I’ve heard this claim before that it is not possible for atheists to have “objective moral beliefs” because many moral claims are based on religious authority, which atheists do not believe in.
Thus atheists are subjectivists when it comes to morality: each atheist may disagree with the other about what is moral. Obviously this opens atheists up to problems of disagreements, with some who might believe very conventionally “immoral” things are acceptable for them.
This is not of course to say that atheists may not choose to live lives that are some what “moral” (moral, as is often defined by religions)
So, what’s the status of the idea of “objective morality” and atheism?
its a dead end conversation. we have a base morality as defined by the zeitgeist. thats it. if you require some religious moral authority to act appropriately in our society you are broken .
We also have some constraints built in by evolution, but yeah.
I know zeitgeist means “Spirit of the Times” or “Whatever we all have decided is now” but a literal translation makes it so much more fun. THE TIME GHOST DICTATES MORALITY!
“Because God says so” isn’t an objective basis - it’s a subjective basis in which the entity making the subjective appraisal has been elevated to a purportedly ultimate position.
The difference between “because God says so” and “because Jeff who lives down the street says so” isn’t one of kind, but merely one of (supposed) degree. God is simply treated as a more aithoritative source than Jeff, but that doesn’t somehow elevate God’s assertions to objectivity.
Well but so what’s to moderate disagreements between Atheist A who believes one thing is right versus Atheist B who believes some other opposite thing is right?
In theory you could have a debate but atheism doesn’t mandate anything like “you have to believe the same thing as me otherwise you’re not an atheist”
Atheist C
Super easy:
Murder is wrong because I don’t have the right to deprive someone of their life.
Theft is wrong because I don’t have the right to goods or services which I did not earn.
I could go on, but there’s no need to bring imaginary beings into morality. In fact, the least moral people appear to be religious.
If you’re reading this and agree please take the next logical step.
Animal slaughter is wrong because I don’t have the right to deprive someone of their life.
Animals aren’t “someone” and eating other animals is, and has been, part of the natural order of things since animals have existed.
I have been taught animals aren’t things, therefore they are not something but someone.
The relevant part is that they have their own conscious experience that you are negatively impacting by killing them, the same reason it is wrong to kill a human.
“The natural order of things” is not a guide for morality; lions rape each other, that is still immoral.
