Atheist morality solved

I am a theist. I've been living with the view that atheism ultimately leads to nihilism, since there is no objective standard for ethics. However I have heard of an atheist ethical system that is not arbitrary. A system that is actually sound. It goes as follows:

If there is an objective standard for morality, or if there is an objective meaning to life, then that meaning has a higher probability of being discovered in a more technologically advanced society. So we ought to strive for societal progress. If there is a meaning then it will be easier found if we live in an advanced society. And if there is no meaning then it doesn't matter that we wasted our time.

Also another part of this is that it's okay to guess that the basic ethical standards we have (wrong to kill, steal, torture etc.) are probably close to what a potentially objective ethical standard may be.

Do you see flaws? What do you think of this? Is it sound?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Property is theft

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Should we genocide le undesirable groups?
    No. States that do that are often unsuccsesful and not progressive.

    >Should we murder?
    No. Killing someone takes away their potential to benefit humanity.

    >Should we do forced human experiments?
    Yes if necessary and efficient.

    >Should we torture?
    No. Because that is probably wrong in a hypothetical objective morality.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      This post is me(OP). These are some ethical explanations for actions in this system.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      China is enjoying tremendous success and progress while genociding minority groups. There is often no practical or utilitarian argument against mass murder, because the end result is better for the perpetrators than not doing it.

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Morality evolved to help us survive. Every species has its own set of desires that help them deal with other organisms. There are plenty of social species that have altruism, for example. So it’s all just game theory, trying to keep the species going. But modern humans fall into this delusion that these evolved instincts are somehow “objectively true,” as if they are transcendent laws that preceded our existence. What nonsense. But that’s just the result of strongly held intuitive moral beliefs that helped us survive. If it weren’t such a strong illusion, then it would be less powerful and useful. But these illusions won’t be needed for long.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      I have no idea why this post was ignored. It essentially ends the thread. But atheists have cognitive dissonance and conveniently forget about evolution when talking about morality. You wouldn’t observe ants or chimps or tigers and talk about what they “ought” to do. It’s just that humans can think about the future and try to reconcile their instincts, desires, values, etc. and form an idea of what actions will lead to preferable outcomes. But in the end we’re all just monkeys following our programming.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who cares if it’s “objective” I get along with nearly every person I meet and am well liked. This is a normal thing religion or not

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          You’re thinking on small scales. Obviously humans evolved to know how to interact with each other, that’s pretty basic. But what about genocide and war? Genetic engineering? Abortion? Etc. People like to have simple, absolute values to help them answer these problems. And they like to believe that their view is “objective” because it would completely justify their opinion and remove doubt. This also is evolved behavior. But some people are intelligent and brave enough to get rid of these illusions

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Genocide is wrong, war needs to be heavily justified, abortion is fine until the fetus becomes conscious
            I don’t claim that’s objective and the people who tell you it is probably don’t know what objective means or don’t care enough to nitpick wity you

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    the only way technology could facilitate learning morality better is through communication tech like phones and computers.
    Atheist morality just comes from empirical observation. People tried X and it didn't work, but then other people tried Y and it did work, so therefore we should strive to do Y and not X.
    You don't need fricking bullet trains and microwaves to facilitate this.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      All you have observed is that some thing work and some things don't. However at no point did you explain why we ought to follow what works. Why not have a society that doesn't work?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why not have a society that doesn't work?
        because then people would die more frequently

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why is death bad?

          > However at no point did you explain why we ought to follow what works
          because I want you to

          Bruh

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why is death bad?
            because the primary function of living organisms is to survive and reproduce
            if there is anxiety regarding one's ability to perform this function (not die), then you get the war of all against all.

            What do you mean by "work"?

            it depends entirely on what's being evaluated.
            Criminalizing murder "works" because it prevents innocent people from being slain.
            The US constitution "works" because it represents a bargained-for agreement that balances the interest in maintaining a productive government with the interest in the people remaining free of any arbitrary governance.
            The success state of each is totally different and has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're describing a functional civilization, which is something most of us want. But pointing out that it's something we want isn't the same as giving it a philosophical justification. Where do you get the "ought" from the "is"?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            see

            only a christian could equivocate on the topic of innocent people getting murdered, because you all crave death which you see as a release from this "sinful," "fallen," "satanic" world.
            Life is potential. Non-mindbroken people have a great deal of interest in that potential. What is the interest in depriving them of that potential, by which I mean depriving them of life? There is none, or no good ones.

            what is the point in removing potential?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        > However at no point did you explain why we ought to follow what works
        because I want you to

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      What do you mean by "work"?

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If there is an objective standard for morality, or if there is an objective meaning to life, then that meaning has a higher probability of being discovered in a more technologically advanced society
    No, that's fricking moronic. Technology leads to more immorality. Just look at the world.

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you aren't unshakably certain that all your values, beliefs and senses of conscience are 100% correct and true, and beyond all argument or perspective, then you must literally believe nothing and would probably eat live babies.
    I mean thank God for religion. The autismal demi-humans who believe this is what it's like to be a person are probably just one fleeting twinge of intellectual humility away from flaying the defenseless elderly or pissing in every tray at a salad bar

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >no objective standard for ethics
    Passive environmental filtering via dynamically-shifting bottlenecks. It's a tad more complex than some sand-demon "Thou shalt"-decree, yes.

    >then that meaning has a higher probability of being discovered
    via not dying. Passive environmental filtering via dynamically-shifting bottlenecks.

    There is a reason why latin "bonus/duonus/duenos" (good) is cognate to "bellum/duellum" (war, duel).

    >So we ought to strive for societal progress.
    Non sequitur.

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >atheism ultimately leads to nihilism
    It doesn't.

    >objective standard for morality
    Morality is made by humans. Morality exists because it evolutionarily benefited us. A disorganised society where everyone kills each other won't be able to defend itself from an organised society with rules (morals). Imagine a disciplined army, with morals about not killing or harming fellow soldiers, fighting a disorganised group of humans who kill each other and have no discipline. The disciplined army is more likely to win.

    I don't understand how people haven't realised this, you literally only need to think about life for 5 minutes.

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheist Black folk ITT are describing what is (some things work, some things don't work, it is the function of organisms to survive and reproduce) But at no point do they argue what we ought to do.

    Ok. Murder is inefficient and leads to societal disintegration and death. So what. That is just describing what is. Not what we ought. Why is death, and disintegration and extinction bad? Why should we aim to live?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >But at no point do they argue what we ought to do.
      Do whatever the frick you want as long as it's not illegal and doesn't harass or mess with other people in despicable ways.

      >Why is death, and disintegration and extinction bad? Why should we aim to live?
      Again, do what you want. If you want to just sit around until you die then be my guest.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      only a christian could equivocate on the topic of innocent people getting murdered, because you all crave death which you see as a release from this "sinful," "fallen," "satanic" world.
      Life is potential. Non-mindbroken people have a great deal of interest in that potential. What is the interest in depriving them of that potential, by which I mean depriving them of life? There is none, or no good ones.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Very disingenuous misreading of that anon. Religious folk are perfectly capable of seeing the problem with murder and with human suffering in general. What we can't see from you is a philosophical justification on purely secular grounds. Can you give a philosophical justification?

        see [...]
        what is the point in removing potential?

        There's no point in removing potential, but what is the point in pursuing potential?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There's no point in removing potential
          exactly
          if we conceive of the world as being a space for acting on potential or not, and then we have humans in the world who are emotionally and instinctually married to the concept of realizing that potential, then we can think of the world as being divided by two interests: the interest in realizing potential and the converse, the interest in realizing decay.
          You yourself conceded that there is no compelling case to make for realizing decay. Thus it must yield to the more compelling interest in creation.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why is potential more compelling? And is every kind of potential worthwhile?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why is potential more compelling?
            because the counterargument is per se unreasonable
            >And is every kind of potential worthwhile?
            if it is reasonable, yes.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            No counterargument is necessary because you haven't presented an argument. You just assume that potential is more worthwhile than "unpotential." Sure it sounds nice, but that's not a logical argument.
            >if it is reasonable
            What makes some things reasonable and others not? Toward what end?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because you haven't presented an argument.
            yes I have, a conclusory one, but an argument nonetheless. The argument for realizing potential is that humans are evolutionarily programmed to want to do so. How strong this interest is is debatable obviously, but an interest of questionable strength beats an argument with literally no merits, which is the case with decay. So therefore realizing potential wins.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why should we follow our evolutionary programming?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            because the case for not doing so has literally no merits (meaning it's unreasonable)

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            So your only argument is that I have no argument? Very convincing.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's more so that no one could ever craft a convincing argument to the contrary without some kind of exceptional intervening circumstance.
            And I don't think it's ridiculous to say, in a situation where there isn't a single justification for a certain action but there are many arguments against it, that you shouldn't do that action.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can just as easily create some reasonable-sounding arguments for anything. Pain is universally acknowledged to be bad so it would be better not to exist at all. Or: we should live but very austerely so we have a minimal impact on the world around us (Buddhism). There are no convincing arguments for any side, and in such a case the answer shouldn't be whichever side has any arguments at all, but agnosticism or "I don't know." Just admit that you don't have a provable objective secular morality.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Pain is universally acknowledged to be bad so it would be better not to exist at all
            it warns us about damage to our body and thus serves to protect us from death and injury. People born without the ability to feel pain frequently cut themselves or burn themselves without noticing.
            >we should live but very austerely so we have a minimal impact on the world around us (Buddhism
            failure to exploit scarce resources leads to a lower material quality of living and potentially death via, e.g., famine.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, pain has an evolutionary purpose, but that brings us back again to why should we follow our evolutionary purpose? Material quality of living? Why should that be our goal? Again, I don't dispute that most people already have it as a goal, but logically why should it be?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why should we follow our evolutionary purpose?
            it was adapted to allow us to survive. We want to survive. There are no reasonable arguments for why we should not survive. Therefore we ought to obey our evolutionary instincts.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >But at no point do they argue what we ought to do.
      "Ought" is subordinated to "Is"

      If your "ought" does not adhere to "is", you go extinct. And the number of people thinking that they ought to follow that "ought" gets physically culled to zero.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is no ought. You simply come up with an idea, and if it works, it works. When we say “we ought” we really just mean “we think this is our best course of action.” But of course no one actually knows the best course of action. It’s all trial and error. Read

      Morality evolved to help us survive. Every species has its own set of desires that help them deal with other organisms. There are plenty of social species that have altruism, for example. So it’s all just game theory, trying to keep the species going. But modern humans fall into this delusion that these evolved instincts are somehow “objectively true,” as if they are transcendent laws that preceded our existence. What nonsense. But that’s just the result of strongly held intuitive moral beliefs that helped us survive. If it weren’t such a strong illusion, then it would be less powerful and useful. But these illusions won’t be needed for long.

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't consider myself atheist because it would depend on the definition of God, but:
    For me the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness without taking the happiness from others and helping others to have happiness. Happiness would be the basic biological, psychological, social etc needs.
    Morality comes from this

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the pursuit of happiness
      consumerism is happiness
      greatness is suffering

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >consumerism is happiness
        Obviously not necessarily
        >greatness is suffering
        Obviously not necessarily

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Almost 0% of good people know anything about moral philosophy or axiom or any of that. It’s a social mechanic based on experience and pro-social emotions.
    The amount of autism and social disorders on this board is insane

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Those of you who think morality is objective, what happens if you find out right now that morality is subjective? What happens next for you?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      I immediately start raping and killing.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah because you’re a psycho, not normal.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I am a psycho, but a very logical one. Give me a logical, philosophical argument for why I shouldn't rape and kill and steal.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *