• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Yes, atheists can have objective morality

Can atheists have objective moral values?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Arthur King

Arthur King

Active Member
taisto said:
How ought humans behave if God did not create them and God does not exist?
Click to expand...

They ought to behave in such a way that produces life and happiness. "Good" means that which is beneficial to a purpose. Purposes could be grounded in the desires of God, but purposes are also grounded in the bedrock desires of a universal human nature. So if a universal human nature seeks purposes such as life and happiness, these are grounds for objective moral values. It is objectively wrong to do actions that are destructive towards human life and happiness for all. It is a violation of human nature.
 
T

taisto

Well-Known Member
Arthur King said:
They ought to behave in such a way that produces life and happiness. "Good" means that which is beneficial to a purpose. Purposes could be grounded in the desires of God, but purposes are also grounded in the bedrock desires of a universal human nature. So if a universal human nature seeks purposes such as life and happiness, these are grounds for objective moral values. It is objectively wrong to do actions that are destructive towards human life and happiness for all. It is a violation of human nature.
Click to expand...
Would you consider the one child policy of China to be good since it was beneficial to a purpose of population control? Or was it bad because it resulted in many, many, abortions? Yet, the population was held in check.
Can you not see how your definition and position is subjective, relativistic morality?
 
Arthur King

Arthur King

Active Member
taisto said:
Would you consider the one child policy of China to be good since it was beneficial to a purpose of population control? Or was it bad because it resulted in many, many, abortions? Yet, the population was held in check.
Can you not see how your definition and position is subjective, relativistic morality?
Click to expand...

You are confusing natural law morality (which I am defending) with utilitarianism.

natural law says abortion is an intrinsically evil act, as it is the destruction of an innocent human life. It is a direct and severe violation of the good of life and happiness for all human beings, as it directly destroys a human being.

China’s one child policy was a moral atrocity under natural law.
 
T

taisto

Well-Known Member
Arthur King said:
You are confusing natural law morality (which I am defending) with utilitarianism.

natural law says abortion is an intrinsically evil act, as it is the destruction of an innocent human life. It is a direct and severe violation of the good of life and happiness for all human beings, as it directly destroys a human being.

China’s one child policy was a moral atrocity under natural law.
Click to expand...
Where is the natural law stated that abortion is an intrinsically evil act? Many, many, cultures invited child sacrifice as the norm, not evil.
It seems to me that you are making up the rules as you type.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
taisto said:
Where is the natural law stated that abortion is an intrinsically evil act? Many, many, cultures invited child sacrifice as the norm, not evil.
It seems to me that you are making up the rules as you type.
Click to expand...
Insane reasoning.
 
Arthur King

Arthur King

Active Member
taisto said:
Where is the natural law stated that abortion is an intrinsically evil act? Many, many, cultures invited child sacrifice as the norm, not evil.
It seems to me that you are making up the rules as you type.
Click to expand...

Your question “where is the law stated” presupposes a morally subjective framework, do you see that? An objective framework asks “what is?” Not “who said so?” If you are asking “who said so?” then you are assuming that morality comes from a person or authority - which is subjective.

The natural law is not “stated.” It is what it is. Law means consistency of behavior. The laws of physics are what they are. What we “state” in physical sciences are ways of communicating what the laws in fact are.

Life and happiness for human beings are objective things. It is objectively true that human nature seeks them as bedrock purposes. If this is the case then it is objectively a violation of such purposes to murder.
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Arthur King said:
Life and happiness for human beings are objective things. It is objectively true that human nature seeks them as bedrock purposes. If this is the case then it is objectively a violation of such purposes to murder.
Click to expand...
Aggression and competition for resources for human beings are objective things. It is objectively true that human nature seeks them as bedrock purposes. If this is the case then it is objectively an extension of such purposes to murder.
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
kyredneck said:
Oxymoron alert. What higher entity were these atheists 'sacrificing' to?
Click to expand...
The STATE ... the PEOPLE (collectively) ... the "GREATER GOOD". Communism places the STATE as the "god".
However, strictly speaking, a culture only needs to collectively accept an action for it to be "culturally" 'GOOD'.
An example would be eating the heart of your fallen enemy to gain his courage. EVIL to us, an act of honor to a cannibal.

[Isn't CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY great stuff?]
 
Arthur King

Arthur King

Active Member
atpollard said:
Aggression and competition for resources for human beings are objective things. It is objectively true that human nature seeks them as bedrock purposes. If this is the case then it is objectively an extension of such purposes to murder.
Click to expand...

"It is objectively true that human nature seeks them as bedrock purposes."

No, that is not true. Aggression and competition for resources to do not lead to the life and holistic long term pleasure for all human beings. Aggression and competition and murder violate those goods.
 
Arthur King

Arthur King

Active Member
kyredneck said:
So, atheists who abort are actually 'sacrificing' to a higher entity? Sort of an oxymoron, you think?
Click to expand...

Atheists who abort are sacrificing the child for a higher priority.

Everyone worships. Worship just means "worth-ship," that is, the ascribing of worth. Everyone has a hierarchy of worth that dictates their actions.

So yes, when an atheist aborts a child, it is because they worship (ascribe worth to) something more than the life of the child.
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Arthur King said:
"It is objectively true that human nature seeks them as bedrock purposes."

No, that is not true. Aggression and competition for resources to do not lead to the life and holistic long term pleasure for all human beings. Aggression and competition and murder violate those goods.
Click to expand...
Ahhh ... a fantasy land. Nature of Eden.

My mistake. I was thinking of the real nature where people want to survive and need to hunt for food or defend their farm from animals or face droughts and migrations (like the Tribal Migrations across Europe caused by the early Hun successes in Asia.)

Carry on, I have no idea how your UTOPIA functions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top