What is the source of moral obligation?

Atheist View

The Atheist Perspective

The nature of the world, human beings, and social systems, combined with the universal human desire to live a fulfilling life.

This is formally demonstrated in Richard Carrier, "Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them)," in The End of Christianity, pp. 333-64, 420-29. For further discussion, see Moral Ontology and Goal Theory Update and Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness without God.

Comments

Richard,
Your naturalist viewpoint claims that nothing exists other than the particles that make up the natural world. As all particles interact in completely deterministic ways, the naturalist maintains that all thoughts and actions are completely predetermined in the same manner that the motion of the planets is, or the weather for example.

As such, it's utter nonsense for a naturalist to talk about "meaning" (importance, purpose) since the particles have no purpose, no goal, nothing, they are just particles interacting in a deterministic manner. The naturalist claims that the human is merely a collection of particles, without purpose or meaning, without free will. Nothing more than a slightly more biologically complicated flower.

see: http://www.richardcarrier.info/naturalism.html

— Chad

it should also be noted that you never address where the moral obligation comes from.

Obligation: "A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise, that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action"

You might claim that "morality" can exist in the absence of theism if you define morality as the majority view point of what is right and wrong. Of course you can't claim that "objective morality" can exist in the absence of theism (objective meaning that a certain thing is morally wrong regardless of your view on the issue).

But, you haven't said where the obligation (requirement) arises, the best you can do is claim that "well, if you don't behave in a manner that the majority of society considers moral, the majority of society will consider you immoral". That's doesn't build the case for a moral requirement.

And, of course, your entire argument is a non-starter as you don't believe in free will.

— Chad

Chad, there is nothing in the naturalist viewpoint which says that a whole cannot be greater than the sum of its parts - human consciousness for example. It this complex and mysterious? Sure? Is it a result of physical activity within the brain? Without a shadow of a doubt.If someone wants to put forward a supernatural explanation for consciousness, fine - let's see some evidence.

— Tony

The whole problem of "meaning" is one which seems to exercise theists more than non-theists. Yes the universe appears to be impersonal and doesn't appear to give a damn about us. So what? So what if there is no ultimate meanig to existence? That means I get to give my own life meaning rather than having it assigned to me. I'd rather face up to reality than live in some la-la land waiting for a magic man to take me to magic land when I die.

— Tony

In terms of morality, we can use the fact that we are conscious, social creatures to easily derive the principle that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated. Of course this does not per se impose any obligation on us, in the sense that no-one *has* to do anything, but we can choose to do so and an argument can be made that we would all lead happy, fulfilled lives if we did.

— Tony

Contrast that with the view of the major monotheisms and it is hard to see how this leads to the theist having anything sensible or meaningful to say about morality at all. Morality to a Christian like Tim consists solely in obeying god. Islam is the same. I fail to see how this has anything to do with morality. All the theist is doing is unquestioningly following orders.

— Tony

The theist, in moral terms, is little more than an automaton. Not only can the theist not determine whether something is right and wrong, she could not possibly give any good *reason* why something is right or wrong. The only reason that a theist has for doing something is (a) because god says so, (b) to avoid punishment, or (c) to obtain reward. This is not the view of a mature moral being. This is the behaviour of a child.

— Tony

Finally, I have to point out that much of what you said about Richard's response involved putting words in his mouth, responding to claims he didn't make and things he didn't say. This is an enormously tiring, tedious and transparent debating tactic in which many Christians indulge. You know you're doing it. We know you're doing it. More to the point, we know *why* you're doing it. Intellectual honesty demands that you respond to what someone actually said rather than what you would *rather* they said. How about it?

— Tony

What is the source of moral obligation?

More Questions

Comments