Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

jvollmer57 Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:36 am

I hear many Christians say that atheists must admit to moral relativism since their lack of belief in god denies them any claim to objective moral values. Can someone help explain their line of thinking to me? Isn't it self-evident that all people--atheists as well as believers--adhere to certain foundational moral values that we can all agree are objective? For example, I don't see how a non-believer, regardles of his/her atheism, can come up with a morally relativistic justification for rape, torture, theft, profligacy. Why do Christians always level this accusation at us?

Nicholas Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:53 am

jvollmer57 wrote:I hear many Christians say that atheists must admit to moral relativism since their lack of belief in god denies them any claim to objective moral values. Can someone help explain their line of thinking to me? Isn't it self-evident that all people--atheists as well as believers--adhere to certain foundational moral values that we can all agree are objective? For example, I don't see how a non-believer, regardles of his/her atheism, can come up with a morally relativistic justification for rape, torture, theft, profligacy. Why do Christians always level this accusation at us?

Christians will bring any argument to the table to try and discredit those of us who don't hold with their theology - no matter how ludicrous or baseless. Their understand of morality is limited, much like most of what they understand. Something is moral because god says so, and if god says so, it must be moral. Thus, we as non-believers will NEVER be as morally just as they are - any good we do is incidental. We are outside that circle. A rejection of god, for them, is a rejection of ethics, values, and goodness. They will claim any morality we as atheists might possess are holdovers from either a.) being former Christians, or b.) learned from Christian values in society, as we all know Christians invented ethics and morality </sarcasm>.

Nathan Barley Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:52 am

But does us all agreeing on it make it 'objectively so'? Do you believe that if we all believed slavery was ok, that would prove that 'objectively' it was moral? Surely the morality of an action must have some other source than the popular vote?

In my opinion, what we call morals come from several different sources. If you have to justify your moral stance on a subject, it comes down to your values. So where do the values come from? Well, going down this route takes you down an infinite regress:
Why is torture wrong? Because causing pain is wrong
Why is causing pain wrong? Because it makes people suffer.
Why is suffering wrong? Because I can feel empathy for their suffering and I wouldn't want to feel it too.
But why does that make it 'wrong'? etc

The problem for the Christian apologist argument is that positing a God doesn't make it any more 'objective'. It just means they believe in a God who holds it to be immoral, and they've decided that they should peg their moral values to His. The infinite regress still holds.

ben_gac Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:40 pm

Let's see what more we can unpack here. I don't have all this figured out, so I'd love to hear some reactions to this: how can objective morality exist at all? What constitutes morality? Why do we humans have such a "strong sense of morality?" If we look at the animal kingdom, murder and rape happens every day! On the microscopic level, it's a jungle out there, and every organism fends (sometime insidiously) for itself. What many living organisms do every day would be considered morally wrong by our human standards. Aren't we animals? How do you think we evolved this far? By kicking and screaming and fighting and stealing and cheating in whatever way we could in order to survive. When might is right, it's not a pretty world! Only when we developed the frontal lobe of our brains did we really begin feel EMPATHY.

I submit that EMPATHY is the foundation by which our society gained "morals." We knew that we didn't like being on the receiving end of pain, and soon discovered that if we worked together, our budding culture/society flourished much more quickly and easily. Morality was born. We don't murder, rape, steal, etc because it doesn't help our evolution. Some WOULD do it if they thought they could get away with it; others of us simply no longer have the inclination--assuming we're sitting comfortably high on the food chain, or in our societal positions (in contrast to third world countries where these "immoral activities" have much more common occurrences).

With or without God, there IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY. It's subjective, based on millions of years of our ancestors' experiences of pain. PAIN has been deemed negative by our evolutionary struggle for survival. Should we rape and pillage? Absolutely not! Why? Because it causes pain to others, and we wouldn't like it if someone inflicted that pain on us. It's all in the interests of self and societal preservation, and not breaking from the psychological norm of not having the desire to hurt each other.

In the end, I don't think it's a matter of whether objective morality exists or not--it's a matter of whether or not there are those who would commit these atrocious acts to others if they knew there would not be an ultimate Judge who would cause them to suffer for the suffering they have caused.

Devil's advocate! Your reactions? Smile

Neon Genesis Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:55 pm

There's two questions I have about moral relativism. Awhile back there was one Christian I was debating with who was arguing too that without God there can be no moral absolutes, but his argument was that if there were no moral absolutes and everything was just relative, then what we considered moral was just our personal preference. So if morals were relative, it was just your personal opinion that rape was wrong and not an absolute statement. So, his argument was if morals are relative and therefore according to him, are just our personal opinions, then it's just our personal opinion that hell is an unjust punishment. And so God can torture us however he wants to and we don't have the right to complain of being treated unjustly because our complaints are just personal preferences. How do you respond to this argument that moral relativism is the same thing as a mere personal opinion and we therefore can't complain about the immoral actions of God? Another argument I've heard is the argument that the statement that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute statement itself, therefore morals are absolute. How does one respond to that word game?

Nathan Barley Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:39 am

Neon, ask them why a God would make a difference to whether there are moral absolutes or not. Even if you believe in an eternal God, why would that God automatically be 'moral' or the author of moral absolutes?

"And so God can torture us however he wants to and we don't have the right to complain of being treated unjustly because our complaints are just personal preferences."

If someone has the power to torture you and they want to, what difference does it make whether or you can argue that they 'don't have the right' to? And that goes doubly for God - don't these people think God DOES have the right to torture us all for eternity? Our rights come from the governments we elect. If someone takes them away from you, you don't have them any more.

Before taking medicine for a disease, do these people have a debate the virus has a 'right' to invade their bodies or not? Do they reckon that if they can't show that a bacteria is 'evil' then they don't have a 'right' to inoculate themselves against it?

mischief Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:10 am

jvollmer57 wrote:I hear many Christians say that atheists must admit to moral relativism since their lack of belief in god denies them any claim to objective moral values. Can someone help explain their line of thinking to me? Isn't it self-evident that all people--atheists as well as believers--adhere to certain foundational moral values that we can all agree are objective? For example, I don't see how a non-believer, regardles of his/her atheism, can come up with a morally relativistic justification for rape, torture, theft, profligacy. Why do Christians always level this accusation at us?

So atheist moral values are relative ... and? Everyone's moral values are relative, including those of theist.

In certain situations both theists and non-theists have justified torture. It's a debate that has come up in just the past few years.

In the bible, god takes actions that by any legal standard of humans are wrong - evil, war crimes, even. For example; punishment of the masses for the fews crimes; punishment of descendents for the sins of their forbears; incitement to murder, etc. If god was a human, we'd prosecute it for crimes against humanity, including at least 2 counts of genocide.

So god can flout moral absolutes with impunity.
Therefore ... morality isn't absolute.

Bingo.
Moral relativism for the theist.

As it should be. Moral values change depending on the situation, it's why, for example, we grant our leaders extraordinary powers in wartime. Trying to force morality into a box marked absolute never works.

Nathan Barley Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:35 pm

Neon Genesis wrote: Another argument I've heard is the argument that the statement that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute statement itself, therefore morals are absolute. How does one respond to that word game?

Is it an absolute to say there are no elephants hiding in my trousers? I'd say no. So why is it any more an 'absolute' to claim there are no absolutes in the universe? Anyway, saying there are no MORAL absolutes is not the same as saying there are NO absolutes at all - so their word game is a non sequitur. Allowing there are logical absolutes doesn't mean there are moral absolutes.

NedStark Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:27 pm

I hear many Christians say that atheists must admit to moral relativism since their lack of belief in god denies them any claim to objective moral values.

My answer to that would be: So what? What's wrong with moral relativism?

In this context, in order for something to be subjective, it cannot originate in the mind. Even if the Christian God is the source of all morality, it is still subjective morality. Morality, by its very definition, CANNOT be objective. If there were no minds to contemplate it, it would be utterly meaningless. It wouldn't exist.

Morality is what we decide it is. I think the problem Christians have with the idea of subjective morality is that they think it means values being random in an "anything goes" atmosphere. This is not the case at all. Morality exists because it is a very effective survival strategy. I would rather not be killed and/or have people take my stuff, so I'm going to move to the village where people don't kill you and take your stuff. Now this village has what's called a law: don't kill people or take their stuff. If I decide to break that law, there are serious consequences to it, because the people living there not only felt the same way I did about it, they recognized that the only way to stop it from happening in that village is if everyone living there was compelled to comply. Thus, those particular moral values are clearly subjective, but that does NOT mean they were random rules that village pulled out of thin air. Moral reletivism has grown out of necessity.

Therefore, someone who thinks that only objective morality has value had to admit that they don't see any practical value to morality, since the existence said practical value would preclude that position.

NedStark Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:49 pm

Another argument I've heard is the argument that the statement that there are no moral absolutes is an absolute statement itself, therefore morals are absolute. How does one respond to that word game?

Yes it is an absolute STATEMENT, but the idea that there are no moral absolutes (an idea I happen to agree with) is not a MORAL, it's an assertion. The person who uses that argument's problem is that they hold the mistaken beliefs that moral "absolutes" are the only morals that have any of kind value. Morals are not inherently valid, but they are valued depending on several factors, the largest of which being its benefit to society. Morals that forbid rape, murder, and theft all have practical benefit, and thus have practical value. Morality cannot be objective, because without minds to appreciate its practical benefits, it couldn't even exist, unlike a rock, which exists regardless of what anybody thinks of it.

Think about how the price of gas fluctuates. When the price is high, does that mean the gas has more intrinsic, objective value to it? Is it more powerful? Will it increase your mileage? Probably not. It's value changes because we say it does. Same thing with gold and precious stones. They have no objective value because by definition value cannot be objective. They are valuable because we say they are, because they meet the criteria we have created for valuable objects and substances. Objectively, the paper of a dollar bill is equally as valuable as all the gold in Fort Knox, because in order to be objective it cannot be assigned a value by any conscious mind. Without a conscious mind to assign value, the value of both is zero.

That doesn't mean that our perception of value is meaningless, hardly. In fact, our entire world economy functions solely on the perceived value of goods and services. Our criteria that assigns value has practical implications to our survival. We increase the value of items where the supply is low so they do not run out, because running out of something can have disastrous consequences.

Likewise, the criteria we use to judge something as "moral" or "immoral" has real practical value to our survival, even though the criteria is completely subjective. Subjective and relative morality is not the same as "random" morality. We do choose our moral values, but there's nothing wrong with that. We make the decisions we do for very good reasons (most of the time, anyway).

Objectivitees Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:36 pm

jvollmer57 wrote:I hear many Christians say that atheists must admit to moral relativism since their lack of belief in god denies them any claim to objective moral values. Can someone help explain their line of thinking to me? Isn't it self-evident that all people--atheists as well as believers--adhere to certain foundational moral values that we can all agree are objective? For example, I don't see how a non-believer, regardles of his/her atheism, can come up with a morally relativistic justification for rape, torture, theft, profligacy. Why do Christians always level this accusation at us?

Emphasis Added.

If God does not exist, then who's values should be enforced? What makes their values better than anyone else's?

The self-evident nature of what you point to as "foundational" the Christian sees as an argument for a transcendent source. If we adopt values absent a transcendent source, what happens when conflicting views arise? One set of subjective values are no more valid that any other set of subjective values. Without a "God", all we are able to have is a subjective set of values. Since Atheists reject the existence of God, they must therefore have a subjective set of values, which is why the accusation is leveled.

Objectivitees Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:45 pm

Something is moral because god says so, and if god says so, it must be moral. Thus, we as non-believers will NEVER be as morally just as they are

Nicholas... I think the "christian" who fed you that line is full of crap. it's perfectly possible for non-believers to be just as moral or even more moral than believers. The question is less about what particular value is "moral", than it is about the source of the moral value. The bone Christianity has with Atheism is not what the value is, but rather where did it come from, an absolute objective source, or a variable subjective source? If you claim a creator, you can rationalize an absolute source, if not, you are left to nature, and nature only dictates "what is stronger" survives, not what is "morally better" survives.

Objectivitees Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:48 pm

My answer to that would be: So what? What's wrong with moral relativism?

Ned, my answer to you would be "What happens when you meet someone who's relative values include killing you?" Why would that be wrong?

Nicholas Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:05 am

Nicholas... I think the "christian" who fed you that line is full of crap. it's perfectly possible for non-believers to be just as moral or even more moral than believers. The question is less about what particular value is "moral", than it is about the source of the moral value. The bone Christianity has with Atheism is not what the value is, but rather where did it come from, an absolute objective source, or a variable subjective source? If you claim a creator, you can rationalize an absolute source, if not, you are left to nature, and nature only dictates "what is stronger" survives, not what is "morally better" survives.

Oh, I have no doubt he was full of alot of crap; this was just the tip of the crapberg, so to speak. The problem I (and just about every agnostic/atheist) have with one's source of morality is that, essentially, we realize all moral conduct is the product of subjective reasoning. Theists are simply in denial of this, to be frank. They put it on their subjective belief in a god to be the source of what they claim is objective reality, toss their hands up, and relieve themselves of real critical analysis.

I take issue with the claim you made that, unless using a god as a moral source, you are left with a "survival of the fittest" mentality. Agnostics and atheists are, by and large, not nihilists. Secular Humanism is a prime example of this. But it seems you're trying to slyly slip in the whole "evolution is devoid of morality and leads to immoral behavior" line. By juxtaposing "what is stronger" with "morally better", you're setting up a false dichotomy between the two, a tactic used by alot of evolution deniers who claim acceptance of the science of naturalistic evolution leads to rampant immorality. The natural world is simply not "survival of the fittest"; that is a gross oversimplification at best.

danielhm Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:15 pm

Objectivitees wrote:
My answer to that would be: So what? What's wrong with moral relativism?

Ned, my answer to you would be "What happens when you meet someone who's relative values include killing you?" Why would that be wrong?

What happens when you meet another christian who's objective values include killing you? There is no way to argue that all christians, much less all theists, that claim an objective morality handed down from god or gods have been handed down the same objective morality.

Objective morality is just a prevarication to make those who claim it sleep better after doing the bad things they do.

thecatslunch Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:58 pm

Objectivitees wrote:
My answer to that would be: So what? What's wrong with moral relativism?

Ned, my answer to you would be "What happens when you meet someone who's relative values include killing you?" Why would that be wrong?

There are many secular ethics systems which would explain why such actions would be 'wrong' without the need of referring to an absolute standard. Reciprocity would be one such basis.

Objectivitees Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:52 pm

a tactic used by alot of evolution deniers who claim acceptance of the science of naturalistic evolution leads to rampant immorality.

But Nicholas, I'm not claiming it leads to rampant morality, I know an Atheist can be just as moral as a Theist. What I am claiming is what you have already admitted, that outside a transcendent source, all moral claims are subjective. Since Atheism has to utilize subjective morality, the "believer" (if you will) can never behave in a manner consistent with his presuppositions. He is forced to act as though certain behaviors are objectively morally correct, when in fact, none are.

The Christian however, (even if morals are not transcendent and he is wrong on that point) claiming objective and absolute standards for morality, can be consistent if he behaves in accordance with his specific claim.

The Atheist says 'There are no transcendent values, but I am going to behave as if there are', and the Cristian says 'There are transcendent values, and I am going to behave as if there are.

So the christian ends up being consistent with the presupposition of his belief, while the Atheist does not.

Objectivitees Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:56 pm

Reciprocity would be one such basis.

How does "reciprocity" explain the 'wrongness' of an act, without implying the need of an absolute standard?

thecatslunch Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:50 pm

Objectivitees wrote:
Reciprocity would be one such basis.

How does "reciprocity" explain the 'wrongness' of an act, without implying the need of an absolute standard?

Why does it need to? It is 'wrong' in the purely pragmatic way that you would not wish the act done to you or that society would collapse if everyone behaved this way. Those are enough (and possibly the ONLY) reason why acts are 'wrong'. Our subjective judgment of their 'wrongness' is our internalization of cultural teachings to which we have been exposed.

On another note I'm interested in how an objective source of reality can exist. One would have to ask: Is an act moral just because the objective source says so (in which case morality may be random or capricious) or does the objective source only choose moral acts to be moral about (in which case it ceases to be a moral source)? That was a bad sentence so let me give you a hypothetical example:

Suppose God says wearing hats on Fridays is a really bad thing. Now, is it a bad thing simply because God says so? God could choose ANYTHING to be a bad thing. OR, is it a bad thing because wearing hats is inherently bad and God, being a morally good fellow, only chooses the good? If it is the latter, then God is not the source of morality, He simply enforces it and our problem of the source of morality remains. If it is the former, then morality is merely the whim of God.

Nicholas Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Objectivitees wrote:The Christian however, (even if morals are not transcendent and he is wrong on that point) claiming objective and absolute standards for morality, can be consistent if he behaves in accordance with his specific claim.

The Atheist says 'There are no transcendent values, but I am going to behave as if there are', and the Cristian says 'There are transcendent values, and I am going to behave as if there are.

So the christian ends up being consistent with the presupposition of his belief, while the Atheist does not.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

The Atheist/Agnostic does not act as if there is a transcendent morality or ethics. To even attempt to make such a blanket statement about the Atheist/Agnostic "community" is erroneous right from the start; part of what makes the "community" what it is (and gives it its strength, I'd argue) is a plurality and diversity of thought, ethics being not the least of such subjects. I think it's safe to say most Atheists/Agnostics take a very humanistic, more holistic, pragmatic approach to ethics.

But even IF we take all that out of consideration, you are still wrong. Why? Essentially, you are once again creating a false dichotomy to prove a point that really isn't much of a point at all. Even if the Christian is more "consistent" in his ethics than an Atheist/Agnostic (which isn't the case; I'm throwing you a bone for the sake of argument), such consistency does not have any value in and of itself. It's meaningless. It's like saying Person A never missed a day of work, but Person B missed 3 due to his mother passing, therefore Person A calls himself the better employee. Horrible analogy, I know, but no more absurd that your claim.

Objectivitees Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:13 pm

Why does it need to?

Because you claimed it did.

Objectivitees Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:18 pm

The Atheist/Agnostic does not act as if there is a transcendent morality or ethics.

Yes, the atheist does. Are you saying that if I stole your car after raping your wife you would not be upset? I don't think so. Though there is no transcendent source of morality for the Atheist, he will still expect me to comport myself as if his values were.

thecatslunch Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:26 pm

Objectivitees wrote:
Why does it need to?
Because you claimed it did.

... And I went on to explain how our interior sense of 'wrongness' is the result of culture (with a little genetics) and based on pragmatism. Now if you could just address my other question ...

snafu Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:54 pm

The atheist and theist can both act with plain old ordinary garden variety morality and ethics. It is the theist who then attaches the adjective to them of "transcendent", based on a presupposition that they must be transcendent, and they see all ethics and morality from that vantage henceforth.

The atheist and theist can both taste the sweetness of sugar. But the theist to use an analogy, then claims that sweetness is transcendent (through a unilateral proclamation) and thus says to the atheist, that even though they don't believe in a transcentdent source of sweetness, they taste it just like the theist who knows its transcendent. But I contend, you just can't label something transcendent in this way, not for sugar & sweetness, and not for morality either. There must be a basis.

Nicholas Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:05 am

Objectivitees wrote:
The Atheist/Agnostic does not act as if there is a transcendent morality or ethics.

Yes, the atheist does. Are you saying that if I stole your car after raping your wife you would not be upset? I don't think so. Though there is no transcendent source of morality for the Atheist, he will still expect me to comport myself as if his values were.

You didn't really read the rest of the post, did you? Just took the easiest part to quote and conveniently ignored the rest. For shame.

Sponsored content

Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Devil's advocate

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?

Re: Do objective moral values exist for non-believers?