

Given an unguided Universe where all persons/humans are a result of unguided evolutionary processes (and therefore morality itself is merely a rote fact of said processes)....A psychopath is only a psycopath in the sense that they are in the minority. They are simply what the Universe/ Natural Law/ accident/ evolution/ made them to be.

There is no reason to take umbrage at the psychopath who has no moral problem with serially raping, cannibalizing, murdering, and burying alive small children, women, men or whatever....

Given an Atheistic view...why do we take umbrage at their actions?
They are the way they are...that is all. Those are simply rote facts about them. The fact that the majority of society has evolved a sense of loathing about those actions does not OBJECTIVELY make them wrong. That the bulk of society abhors them, is simply a rote fact about circumstance:

Our psychopath......is little different than a dwarf or giant:
He/she is a statistical anomaly, but, nothing more than is perfectly in keeping with unguided evolutionary facts: We certainly do not despise nor punish the dwarf of giant for being in a statistical minority.


Why then do we DESPISE the psychopath... why is our tendency to know that they should know better and do better, and furthermore....why punish them (thereby robbing them of their greatest chance of holistically thriving) for being what nature made them to be?

Society simply does NOT (Atheist or Christian) allow the moral outliers to do as they will.
Thus, the Atheist has no moral grounds for punishing, feeling umbrage against, or even preventing the actions of the worst form of psychopath.

 

The Original source of this discussion can be found here:
Yes, atheists can have objective morality | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

 

I have to disagree. They cannot.
While Atheists assume moral truths they cannot ground them in their own philosophical framework.
Inevitably, when they try to contend for objective moral truths they will fail because what they assert is either not objectively true but only incidentally true, or, it is not a moral fact they assert.

That has never been at issue, and that atheists often act morally (or even believe in objective moral truth) is not relevant.
This is not the question here:
The question is whether Atheism can make truth claims which are both objective and moral in nature.
Atheism, as a worldview cannot do so.
When atheists act morally, they are acting in accordance with a worldview they do not share.

Their basis is perhaps beyond themselves as individuals.
Their basis is perhaps not insisting on their own personal druthers, but, they aren't moral facts.
Sam Harris is perhaps the most recent example of an atheist who tries very hard (and admirably) to justify objective morality
within an atheistic framework:
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values: Harris, Sam: 9781439171226: Amazon.com: Books
It is notable that it is hardly the case that all or even most atheists assume objective morality at all.

It is hardly the case that all atheists (or even most) pretend that atheism accounts for objective moral truths. One can still be a dyed-in-the-wool atheist and reject the notion. (Even if they act morally) One can hardly be a Christian and deny Objective moral truth.

They try sometimes, and some of them are quite brilliant. But, they ultimately fail.
What they propose are either not objective facts...or they are not ultimately moral facts.

Yes, usually by arguing that humans exhibit a form of "herd-mentality" as it is often called.
But, those usually boil down to mere facts about what is or how humans are....but, not how they ought to be.

They try to derive an ought from an is...and I maintain they cannot do so successfully.

I appreciate your willingness to engage with us in this conversation.

 

^ That would be a subjective framework.

Because it is subjective in nature, and does not carry with it a duty which can be imposed upon others.
We can quite rightly require all persons to abide by the moral framework the Scripture provides. We know from more than mere innate understanding that murder is wrong etc...An atheist can only impose what is at best a majority opinion. Which is a state of affairs about how people prefer others to act.

I would contend that that is not objective. It is not a selfish one, and it looks beyond the person themselves outward to be sure, but that doesn't make it objective.
An objective moral fact has to be both truly objective and moral in nature.
I would contend that no Atheist can admit to objective moral truths even though they assume them.
They aren't necessarily immoral of course.
The strength of the argument is that almost no one wants to believe that there are no objective moral truths.

Similarly, an atheist cannot rightly insist that the moral framework they have (good of society as a whole) be applied to someone who disagrees with their framework.
Why do we despise and take umbrage at a genuine Psychopath who feels no sense of guilt or shame?
Given an atheist worldview, the psychopath is in no way truly "evil"...just merely different. It could hardly even be fair to require them to undergo therapy let alone punishment. How does the atheist insist that others should embrace the morality they personally adhere to? How do they impose their "own morality" on others? A theist can insist that there is an authority who has a right to be obeyed and can require moral values and duties of others.
All an atheist can really do is act upon or prefer an unguided evolutionary tendency of some kind.
Psychopaths are a minority and abnormal.
Ditto a dwarf or a giant. What makes the latter two acceptable and the former unacceptable? Majority preference?

Who is to say that the psychopath isn't an exemplar of an emerging evolutionary change within human neuro-psychology which will one day result in even greater survival of the human species?

I cannot imagine how an atheist can answer the challenge: "Why should human society thrive?"

At this point, they can only appeal to something like a general survival instinct...which, if true, is not an ought but an is.
Thus, it is no longer a moral fact, but a scientific one.

I appreciate your conversation.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "framework"...but, I suppose we'll deal with it later.

Yes, and as such, God has the authority to require all humans to adhere to the moral standard he insists upon.

I think we might be arriving at the crux of the matter:
Whether a person individually accepts God's prerogative to command moral values and duties is not at issue....

Understand this:
A genuine moral truth (like it is not acceptable to torture babies for fun) has as much force as a non-moral truth...they are, or must be considered to be objective facts which carry with them the requirement that all persons adhere to them, whether they like it or not.

Yes.

I suppose, but, speed limits exist for very reasonable reasons....i.e....It is not acceptable to endanger the life or health of either oneself or others (something like that). Speed limits only exist because they assume an objective moral standard. They aren't mere revenue generators... (unless you are in Waldo Florida). There exists a moral absolute which undergirds the idea of a speed limit.
Both the Atheist and the Christian agree on it for practical purposes.

If the atheist does anything due to his/her own personal predilections....it is no longer "objective"...but, subjective, by definition.

"The atheist"...renders any moral adherence subjective by definition..."The atheist" is the subject, of your sentence...he does things...subjectively.

He most likely does...(and is correct, and he most likely believes in objective moral truth)...but he cannot ground it upon anything:

WHY DO HUMANS OBJECTIVELY HAVE INNATE RIGHTS??

(I don't wish to "yell"...but, I think that is the crux of our disagreement) So, I do want some emphasis on that point, sorry if it's a little loud.
Obeying speed limits is a matter of applying a pre-concieved larger moral issue.
"Speed limits" are not either moral or immoral.
They exist because they appeal to an objective moral truth:
Something like: No person should endanger themselves or others (at least without justification)...
But: WHY can't they? An atheist, can, (IMO) appeal to nothing other than an innate normative drive in humans to desire the general thriving of their own species...
But, why should the species thrive?
Why is it not o.k. to endanger oneself or others?
What if, whoever is endangered, is a lesser and more genetically inferior specimen....A stronger and more intelligent specimen would reproduce better and more capable humans. (Thus, presumably strengthening the species as a whole).
Therefore, humanity, as a whole would thrive more if only the best genetic specimens survived.

The speed limit is itself a subjective standard:
It can be changed. I is subject to a legislature (or most likely a bloated bureaucracy) which sets the speed limit according to whatever measures they see fit.

Maybe...
But, this conversation is really about a classic (and very hotly debated) argument for theism which is used by some of the best Philosophers of Religion in the world....literally.
They do not use it because it has no merit.
It's a very worthy discussion to have.

Again, thanks for your willingness to engage in this topic

 

OMG! thanks for FINALLY rejoining the DEBATE YOU STARTED!!

I assume you are posting these things so that no one will question your sincerity, faith, or passion for truth.
I do not doubt that.
I do disagree with your critique of the "Moral argument"...but, I do not at all question your bona fides in doing so.

An argument of this sort already exists, I think....
It's (I think) now called the "Argument from human desire"..
(I think it's a new one).

"
I think they are separate arguments...I may be wrong here...I'm not sure I understand you here.

In short...I don't disagree with you because I don't accept Divine Command Morality either.
Obviously, most people who would side with me contra your view, would ascribe to it.
But, I think, perhaps, you are selling us short here:

I (like you) do not actually think "Divine Command Morality" is an adequate description or morality either...
And yet, I think the argument from morality still holds:

I placed in blue here what I find problematic.
Those things in blue are true from a purely atheistic standpoint:
They have no force in a Theistic one. I tend to wonder if you aren't confused about the nature of Morality.

"The goods of human nature"...
That doesn't make sense (to me): Please explain what that means.

If I understand you correctly, I can't agree.
I God does not exist, the Universe has no MORAL order...it just is...
It is a state of affairs, a rote fact.
Thus, Human nature is merely a rote fact:
If human nature is the result of an unguided set of rote facts...they are merely " IS-ES"...statements about what "IS" but not what "OUGHT" to be.

I think you sell the moral argument short because of your insistence that only devotees of the "Divine Command Theory" accept it..
I do not think I subscribe to "Divine Command Theory" either: But, I do think the argument from objective morality holds.

I actually agree with you here 100%
I believe morality is grounded upon God's nature...(not man) and it isn't about what he "commands" man to do.. but, how he created his Universe....and he did so according to the loving nature he has.

In short...I think you sell the Moral Argument short because you only conceive of it in a stricture of "Divine Command Theory" ethics.....
And I agree that "Divine Command Theory" is insufficient...but, the argument can be re-conceptualized outside of that.

Thanks for your responses!