To Atheistic moral realists

Morals from sympathy. 

I live in a society. I don't want to be murdered. I give up my right to murder, in exchange everyone else does too because everyone else does not want to be murdered.

Alternatively, one could make the argument that morals exist because of the evolution of complex social interaction within a species. In other words, survival of a society depends on the willingness of its members to abide by a certain set of rules. Societies that didn't have these rules for interaction would have died out. Additionally, people who did not adhere to the rules of a particular society would find survival difficult.  

I didn't quite get the question you made but from what I understood I'd say this.

Morality is not an obligation, or at least, it's one of those things that shift "character" depending on the way we choose to view them. Morality as an obligation stems of course from various religions that impose rules using punishment as a motivation. Then it becomes an arduous and hard to achieve obligation. Once morality becomes the result of fear of some punishment, then the person starts to believe that morality is something very alien to human nature and own his/her own will never achieve it unless someone's "whipping" him/her...

This falls to the category of things that stick to our heads through experiences. I once stated an example of a person that is being told from birth that he/she is a worthless stupid person. In the end this person will most likely end up acting like a worthless, stupid person. His intelligence will be degraded, his human capabilities will be ultimately "sized down". In analogy the person who is raised believing that he/she has a natural and inevitable inclination towards evil (like most religions teach), will eventually have that inclination and thus will inevitably need the fear of a punishment. But that does not reveal the true "good will capabilities" of a human but more like the way he was raised.

Relying on things other than religion for moral behavior is not a result of atheism (neither a result of rebelious behavior), though, and it would be stupid to believe so.

As I have stated in the thread about the meaning of life: the meaning of life is in happines and pleasure; in that everything can have a positive side to be explored that may utterly change it's "nature". Much like education is considered hard and arduous. But that is not because learning is by its nature hard and arduous but it's because of other things such as the bad educational system and off-course the belief that it is such a hard activity (you can make any connections with religion here in this example - it is intended).

Same with morality. There are ways to think of morality which will in the end make it something enjoyable and even completely voluntary (ie without the fear of punishment: lake of fire/hell etc).

It is obvious that the moral values are in turn societal values. That means one thing: they benefit both the benefited and the benefactors (I hope I'm using correct words here). Once people find the pleasure out of doing good then morality will become common sense. For the rest who do not primarily act morally for the benefit of society but to appear loyal to a god, can as well stick to a religion.

What if we do not believe in / subscribe to obligations?CptJSparrow

Frattracide pretty much covered everything that I have to say.domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Frattracide pretty much covered everything that I have to say.danwallacefan

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Frattracide pretty much covered everything that I have to say.danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Frattracide pretty much covered everything that I have to say.Frattracide

and remember, the fact that our belief in ethics originated via evolution doesn't actually undercut the objectivity of moral values. It only gives us even more reason because our moral sense would count as a properly basic belief, upon which we base our belief in moral obligations.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Frattracide pretty much covered everything that I have to say.danwallacefan

and remember, the fact that our belief in ethics originated via evolution doesn't actually undercut the objectivity of moral values. It only gives us even more reason because our moral sense would count as a properly basic belief, upon which we base our belief in moral obligations.

So you your argument is:

1 Assume there is a metaphysical source for morals.

2. How does an atheist account for the metaphysical source for morals? 

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Frattracide pretty much covered everything that I have to say.Frattracide

and remember, the fact that our belief in ethics originated via evolution doesn't actually undercut the objectivity of moral values. It only gives us even more reason because our moral sense would count as a properly basic belief, upon which we base our belief in moral obligations.

So you your argument is:

1 Assume there is a metaphysical source for morals.

2. How does an atheist account for the metaphysical source for morals?

Now if there are moral obligations, then they of course exist. So what is their metaphysical grounding?

Well, yes. After all, this thread is directed to Atheistic moral realists, Atheists who accept the fact that we have moral obligations. If you dont believe in moral obligations, then go about your merry way, that issue can be saved for another day.

Now if there are moral obligations, then they of course exist. So what is their metaphysical grounding?

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Frattracide pretty much covered everything that I have to say.danwallacefan

and remember, the fact that our belief in ethics originated via evolution doesn't actually undercut the objectivity of moral values. It only gives us even more reason because our moral sense would count as a properly basic belief, upon which we base our belief in moral obligations.

So you your argument is:

1 Assume there is a metaphysical source for morals.

2. How does an atheist account for the metaphysical source for morals?

Now if there are moral obligations, then they of course exist. So what is their metaphysical grounding?

Why must there be metaphysical grounding?

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Frattracide pretty much covered everything that I have to say.domatron23

and remember, the fact that our belief in ethics originated via evolution doesn't actually undercut the objectivity of moral values. It only gives us even more reason because our moral sense would count as a properly basic belief, upon which we base our belief in moral obligations.

So you your argument is:

1 Assume there is a metaphysical source for morals.

2. How does an atheist account for the metaphysical source for morals?

Now if there are moral obligations, then they of course exist. So what is their metaphysical grounding?

Why must there be metaphysical grounding?

2: There simply is no obligation to follow these abstractly existing moral values. As Richard Taylor noted, a duty is something which is owed. There is no such thing as a duty-in-isolation.

The point I'm getting at is that Moral duties can only be rooted in God. Morality needs an arbiter. Further, morality cannot exist in isolation.

2: There simply is no obligation to follow these abstractly existing moral values. As Richard Taylor noted, a duty is something which is owed. There is no such thing as a duty-in-isolation.

danwallacefan

I think it could be fairly easy to argue that one's duty is to one's fellow man, on account of the fact that acting in a moral manner towards one's neighbor is likely to cause the other to return the favor, and as a result, both people's lives are improved.  It's in everyone's best interest to act morally towards others - no god required.

well they can't exist in of themselves for 2 main reasons

1: The conclusion which we draw from our moral experience would be defeated by the theory of evolution. After all, what is the chance of us accurately comprehending these abstractly existing moral values? Given the overwhelming improbability (comprehension of moral duties simply does not aid survival) of us comprehending this abstractly existing realm, we should seriously doubt the fact that we accurately interpret moral values

2: There simply is no obligation to follow these abstractly existing moral values. As Richard Taylor noted, a duty is something which is owed. There is no such thing as a duty-in-isolation.

The point I'm getting at is that Moral duties can only be rooted in God. Morality needs an arbiter. Further, morality cannot exist in isolation.

danwallacefan

1. Most moral values hold some benefit to survival. So understanding them would also aid in survival. Considering the fact that humans are social creatures, the existence of a code of conduct for living in society makes sense.

2. The obligation is to your self because it is to your benefit that you agree to follow a set of rules. That is what enables you to live in a complex social network. Individuals who don't follow these rules would find it difficult to survive in society. Aristotle said "I gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded, what others do only from the fear of law."

3. Morality is mandated by the need to exist in a society. That is why it evolved.

Three extraneous points:

1.I feel sorry for anybody that needs the constant threat of eternal torture to behave morally. 

2a. You know for somebody who was supposed to lay down all these nifty morals, god sure does violate them a lot. 

2b. If god was the creator of morals, how do you explain justice? god is not just, yet we have the concept of justice.  

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Frattracide pretty much covered everything that I have to say.danwallacefan

and remember, the fact that our belief in ethics originated via evolution doesn't actually undercut the objectivity of moral values. It only gives us even more reason because our moral sense would count as a properly basic belief, upon which we base our belief in moral obligations.

So you your argument is:

1 Assume there is a metaphysical source for morals.

2. How does an atheist account for the metaphysical source for morals?

Now if there are moral obligations, then they of course exist. So what is their metaphysical grounding?

Why must there be metaphysical grounding?

2: There simply is no obligation to follow these abstractly existing moral values. As Richard Taylor noted, a duty is something which is owed. There is no such thing as a duty-in-isolation.

The point I'm getting at is that Moral duties can only be rooted in God. Morality needs an arbiter. Further, morality cannot exist in isolation.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

So you your argument is:

1 Assume there is a metaphysical source for morals.

2. How does an atheist account for the metaphysical source for morals?

danwallacefan

Now if there are moral obligations, then they of course exist. So what is their metaphysical grounding?

Assumption 1 loads the topic and makes it unanswerable from an atheist perspective.

well they can't exist in of themselves for 2 main reasons
1: The conclusion which we draw from our moral experience would be defeated by the theory of evolution. After all, what is the chance of us accurately comprehending these abstractly existing moral values? Given the overwhelming improbability (comprehension of moral duties simply does not aid survival) of us comprehending this abstractly existing realm, we should seriously doubt the fact that we accurately interpret moral values

2: There simply is no obligation to follow these abstractly existing moral values. As Richard Taylor noted, a duty is something which is owed. There is no such thing as a duty-in-isolation.

The point I'm getting at is that Moral duties can only be rooted in God. Morality needs an arbiter. Further, morality cannot exist in isolation.

danwallacefan

1. Morals are not defeated by evolution and chance is not a good word when dealing with evolution.  At each level our cells gain a greater relative fitness by acting in collusion with others, a division and specialization of tasks make them more individually fit and more likely to be passed on to the next generation.  Likewise individuals who carry a predisposition to act in a way conducive to a healthy society can benefit from that societies collective efforts, making that individual more relatively fit and have a better chance to pass those genes and memes to their next generation.  This is our basis of morality, we try to benefit the whole because indirectly it benefits ourselves and our offspring.  

But then you might say "AH but what about Tragedy of the Commons? Isn't it more beneficial for people to cheat the system?"  Only when the number of cheaters stay relatively low, and they do in our society.  We create laws to limit the number of people who would take advantage of the system and leave those of us that subscribe to the system of morals to live harmoniously.

2.  The only obligations are through the laws enacted to punish cheaters of the system.  However there is motivation to enact a personal moral code.  Not only does it help an individual maintain a sense of self which is very psychologically satisfying, it is an advertisement to others that you are one of the people who will reciprocate their altruism, which will more likely bring you their's.