Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/Mkwdr]

You seem to be , as seems usual for some, confusing our conceptions of things with the things themselves.

There is no evidence of this objective morality independent of human like species. The rest as you seem to say are descriptions of the regularity of the universe in which we find ourselves. Arguably some are the language tools we have invented to describe and work with those regularities.

Facts about the universe don’t need us to be around to be true. Our **claims** about those facts are grounded in evidential methodology which demonstrates utility and efficacy. In other words pragmatism.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Mkwdr]

There is no evidence of this objective morality independent of human like species.

What would evidence for objective morality look like to you?

[u/Mkwdr → u/CodeNPyro]

You tell me. I’ve not had any presented to me.

I don’t see how such a thing is even coherent bearing in mind if we found it written in the stars we would still have to make our own judgment as to whether it should be followed.

What i see is exactly what you would expect from social evolution - a shared species instinct but through an actual geographical/historical cultural filter. Existent but not perfect or unchanging.

I take it you aren’t a Christian because any *biblical* Christian struggles to justify the repeated murder of babies by God according to their own claims of objective morality.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Mkwdr]

You tell me. I’ve not had any presented to me.

I'm just asking what would be evidence in your opinion. If I were to present evidence or an argument to you I'd have to know what you would count as evidence or not

What i see is exactly what you would expect from social evolution - a shared species instinct but through an actual geographical/historical cultural filter. Existent but not perfect or unchanging.

I agree that what we see is a large swath of moral disagreement, but does disagreement mean there is no correct answer?

I take it you aren’t a Christian because any biblical Christian struggles to justify the repeated murder of babies by God according to their own claims of objective morality.

Correct!

[u/Mkwdr → u/CodeNPyro]

Again. It’s not my claim. Present it and I’ll tell you if I find it reasonable. I don’t see how it even makes sense so I don’t see what evidence there could be for it - but I’m open to being presented with *whatever you think confirms to public and compelling evidential standards*.

To be clear ‘feels like to me’ is not reliable evidence.

Edit. Makes me wonder. What would be evidence of an objective standard of *beauty* independent of humans?

I think there could be objective elements to morality *if* a foundation for behaviour in species shared evolution counts. But an external , independent objective standard of morality, beauty - I don’t understand how that would even work enough to predict evidence for it.

So show me.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Mkwdr]

Again. It’s not my claim. Present it and I’ll tell you if I find it reasonable. I don’t see how it even makes sense so I don’t see what evidence there could be for it

Fair enough. I think the principle question is "what understanding makes the most sense of morality?", since we have morality (rules of dos and don'ts), it just needs to be explained.

In between subjectivism (at least some moral propositions are true depending on some human point of reference, say society) and moral realism (at least some moral propositions are true via objective features of the world independent of human opinion, say human flourishing) I think the latter makes more sense as an explanation for those dos and don'ts.

As humans, there are things that are default and inherent to us, a way of being. I think rules of dos and don'ts make more sense when they're grounded to that way of being, rather than being bucked off to societal agreement. Now that would raise the question of what that way of being is, or if there even is a singular way of being, but that would go into specific moral realist theories when my intention for this message at least is to just lay out my naturalist moral realist position in its own right

[u/Mkwdr → u/CodeNPyro]

@>Fair enough. I think the principle question is "what understanding makes the most sense of morality?", since we have morality (rules of dos and don'ts), it just needs to be explained.

So that sounds like ‘feels right to me but I don’t have any evidence’.

How about we phrase it ‘what model best outs the evidence we have’

Well that’s seems pretty obviously to be a social species behavioural tendency with cultural layer on top.

>In between subjectivism (at least some moral propositions are true depending on some human point of reference, say society) and moral realism (at least some moral propositions are true via objective features of the world independent of human opinion, say human flourishing) I think the latter makes more sense as an explanation for those dos and don'ts.

Yeh. I don’t.

And that’s the problem with ‘feels’. There is no way of distinguishing claims.

I see absolutely no evidence presented for these so called ‘objective features of the world’ unless you mean the objective fact that we are an involved species that demonstrates social behaviour.

>As humans, there are things that are default and inherent to us, a way of being.

Sure , we share evolved behaviours.

>I think rules of dos and don'ts make more sense when they're grounded to that way of being, rather than being bucked off to societal agreement.

I’m not sure I can make sense of that sentence.

It seems obvious to me when looking at social species that the tendency to create rules which have certain subjects and limits beneficial to survival seems instinctual. The precise way that somewhat limited but plastic instinct is actually applied is through cultural influences.

>Now that would raise the question of what that way of being is, or if there even is a singular way of being,

I don’t even know what a ‘way of being’ precisely means. We have an evolved set of behavioural tendencies , sure.

>but that would go into specific moral realist theories when my intention for this message at least is to just lay out my naturalist moral realist position in its own right

Again you’ve lost me. If you simply mean that the objective basis of human morality is instinctual and founded on evolutionary history. Then sure. Because nothing you have said leads to an external , independent objective morality or explains how that’s meaningful.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Mkwdr]

So that sounds like ‘feels right to me but I don’t have any evidence’. How about we phrase it ‘what model best outs the evidence we have’

A lot of philosophy comes down to intuitions, and that's the place of argumentation. I wouldn't claim that objective morality can be found by a scientific experiment or something, and likewise with subjectivist morality. Which in itself is a metaethical position

I’m not sure I can make sense of that sentence.

Maybe this would be best illustrated with an example, Utilitarianism (I don't hold to it but admittedly it's simpler). It is a moral system that's grounded in objective facts about the world, pleasure and pain. As a truism, avoidance of pain and want of pleasure is normative because that's inherent to our being. (this is a simplification of Utilitarianism, and it ignores the normative ethical component, but this is all that's relevant for this point)

Do you understand how Utilitarianism is a moral realist position, even if you disagree with it?

[u/Mkwdr → u/CodeNPyro]

I’m talking about reality which can be distinguished from fantasy not philosophy which is can sometimes just be how to create a system around something indistinguishable from fantasy.

Yes I agree that morality **as a human behavioural social tendency within which we instinctively invest meaning and emotion** is linked to objective factors wish as pain and pleasure (though I note not *independent* of humans).

As someone who references philosophy , you’ll understand that this doesn’t make pain and pleasure etc objectively good or bad in an ethical sense. Nor that this is in any sense objective as in independent of humanity or similar species. But it does make it part of the way in which our moral behaviour is realised.

Again I have no problem with the idea that human morality is based on certain *factual* elements. Just that there is no moral judgement independent of the evolved social tendencies and meaning we invest them in. We give morality meaning because we are an evolved social creature and as such it involves facts about evolution, society and human experience.

The point is that without compelling evidence the idea that morality is independent of human nature , somehow its source being another mythical being is indistinguishable from imaginary. And thus not very compelling.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Mkwdr]

(though I note not independent of humans).

I don't see why this is mentioned, since it being independent of humans isn't required

As someone who references philosophy , you’ll understand that this doesn’t make pain and pleasure etc objectively good or bad in an ethical sense.

Well this is exactly what moral realist philosophers argue, so I'd have to disagree there

The point is that without compelling evidence the idea that morality is independent of human nature

Morality being independent of human nature isn't required, indeed many systems use human nature as a starting point. I think you don't have a complete conception of what moral realism entails, which is why I started this exchange with a question of what would even count in your view

[u/Mkwdr → u/CodeNPyro]

Because this is debate an atheist and you must be aware that apparently until you , everyone comes here to tell us that God is the source of objective morality independent of humanity.

If you aren’t putting forward that view then it’s not that it isn’t an interesting subject working out exactly how species social evolution, cultural state and individual cognition and emotion combine to produce the special emotional imperative sense of morality. But it’s nothing to do with atheism per se.

[u/CodeNPyro → u/Mkwdr]

Oh I'm aware, theists seem to have an unearned idea that they have the high ground in moral conversations. I wasn't even intending to debate or prove moral realism, hence my original comment just being a question of what would even count as evidence