Atheism and morality (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, October 29, 2010, 16:06 (5116 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony believes in a UI, from whose perspective there is an objective form of right and wrong which Tony thinks of as an immutable truth, though it's not a moral imperative. "This is the version of right and wrong that I think humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older and begin to make exceptions for other people, other circumstances, and our own wants and desires. Again, this is not morality, it is right and wrong." -First of all, thank you for responding. I'd been a little concerned that our prolonged disagreement might have put you off, but the discussion is interesting and this post raises some complex questions. Firstly, two points I'd like to make in response to the abovei) I don't understand why in your last sentence you have distinguished between morality and 'right and wrong'. In my view, and according to every dictionary definition I have seen, the two concepts are inseparable. Nor do I understand what you mean by "not a moral imperative". If the UI's form of right and wrong is not a code relating to our behaviour towards one another, what is its relevance to morality?-(ii) I thought we had agreed that there is no objective right or wrong, but of course if there is a God/UI who sets the standards (see above), he/she/it will have the final word. However, since no-one knows what those objective standards are, they're not much use to us (unless a person is convinced that he has the "right" interpretation). This leads, though, to more questions:-Firstly, you agree that "morality can only exist where one person's actions affect someone else". If the UI's objective form of right and wrong is something "humans innately understand, and lose as we grow older", do you believe that all babies begin by unconsciously knowing how to behave considerately, and then gradually become more selfish as they grow older? If not, when and how do they acquire their understanding?-Secondly, you go on to say: "Therefore, the idea that society can determine what is 'right' and 'wrong', to me, is utter rubbish." I can't see any logical link here. Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, slander, cheating are all instances of one person's actions adversely affecting someone else, and our society has determined that all of these are wrong, immoral (and in most cases also illegal). Why is this rubbish?-You complain ... in my view quite rightly ... about what we as individuals may see as inherent flaws: societal injustice, silly taboos, ostracism, aggression against people who disagree with prevailing norms. No-one is saying that society's determination of what is 'right' and 'wrong' makes its decisions objective or universally acceptable. There will always be conflicts. But you're passing judgement on values, whereas I'm merely stating where values come from. Hence my asking you why you won't accept Matt's summary: "[...] our moral sense is developed by (and only by) our contact with other people. And the culture we live in is what determines 'right or wrong', even though no objective 'right' or 'wrong' exists." It may be that you intended your reference to a UI to be your response, but then I would have to go back to the question whether you believe all babies are born with innate knowledge of the UI and its objective form of right and wrong, and the all-important question that follows it.