rationalskepticism.org

promethean wrote:Objective Morality
Do you believe that some actions actually are right and some things are actually wrong (objective morality) or do you think morality is simply a cultural, social or evolutionary convention? Do absolute objective moral values exist? This question is very challenging to the atheist to answer in either the affirmative or the negative. If objective moral values do exist then where do they come from? If we are simply animals whose existence is the result of blind chance how can we have objective moral weight? There is no logical foundation on which these moral laws can be based. On the other hand if there are no objective moral values then we have no basis by which to criticise actions as evil (or wrong or immoral) or to commend actions as good (or noble or just). If morality is just culturally derived conveniences then the cannibal is equally valid as the human rights activist in their analysis of what constitutes good and evil. Many atheists seem to profess just such moral relativism, again to quote Dawkins “there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

However – such a position is impossible to maintain. As demonstrated by Dawkins who very quickly moves on to define religion as ‘the root of all evil’ seemingly unaware of the irony in criticising religion on moral grounds having just established that the very notion of morality makes no sense according to his worldview.

There are options you have not considered. You contrast objective morality (which you can not demonstrate as coming from god) with the usual theist caricature of alternatives, usually based on simple individualist moral relativism. Have you considered moral objectives, that humans are highly social animals, that we assess behaviours on both social and personal consequences, with regard to utility and harm?

Taking this commonplace tripe:

The atheist who asserts moral repulsion when they hear about a priest engaging in child sex abuse can only do so with any credibility if they believe in absolute moral values – otherwise they have no business criticising the priest. This is the first illusion erected by atheists to maintain their worldview. They realise that at rock bottom there is no basis for them to make logically binding moral judgements on others and yet they choose to ‘believe’ in their moral code all the same.

you show a paucity of imagination in the opening sentence. If there is evident utility in not having children harmed (humans do not have many children and invest heavily in bringing them to maturity) then why would there not, from the most primitive times, be very strong sanctions against harm to children? Sanctions which have been strengthened over time as we recognise that we are having fewer children and have a greater appreciation and capability for their protection.

In fact this is a perfect basis for making logically binding moral judgements based on social and personal moral objectives. It is no basis for imagining that morality is derived from a sadistic pixie.

Love works like taste does, with a thinking layer included. It is also a short word covering a lot of important things we are still researching.

Free will is a subject to which I am happy to come back, preferring to keep a narrower focus at the moment. I will later support the position that your belief in libertarian free will is incoherent, absurd, or both.