Book on atheist objective morality

You're misunderstanding his argument

it does not because your retarded question was refuted hundreds of times during last 2k years
do your research before posting bullshit
fuck i had a bad day i can't lurk this shithole tonight good night

>most people in academic circles
is this supposed to carry some cachet

"people in academic circles" can suck my fucking dick

I have read infinitely more philosophy than you. I am not a cranky little bitch who needs his pacifier and snuggies, either. Cope and seethe.

Academic Circles select for status-quo friendly beliefs; any slightly disruptive belief will ensure you never get into academia, at least in anglophone countries

but there's plenty of moral anti-realists in anglophone academia. you can see under 14. in OP's pic

God is morality itself.

Note that there is a more recent version of this poll (survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all). The results don't change that much, just pointing out.

I would take both polls with several grains of salt. For one, the 2009 poll has a pretty low response-rate from top philosophers. So, it is slightly biased towards the idiots of the profession. For another, the response options are tremendously vague, compared to the space of available positions on the question.

You're correct. Thing is, a lot of self-proclaimed atheists aren't actually atheists, they're just materialists, who are just self-serving idealists. Materialists can believe in objective morality if they jump through enough hoops and will when it benefits them.

I agree, but I think there is an argument to be had. I had a professor once who said that since NUMBERS are abstract yet still objective therefore MORALITY can be too without any God from which to proceed.

That doesn't make any sense.

There are several arguments to be made for atheistic moral realism, but I don't think an analogy to numbers is helpful. Any moral realism has to explain why we should think moral principles have a kind of independent existence, and it also has to explain why those moral principles are /binding/ on us agents. The first question applies equally to realism about numbers (and has various answers in philosophy of math, e.g. the indispensability arguments, or structuralism). The second question has no analogue for numbers, since mathematical objects and laws are not, in themselves, normatively binding.

magnusvinding.com/2018/09/03/suffering-focused-ethics/

Attached: Suffering-Focused Ethics.jpg (313x500, 21.55K)

Attached: Moral Truths Vinding.jpg (1588x2525, 107.97K)

You can’t use snark in real philosophy Reddit fag

I bet 80% of those atheist philosophers are Marxist evangelists preaching dogma rather than true thinkers that arrived at that conclusion. I just don’t believe it with Benjamin and Wittgenstein etc being grounded in theism.

>I bet 80% of those atheist philosophers are Marxist evangelists preaching dogma rather than true thinkers that arrived at that conclusion.
They are; some, like Dawkins, even admit as much

I see posts like this and can’t believe how stupid some people are and still find their way here to post

I mean Hume is a powerful figure for anti-theism but I have yet to meet ‘atheist’ that’s read him and cites him (most don’t even know who he is).

University philosophy is just a fashion statement for Nerds and it was, like many institutions, totally fucked by Cold War long March and is just a ruin with fools running the show that would embarrass even the most mediocre marxist philosopher from 50 years ago

>The view of values I would favor falls within a broader class of ethical views one may call suffering-focused ethics, which encompasses all views that give special priority to the alleviation and prevention of suffering.
This point of view is outdated. Eustress, hormesis, etc. Science more and more vindicates the old school philosophy of Suffer and Emerge, ie that suffering is oftentimes beneficial and basically a necessary part of life. Also, nociceptors are interestingly not truly "pain receptors", vindicating the other old school thought that perception/mental context itself is what creates pain

Science doesn’t vindicate anything

ogey

>You literally, categorically cannot believe in objective morality as an atheist.
I'm a Christian, but I have to disagree. In Starship Troopers, Heinlein laid out how morality is a group survival technique. Basically, inflicting corporal punishment on a child for wrongdoing teaches them moral behavior. Without morals, they'll just be self-serving little shits and will be more prone to criminal activity, which is bad for society. Moral principles are necessary to transcend self preservation into preservation of the group, thereby increasing its chance of survival.

I would never hit my child (and I don't think it's necessary in his example) but I thought it was an interesting take on morality.

Attached: starship_troopers.jpg (570x875, 147.64K)

So objective morality is objective because it just is okay. Great.
No argument, seethe harder.

Morality is life optimization. There are many ways of living in this world, and the most effective one is the morality that survives.

This is a good point and generally my take as someone who has flirted with the idea of objective morality. Obviously there are certain antisocial behaviors that we're hardwired to find distasteful. Murder degrades the social order and so we tend to think it's bad and punish it, for example. It still happens, but people go contrary to God's "objective" morality too, so what does it matter?

Objective morality lol

oh lord, you guys must be young

Animals can feel empathy and they're not religious. Same for atheists. Is it hard to understand? You don't have to believe in fairies to feel bad when you see a child being beaten. That's objectively wrong.

Spinoza's Ethics. It's not that it's objective, it's that it tries to be rational.

i think morality is based on what an individual believes. some people in other countries chop peoples fingers off for stealing. some people just give them time in prison. i think i depends entirely on the person

There are systems (the nervous system) which objectively produce pain (something undesirable) within subjective experience under certain circumstances. As a concept, morality's only purpose is to universalize a shared condemnation of certain objective criteria. What is so hard to understand about that?

This is an utterly meaningless statement. Doubly so since it's always human representatives who speak on behalf of "God"

yeah. morality is self-interest when your overlapping interests with your tribe are taken into account. you gotta be racist tho. your genetic interests conflict at right about the level of subspecies. probably smaller I guess

you literally have less reason to spend money on your mulatto child than you do a random white person

Christopher Hitchens referenced Hume quite often in his talks

what paper? I always hear about that neuroscience study that deboonked free will from the 60s

If your goal is strictly survival, you would just engage in eugenics. I think, first off, it is possible to measure "suffering", or at least indicators of it like pain, even if you have to use rudimentary measure like asking a person. Although, it's pretty safe to have an objective standard sometimes, like saying a malnourished person is more inclined to suffering than a well nourished person. This is all to say that when you are weighing the option of beating a child, you would have to determine that it produces more good (flourishing, satisfaction, pleasure) than bad (suffering, pain, despair). Ultimately, beating a child is wrong because it will cause great damage to the child that will almost certainly be a greater detriment to the happiness of the child than whatever "moral behavior" it will produce (again, it's doubtful this will even happen since research shows positive reinforcement alters behavior better than negative reinforcement)

I'd agree, that there is no objective morality other than "obey".

pinning morality entirely on empathy is a subjective take, how fucking stupid do you have to be to post this?
>duuurrrr Is it hard to understand??
fucking lmao

>Meta
huh no

>I had a professor once who said that since NUMBERS are abstract yet still objective
numbers depend heavily on the axioms chosen by the guy who calculates whatever he calculates

It's not surprising. Objective morality just means there are moral facts independent of human beings. That's the right view by the way. It has nothing to do with God. If you are a theist but believe God must exist for objective morality, then I'm scared for the moment you turn atheist. Will you start killing people? Hopefully not.
>Sam Harris
He's mocked because he's bad at philosophy.
>I'm curious to book explaining that point of view.
I guess start with Kant.
They're not.
You're dumb then. Both of you.
The fact you got negative replies from idiot baby pseuds on Yea Forums just confirms that subjectivists are in fact, meme children.

feeling bad = bad. yes that's hedonism

Spinoza is exactly what is wrong atheists who fucking love science. Since the first day they jumped on the math bandwagon, they cringely attempt to make philosophy like maths and it's utterly trash lol

The problem with this secular rationalization of morality is you fail to account for the possibility that your group could have objectively bad morals. The ones that are like this usually do immoral actions to other groups they view as different. Or become racist as said.

Kek I love how judeochristians are so obsessed with society that they can only relate morality to society. So according to them, they think that if one guy is alone on an island it's literally impossible him to first be moral, but also immoral.

Morality is just how to treat other people. Knowing how to treat yourself is important, but we live in a society and learning how to treat others is a more complicated and interesting task.

Axioms are merely a form of definition. No one would question, for instance, the existence of a cat if we didn't have a definition for cat.

Neither can you as a theist. There is nothing normatively binding about what God thinks (this is why he needed hell and heaven).

It's bound to the normative standards of scripture.

What moral facts are there independent of human beings? Genuinely interested.
Like what some user said about the nervous system defining morals through pain and pleasure etc? I don't think I'd agree on that also is that's rather dependent of humans.
Also why do so many posters assume that objective morality is necessary for "moral" action? Or am I misunderstanding something?
I'd say it might even hinder it, because good/bad aren't static, but very situational, depends on who you are and toward whom your action is directed, etc.

Also if there is an objective morality. What is it?
Like a list or something or examples.

huh yes