Atheists, Do You Think Morality Is Subjective or Objective?

⚠️ Order your Bible Explored t-shirt here: ➡️
---------------------------
//COME SAY HI!
---------------------------
What We Believe:

BIBLE VERSION
All scriptures are quoted from the King James Bible.

TRINITY
God is 1 entity representing 3 natures.

1st John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

SALVATION
You are saved by Grace alone. Works don't get you to heaven.

Romans 10:9-10
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

GOD CREATED THE EARTH IN 6 LITERAL DAYS

THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD

SUBSCRIBE TO BIBLE EXPLORED!

SUPPORT MY WORK

If you have topics that you would like covered, please reach out to me.

Also don't for get to SUBSCRIBE! It helps the channel grow and get the gospel around the world.

#atheism #atheist #god

[lhvinny]

If morality is subjective or objective depends entirely upon what is used as the standard. If the standard is a subject or represents the opinions and values of a person, it is subjective by definition.
If the standard is an object, concrete or conceptual (like a Platonic form), then it is objective.

[darkengine]

I'm an atheist from Japan and the way I look at it is that morality is subjective with an objective basis grounded in the reality of nature (or "God" if someone wishes to call it that).

The analogy I like to use is architecture. Architecture requires subjectivity for an architect to even begin to design a building. They have to appeal to their own subjective sensibilities of what makes a design appealing; they have no choice but to do that since no one else can tell them what to design. No one can draw their blueprints for them. One might even say that the purpose of free will is to allow us to become the architects of our own lives; "God" will not do it for us.

Yet any architectural design that violates the objective reality of physics (i.e., structural engineering principles) will only find buildings that collapse. So there's an infinite subset of building designs that are objectively incorrect, not just in poor taste, because they will collapse soon after construction or even during construction. So anyone seeking to construct the world's tallest buildings will have to create designs that are especially correct, especially observant of the nature of reality, but there might be a variety of designs from an aesthetic standpoint that all stand an equal chance of standing equally tall and surviving the test of time (multiple designs that are equally correct, so to speak).

I also go by the data and iterative progress. What sort of societies create the longest life expectancies, the lowest crime rates, highest educational attainment, best overall mental health of its citzens, wealth, opportunity, etc, and also stand the test of time? I also combine that with intuition asking myself questions like, "What sort of society would I want people I care about to live in so that they are at minimal risk of being harmed and killed and maximal chance of living a long, fulfilled life in harmony with the people around them?"

I'm hardly a utopian idealist so I go by the data and look at the countries which seem most appealing that way and look at their culture and policies and try to extrapolate ones that seem applicable to me and my culture and adopt the best-functioning (not best-sounding, but ones that are demonstrated to work in practice) ideas. For example, I lean strongly capitalist in favor of free markets since every desirable country I find in the world according to the types of metrics proposed above all have a strong free market economy without excessive regulatory burdens and minimal central planning. Marxism sounds more attractive to me just in terms of how it sounds, but it seems to always go disastrously wrong in execution when applied at any non-trivial scale (and I'd say in large part because it ignores the objective reality of human nature like a blueprint for a building that ignores physics); for me an idea is near-worthless until it is actually demonstrated to work in practice.

I'm very pro-marriage and pro-nuclear family, for example (most Japanese are very conservative in this regard) but unlike a theist who might point to this as what "God intended for man and woman", I go by data. For example, there's an abundance of data available in economics, criminology, etc, that children raised in single-parent households are statistically so much more likely to drop out of school, abuse substances, join gangs, commit crimes, etc. On top of that, there's even an abundance of studies performed on Degu pups whose biparental social behaviors and brains seem homologous enough to humans, and they consistently show that control groups deprived of a parent develop brain abnormalities particularly in the frontal lobe in ways that lead to heightened aggression, impulsivity, induced ADHD, and overall antisocial behavior. So that's why I'm so pro-marriage and pro-nuclear family in alignment with, say, Christian conservatives, but I go by the data to support my conclusion rather than scripture.

Another way I look at morality is overcoming our counter-productive emotional impulses and habits which lead to short-term benefits in exchange for long-term harm. For example, acting impulsively in anger and vengeance might lead to some sort of short-term gratification for some, but they almost always end up ruining a vengeful person's life, and potentially even the lives of other people they care about. Consuming a lot of junk food and alcohol might yield very short-term gratification, but wrecks our health in the long term. Being a coward might save one's own life in the short-term, but end up causing them to flee and fail to protect their loved ones in the future when their loved ones are in danger, and not just themselves, from the cowardly habits they formed. Lying might benefit someone in the short-term if they're lucky and don't get caught, but a habitual liar will always end up being caught in the long run and have their reputation ruined and find themselves alone with no allies who can rely on their words. I can keep going but a lot of morality is like this as I see it: overcoming counter-productive habits, and learning to prioritize long-term well-being over short-term gratification.

[Tinesthia]

I think there are both subjective and objective elements to morality.

There are objective moral systems, with goals and objective facts and considerations for what is beneficial or detrimental to those goals, but individuals and groups still have to subjectively decide if they want to adopt those goals.

I think there is an overarching objective morality that can be derived from Evolution and natural selection that we can compare moral systems to for guidance on some basic objective goods.

[darkking]

Morality is objective. The reason we believe certain things are right and wrong is because of the way we were raised, the people who influence us, and the overall environment around us. I think killing is bad because that’s what I was told, and that’s what is acceptable. But if you were thrown into the world as an adult with 0 knowledge or background on anything you wouldn’t naturally think killing is wrong. Therefore it is subjective because it stems from life experiences and can be influenced easily

[CaptainFantastic]

Morals are subjective. Although I think there is good evidence that things such as empathy are innate in humans as a function of humans evolving as social animals.

My morality is grounded in societal norms and humanism.

You can basically boil it down to preserving well-being

[MrSeadawg]

Have to go subjective. I got my moral values from reading comic books. Just like Christians.
And I feel I have strong moral values. In do unto others. As you would have done to you.
Grounded in family values and traditions.

[aidanya]

Its depends on your definition of morality.
Many atheists use slightly different definitions.
One in which it can be considered objective and one where it is subjective. But they honestly don't differ as much.

Morality:
Actions and behaviors that are most beneficial to the society. This can be objective, as in every situation there is an objectively best action to take to maximize the benefit.
But they usually also admit that we do not always know what that is (due to the circumstances) so they approximate as close as possible.

Some define what is moral as this best possible action and see it as objective.

Other say since we don't know what this objective action is we do what we think is as close as possible given the goal, which is subjective.

[Theo_Skeptomai]

Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are morally appropriate (ought to occur in a certain dilemma) from those inappropriate (ought not to occur in a certain dilemma).

Like all cognitive assessments, moral assessments always and necessarily involve the subject's own considerations. Therefore, morality is _always and necessarily_ SUBJECTIVE.

Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality. I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral, just as everyone else does.

[NeilSims-dq]

Objectivity is a special kind of subjectivity, so the distinction you offer does not hold. I am also not a foundationalist, so I do not "ground." Ethics is a subdiscipline of psychology, and is about human well-being.

[auntietheistjuror]

This may be the 24, 537th time this has been asked, but I would like to give you credit for asking without feeling the need to poison the well.

[Demonoicgamer]

It’s both survival of the fittest tells us we have to be moral if our species is to survive but its up to us

[czar]

It's as objective as mathematics. Both are grounded in reason and logic. One applies to calculation. Another to social interaction.

[KaeFwam]

Morality as a whole is entirely subjective. However, morality can be objectified when applied as a method of reaching the goal set by a subjective moral framework. This is because despite the goal being subjective, we can objectively, scientifically prove the best method with which to achieve that goal, making that kind of a “pseudo-objective morality.”

[Chidds]

I don't see morality being purely one or the other. Morality seems to be very dependent on the world around us and our capability to interact with it. I don't think it is something absolute and unchangeable. The aspects of morality which is objective comes from our human biology. We appear to be biologically evolved to react positively or negatively to certain social behaviours.

[joshuakohlmann]

I would say subjective, although there are principles that the majority of civilized people agree on. I don't think theism has any greater claim on objective moral standards than atheism, since it is necessarily filtered through the lens of ones own particular god and religion.

[duncanjamieson]

You dont need an ancient book to tell you right from wrong. Its quite patronising actually. Judging by the old testament im glad i dont base my morality on it.

[jsmnzsn]

Morality does exist, and is very much scientific with real consequences.

But, it is still subjective and no one can say otherwise.

I'm not a theist, but nor am I an atheist.

[kobecornelison]

Morality is inter subjective meaning that moral framework chosen to operate off of its subjectively selected BUT once that framework is known, moral choices can be determined to be good or bad in a relatively objective manner.

The reason you think morality is objective is because you’re not acknowledging that you’re using a moral framework put in place by your religious institutions and assuming that’s the only moral framework from which to operate. You may be objectively correct within that framework. But I disagree with that framework so we disagree that morality is objective.

[Ciscokd]

both, depending on the situation or what you are speaking of.

[Gamesaur_]

Morals have no point to be agrued for nor against, as all has no point