The Human Animal...

[Mountain Man]

My community will answer 'yes' as I would.

Your answer assumes that one ought to always do what is best for one's community, but on what basis do you make that assumption? I can think of any number of scenarios where it would be in one's own best interests to act in a way that is not best for their community. And why shouldn't they? What obligation do they have to do otherwise?

[seer]

To my mind, morality is like distance - a real relational property. It, as you said, exists in a relational context and refers to interpersonal well-being. I don't see why that means you're not a moral realist, unless to you 'moral realism' requires the existence of morality to be real in the sense that a rock is real, and that perhaps it is floating somewhere in space like a rock that perhaps a spaceship might crash into (which would seem absurd, though I realize Plato's Forms border on this). But to me, because I liken morality to distance and see both as being measures of a relation between things, I don't like terminology suggesting it doesn't really exist, or that in and of itself its not objective (obviously distance can be measured in a huge variety of types of units (yards, meters, light years) and is subjective in that sense, and morality is the same and admits all sorts of measurement choices, but the thing being measured does itself exist and is a real relation between real objects that objectively exists).

Isn't that kind of the point. How far away is the moon? 238,900 miles? Or 384,400 kilometers? How we measure distance is arbitrary, and tokens we use are subjective. Distance is real, but defined subjectively. Morality is real but also defined subjectively.

[EvoUK]

I always confused by the argument that if there is not some form of perfect lawmaker or deity with which to make an objective moral standard (though it is hard to work out what objective even means in this sense, other than it sounds important), then no morality makes sense or can be ignored as and when you feel like it.

If you think it would be better if there was some perfect deity establishing morality, rather than it being a product of social mammals in wider society or whatever - doesn't make it true. You could argue that it would be easier or better, but unless you can show it to be the case then it doesn't mean anything and is simply an argument for the already converted.

This is why the morality discussions go round and round in circles, because the argument is based on an unproven assumption.

[Starlight]

I don't believe that there is a source for good per se as a property, whether that's God, an individual, or society. Humans are social and empathetic creatures, barring neural abnormalities, due to our biological makeup. Humans are also cognitively advanced to understand self-relation. Morality is incoherent outside a relational context. Morality, in that context, is a matter social cohesion, interpersonal well-being, and
well-being. If you want to add in man's relation to a deity and religious cleanliness, that's fine. Again, that's still a relational context.

I'm not a moral realist.

I don't see anything to object to in your statement about morality, but I'm somewhat confused by the follow-up that you reject moral realism. I'll fully admit that when it comes to discussions of morality I'm weak on the technical terms, but often there seems to me to be ambiguity in the technical terminology.

I see relational properties as real properties. Let me give an example from physics: Distance is a relational property regarding two points in space-time. Distance is very real. But because the Theory of Relativity found there is no absolute frame of reference, distance takes on a defined value when you give an observer frame of reference and specify two points in spacetime which then have a distance relation between them. Being relational is thus not contradictory with being real - the opposite in fact. It is relational property of two real objects, and therefore a 'real thing'.

I accept you could say distance is not 'real' in the sense of being able to touch it, like a rock is 'real'. But distance is 'real' in the sense it can be measured, used, calculated, argued over, and we accept that one person's claim about the distance between two objects might be objectively right or wrong and that it can be tested by empirical tests. Someone who wrote threads on forums about how we can't use distance because its subjective and not real, would be laughed at. Distance is real and objective in some sort of meaningfully true sense of those words, even if not in the same way as a rock is.

To my mind, morality is like distance - a real relational property. It, as you said, exists in a relational context and refers to interpersonal well-being. I don't see why that means you're not a moral realist, unless to you 'moral realism' requires the existence of morality to be real in the sense that a rock is real, and that perhaps it is floating somewhere in space like a rock that perhaps a spaceship might crash into (which would seem absurd, though I realize Plato's Forms border on this). But to me, because I liken morality to distance and see both as being measures of a relation between things, I don't like terminology suggesting it doesn't really exist, or that in and of itself its not objective (obviously distance can be measured in a huge variety of types of units (yards, meters, light years) and is subjective in that sense, and morality is the same and admits all sorts of measurement choices, but the thing being measured does itself exist and is a real relation between real objects that objectively exists).

[Tassman]

What you call "instinctive' is actually learned behaviors enforced on us by society. Children for instance, have to be taught to share. It doesn't come naturally, and in fact, it's something that even many adults struggle with. Take, for instance, the favorite target of liberals: the rich. They build financial empires on the basis of not sharing their wealth. The question is, if atheism is true, then what moral obligation do they have to do otherwise?

No. The instinct is innate for a social species such as us to socialize and group together as communities – or tribes. This is true of the human animal as much as for our primate cousins. Rules of the community are based upon the evolution of behavior to survive as cooperative, altruistic social creatures – something we share with other intelligent social animals to a lesser extent.

[Stoic]

I'm not redefining anything. Moral obligation, by definition, requires a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver, then, by definition, there can be no moral obligation. Q.E.D.

You say that you are obligated to yourself to act morally. Why? What if you don't? Have you really done anything wrong?

Sometimes while discussing determinism/free will, someone will claim that free will doesn't exist, or that the existence of free will shows that the world is not deterministic. My response is that I believe free will exists, but it's not what they think it is. Even though we're both talking about free will, we're actually talking about two different things.

Similarly, when I run into someone who thinks that morality couldn't exist without a God, my response is that I think morality exists, but it's not what they think it is.

So yes, when you and I talk about morality, we're actually talking about two different things.

[eider]

Whatever you're referring to as a "drive" is nothing more than a whim or personal preference instilled in us by our culture and not an obligation. If you choose to do otherwise, have you really committed a wrong?

My community will answer 'yes' as I would.
The urge or drove to risk oneself in various incidents in attempts to benefit others, this drive exists on a high % of folks regardless of their beliefs.

Equally our prisons are full of convicts who were selfish on various ways, folks of varying beliefs etc.

[Mountain Man]

A Deist, atheist, non theist, theist has the same drive to self, family, community or country integrity as the others in that list.

Whatever you're referring to as a "drive" is nothing more than a whim or personal preference instilled in us by our culture and not an obligation. If you choose to do otherwise, have you really committed a wrong?

[eider]

I'm not redefining anything. Moral obligation, by definition, requires a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver, then, by definition, there can be no moral obligation. Q.E.D.

You say that you are obligated to yourself to act morally. Why? What if you don't? Have you really done anything wrong?

But no....
moral obligation requires a moral giver, however you might wish to define 'moral'.

Legal obligation requires a law giver.
A person who obeys laws is lawful.

[eider]

Which is to say that if atheism is true, then one has no such obligation.

No.
I answered the question and that needed no further interpretation.
A Deist, atheist, non theist, theist has the same drive to self, family, community or country integrity as the others in that list.

Unless you can answer for yourself?

[Mountain Man]

You can redefine "moral obligation" such that it doesn't exist unless there is a God. But you won't win any converts that way.

I'm not redefining anything. Moral obligation, by definition, requires a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver, then, by definition, there can be no moral obligation. Q.E.D.

You say that you are obligated to yourself to act morally. Why? What if you don't? Have you really done anything wrong?

[Stoic]

It is often said that the ad hominem fallacy is the most grudging, and for the opponent the most satisfying, admission of defeat.

You can redefine "moral obligation" such that it doesn't exist unless there is a God. But you won't win any converts that way.

[Mountain Man]

The same as you, or my neighbour, or anybody ......

Which is to say that if atheism is true, then one has no such obligation.

[Mountain Man]

Well, I hope you continue to believe there is a God, because I'd hate for you to think you have no moral obligations.

It is often said that the ad hominem fallacy is the most grudging, and for the opponent the most satisfying, admission of defeat.

[Stoic]

What you describe is merely your own personal whims and not moral obligation. The fact is, if atheism is true, then you will have committed no sin even if you fail to live up to your own ideals simply because in a godless universe, you have no obligation to do one thing as opposed to another.

Well, I hope you continue to believe there is a God, because I'd hate for you to think you have no moral obligations.