can atheists be moral

[notjam]

Therefore when I propose that potential moral dictates be judged with objective rules and you call it subjective, you are asserting what exactly?

it seems you are trying to take "subjective morality" and extrapolate that into "objective morality" 

which is the same fallacy that evolutionists do with the evidence of "mutations/variations" (micro evolution) and extrapolate it into the faith based church of macro evolution. adding in the "magic fairy dust of TIME". 

[shirgall]

it seems you are trying to take "subjective morality" and extrapolate that into "objective morality" 

which is the same fallacy that evolutionists do with the evidence of "mutations/variations" (micro evolution) and extrapolate it into the faith based church of macro evolution. adding in the "magic fairy dust of TIME". 

 

This is irrelevant. Can you state your reason for asserting that people following objective rules are subjective?

[Blackout]

it seems you are trying to take "subjective morality" and extrapolate that into "objective morality" 

which is the same fallacy that evolutionists do with the evidence of "mutations/variations" (micro evolution) and extrapolate it into the faith based church of macro evolution. adding in the "magic fairy dust of TIME". 

 

Are you asserting here that the use of a posteriori empirical observation cannot be objective because it entails the interpretation of sense data which cannot be free from pre-existent bias? I ask this because it is the only way that objective truths can become subjective thoughts. Yet, the same argument would apply to revelation as we obtain it through personal subjective experience. If you are arguing that the existence of god and moral law can be known a priori, I'd love to hear that argument.

[shirgall]

Are you asserting here that the use of a posteriori empirical observation cannot be objective because it entails the interpretation of sense data which cannot be free from pre-existent bias? I ask this because it is the only way that objective truths can become subjective thoughts. Yet, the same argument would apply to revelation as we obtain it through personal subjective experience. If you are arguing that the existence of god and moral law can be known a priori, I'd love to hear that argument.

 

I suspect he wants a bunch of people to guess what he means and pick the best answer when we're exhausted.

[WasatchMan]

[Troubador]

Ok notjam this has gone on long enough, first of all I am a man of faith as well, but what you are doing is becoming utterly bizarre. To answer the thread title "can atheists be moral?" the obvious answer is why yes of course they can. All it requires is a simple moral act. An atheist can refrain from commiting fraud, adultery, murder, assault and indeed in addition to refraining from immoral acts commit to honesty, charity, self-sacrifice and simple kindness.

 

We religous folk do not have a monopoly on morality and ethics. That is actually a treasure all of humanity is heir to, not just one specific school of thought, nation, philosophy or religion. You have been given the (correct) answer that atheism and evolution do not contain within their remit any authority to disseminate or examine moral philosophy. Yet even despite that people have been kind enough to point out that for a social species like ours co-operation and protecting of our young provides a net benefit to our species and thus we have evolved accordingly.

 

Now we come to my biggest bugbear to what you are dithering on about, what objective morality? You and I both believe in a higher power maybe the same one maybe not. In either case if it's the same one which of our interpretations are correct?, because it sounds to me like our interpretations are radically different. If we believe in different deities whose right, and why? Or are we both wrong and another religion has the right of it? Maybe the atheists are right and we are wrong? As people have asked on this thread prove it. Why is your particular flavour the correct one?

[Frosty]

how can evolution/atheism account for objective morality?

 

They can't.

 

Evolution is a scientific theory which explains the diversity and complexity of life, and atheism is a lack of belief with regards to gods existence. Neither of these things are in any way tied to morality, if you think they are then you don't understand either of them.

 

 

if you believe in "objective morality" by what foundation does this not come from an objective moral law giver (god)? 

how can "time + chance + mattter" aka "primordial slime" create an objective morality? 

 

It has not been demonstrated that objective morality necessarily requires a law giver, many of us who follow FDR believe in an objective morality which is reasoned from philosophical first principles like the NAP (Non aggression Principle) from which you can make valid and logical arguments regarding what kind of behaviour is morally bad.

 

Time + chance + matter is what creates self aware creatures with the ability to reason, which is prerequisite for coming up with abstract ideas such as morality, the same applies for lots of other things. Maths doesn't exist in the universe outside of minds to contemplate maths, but when creatures become smart enough they can discover or create something abstract which is also objective.

 

 

which is the same fallacy that evolutionists do in regards to the evidence of "mutations/variations" (micro evolution) and extrapolate it into the faith based church of macro evolution. adding in the "magic fairy dust of TIME"

 

You've given the game away I'm afraid, the only people who make a distinction of micro and macro evolution aren't actually scientists, they're creationists. The theory of evolution that species evolve and change as they evolve due to mutations and natural selection doesn't actually distinguish between these things, which means that you don't actually understand the theory of evolution.

 

Using terms like faith based church in a debate against atheists is actually where I draw the line and suspect that you're simply trolling, if you're not then you've been severely indoctrinated into faith based beliefs and you lack the critical thinking and intellectual rigour to differentiate between real science backed with evidence, testability and reproducibility, and that of pseudo-science that comes out of creationists which has none of those things.

[GailG]

I don't have morals.  I have ethics.  These are two very different things.  The pope has morals that allow him to say one thing and do another,  That's why morals are so important in both religion and governmnent.  Ethics make that impossible because ethics are grounded in honesty.

 

As to your question, I am reminded of a speaker at the 2015 American Humanist Association.  The woman is a pastor who through her studies realized that she was an atheist.  Atheist had been a dirty word--so dirty that it was an almost unthinkable thought.  She googled "atheist minister" and found out that there were many in her position.  At that moment, she got it and started laughing.  The first thing she realized after recognizing her spiritual atheism is that atheists have ethics!

 

She went to her leadership meeting and told them what happened and how she would like to change the church.  They said OK, so it's now a humanist church.  She lost some parishoners, but she lives with a clean conscience, and services are now more meaningful.

[fschmidt]

This thread is full of standard atheist apologetics.  But to answer the question based on facts, no, atheists as a group cannot be moral.  This comes from history where one can see that the loss of respect for the founding religion of a culture inevitably results in the moral decline of that culture, followed by the collapse of that culture.  Modern culture is disgustingly immoral, and thankfully it will soon collapse, the passing of yet another culture.

 

[shirgall]

This thread is full of standard atheist apologetics.  But to answer the question based on facts, no, atheists as a group cannot be moral.  This comes from history where one can see that the loss of respect for the founding religion of a culture inevitably results in the moral decline of that culture, followed by the collapse of that culture.  Modern culture is disgustingly immoral, and thankfully it will soon collapse, the passing of yet another culture.

 

There's no argument in what you wrote. Can you define what "moral" means so we can at least talk about the same things?

[fschmidt]

There's no argument in what you wrote. Can you define what "moral" means so we can at least talk about the same things?

 

Morality is subjective, but I can give an objective description that quite closely matches my morality and the morality of the Old Testament (which are the same since I follow the Old Testament).  What is moral is what benefits the long term health/strength of a society.  But now the question is how to judge what matches this criteria.  One cannot conduct experiments, as in science, for this.  And deductive reasoning is mostly useless, only useful really to rationalize emotional viewpoints, as is commonly done in modern liberal culture.  The only valid test is that those behaviors that correlate with rising cultures should be considered moral and those behaviors that correlate with declining cultures should be considered immoral.  A perfect example of this would be female premarital chastity which which is present in all rising cultures in history and is lacking in the vast majority of declining cultures in history.  I can give many other examples, such as simple classical styles of dress in rising cultures and body distortions (tattoos and piercings) in declining cultures.  Modern western culture seems to have virtually every trait common to declining culture and no traits common to rising cultures.

[MrNlul77]

Zzzzzz

[Nathan Metric]

Completely disagree with the premise of this thread.

 

1)Atheism and evolution have nothing to do with each other. Atheism is the rejection of theism. Evolution is the rejection of the supernatural (specifically in relation to the origin of species)  You can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural.

 

2)If "good" is something universal and something that can be derived by reason then God has no moral right to exist even if he did exist.. His existence would actually be evil since power tends to corrupt.

 

If "good" is merely whatever God wishes to to be then we don't really have "morality" do we? What we actually have our slave regulations imposed by a divine tyranny. Bottomline: religious people do not actually believe in morality.  Their covert moral assumption is that MIGHT IS RIGHT. God's commandments are "good" because he is mighty and terrifying!

 

So the idea that religion can give us objective morality is nonsense. It's a complete misunderstanding of what morality is in the first place. Morality by definition is universal. That which is universal cannot be "given" or "determined" at the whim of any entity no matter how powerful it is.

 

 

Now as to where would an atheist get his/her ethics from? Well, I think we can get our morals from the Truth Axiom. "Truth is better than falsehood" is an axiomatic proposition (UPB Page 35). All other morals would be derived from the logical implications of the truth axiom. Including the NAP.

[tardisguy]

To the Question of "Can Atheists be Moral?"

1. Definition of morality to be considered
- A system of beliefs which influence interpersonal behavior-social skills, to an end of
a.)[The restriction] of; [socially destructive actions], and
b.)[The reinforcement] of; [socially productive actions]

Where compatibility is measured by the evolved and established society of the subjective perspective.

 

2. Cultural moral variances.

Shorthand extreme:

 

a.) A moral action, an immoral action and amoral actions as measured by Sharia Law

Will differ from...

b.) as measured according to a hypothetical, Secular western culture.

 

System A.
- - Psychological Hypothesis; Religious Perspective - -
(Common idea why people think religion makes people moral)

 

a.) The premise that if someone believes in an objective law-giver...

b.) ... then that person is more likely to act as if being watched all the time by this moral objector...

b.) Which, liken to a security camera, this person is someone they can "Trust"

 

[Contrast] - 
i.) Precludes the individual beliefs emphasize humans are heavily prone to the perspectives notion of [Negative Behaviors]

 

[Psychological Cause and Mechanism] - 
Cognitive profile required to trust above mentioned system of morality is of low depth.
Why...
a.) Theory of mind is limited to simplistic stereotypes of extreme cases.

b.) The fact that the perspective is unable to consider the possibility that an individual is capable of moral actions without being watched, is likely endemic to internalized thought processes, transposed into theory of mind perspective.
 

= Conclusion: System is moral on the presumption of being watched and is thus subject to external definitions of morality, of that perspective; and is likely incapable of abstract adaptation in necessary situations.
*(Probably sucks hard at moral dilemma)*
 

System B.
- - Psychological Theory; Evo-Bio, Neuro Psych/Soc - -
((Secular/Atheistic Morality)

> Based on functioning Neuropsychological theory and behavioral frameworks.

 

1. Defining Framework: Moral framework is subject to individuals ability to cognitively generate theoretical mental and social schemata.
- How effectively they can imagine the responses and results of their actions on the people and groups in which they interact with.

2. Moral framework is also subject to the ability to empathize with the results they relate to.

3. Moral framework is plastic in this state; Able to learn new perspectives in a changing world.

+ Actions observed to be constructive to society
=> will be included in social-Moral Inference.
- Actions observed to be negative and/or destructive socially;
=> will be subject to behavioral extinction, and excluded from the social-moral inference framework.

Observation:
System B is organic and capable of adaptation and error correction, while System A is not.

= Conclusion: System A is destructive socially, and cannot be qualified as contributing to society, and is thus not moral.

= = ANSWER: Only Atheistic belief system are capable of morality, while religious belief systems are capable only of establishing laws around socially constructed moral framework.

 

[ShadowWhoWalks]

"subjective morality" is simply put self-refuting. All I have to is put this statement in the air:

 

"My moral opinion is that some moral statements are more valid than others, and that some principles of morality are absolute and do not depend on human opinion; do you approve of my position?"

 

If you do and it is true for the holder, then by definition it is true for everyone and moral relativism is false. If you deny that the view is true, then the belief in relative morality is contradicted due to belief in objective moral statements. Subjective morality cannot be stated in a consistent and non-self-contradictory way, thus, unless unless we deny the rules of logic altogether, it inevitably collapses in paradox and must be discarded.

 

Since this is about atheism, this would be problematic since atheism seems incompatible with a transcendent and objective basis for morality. Some might refer to moral realism, but still, If someone rejects all external sources of moral authority, then moral authority is internal to the person. If moral authority is internal to the person, then it is subjective within each person, hence moral authority is not objective, and morals derived from such are not objective and relieved from any objective values. Furthermore, if there is no such thing as moral authority, then there are no authorized morals.

 

Atheism doesn't inherently come with a moral standard attached to it, so the source of the morality must be one of the following:

 

1. An arbitrary moral standard which is created (and changeable on a whim) personally to match personal behaviour.


2. Borrowing an existing objectivist moral standard, like of the Abrahamic religions.


3. A legal or judicial standard, confused it with a moral standard applicable everywhere and at all times.


4. A tautology everyone is moral by definition.


5. No standard is conformed to.

 

Those are the options I can think of. None of them provides a worldview with objective morality.

[dsayers]

If someone rejects all external sources of moral authority, then moral authority is internal to the person

Impossible. In order to come to this conclusion, a person would have to think, making use of their brain, confirming self-ownership. It is inescapable.

 

Morality simply refers to the internal consistency of BEHAVIORS, which are by definition external.

[Des]

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of asubject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without bias or external influence; this second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously withneutrality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Can I take you through my workings, short step, by short step, using my tea-and-lunch breaks over a few days?

 

If so, please start by saying if you prefer being alive, to being dead?

[ShadowWhoWalks]

Impossible. In order to come to this conclusion, a person would have to think, making use of their brain, confirming self-ownership. It is inescapable.

 

Morality simply refers to the internal consistency of BEHAVIORS, which are by definition external.

 

Did that self-ownership decide DNA, nationality, school, parents, teachers, talents, etc. ?

 

To not get off-topic, I never denied the ability to think, in fact it is confirmed in the following lines:

 

If moral authority is internal to the person, then it is subjective within each person, hence moral authority is not objective, and morals derived from such are not objective and relieved from any objective values.

 

 

The definition of morality is a system of thought of how intelligent beings should act; you simply claim that they should act consistently. Is your system of morality based on an absolute transcendent basis or is it supported by your human subjectivity? Not to mention that it is absurd. Someone who consistently murders children is as moral as someone who consistently gives charity. Someone who always lies is more moral than someone who consistently tells the truth.

[Des]

Atheism doesn't inherently come with a moral standard attached to it, so the source of the morality must be one of the following:

 

1. An arbitrary moral standard which is created (and changeable on a whim) personally to match personal behaviour.
2. Borrowing an existing objectivist moral standard, like of the Abrahamic religions.
3. A legal or judicial standard, confused it with a moral standard applicable everywhere and at all times.
4. A tautology everyone is moral by definition.
5. No standard is conformed to.

 

Those are the options I can think of. None of them provides a worldview with objective morality.

The preference for being alive is key to morality. If you concede that there are many [people] who have the preference for being alive, and have the capacity for co-ordinating action by communication (I am not attempting to prove that here, either concede it or say you don't), then I expect you to concede that these [people] could trade behaviour for behaviour. Now there could exist some pattern within the set of bahaviours, some pattern of behaviour which would negate the benefit (to a person with a preference for being alive) of trading with the other [people] (as opposed to say: killing them all). If such a pattern of behaviour can be identified, it could be given a name (say: evil {with euphemistic synonym: not good}). I contend that such a pattern has been identified, and it's sub-patterns have been given names such as murder, assault and theft. All of these (if done by you) negate the benefit (to me) of me trading with you: behaviour-for-behaviour.

 

This references no external authority, but references an internal preference which you may agree is widely shared.

[dsayers]

Did that self-ownership decide DNA, nationality, school, parents, teachers, talents, etc. ?

Not sure what the point of this question is, but since DNA is not a voluntary behavior, a person cannot be morally responsible anymore than a dog is for chewing up a shoe.

 

To not get off-topic, I never denied the ability to think, in fact it is confirmed in the following lines:

Thinking was not the end, but rather the means for for disproving morality is subjective by proving self-ownership which, when universalized, created an external, objective standard, refuting your claim that "moral authority" is internal.

 

The definition of morality is a system of thought of how intelligent beings should act; you simply claim that they should act consistently.

Ironically, you're referring to an unchosen positive obligation, which is unethical. You cannot derive an ought from an is without an if. IF you wish to act with consistency, THEN you ought not steal, assault, rape, or murder. A scale cannot tell you what things OUGHT to weigh, just what they do weight. Morality doesn't tell you how you OUGHT to behave, it just identifies what those behaviors are. If you take my bike and I take it back, we've engaged in mechanically identical behaviors, demonstrating competing claims. Morality can serve as an objective arbiter here to help all of us identify who is in the right.

 

Is your system of morality based on an absolute transcendent basis or is it supported by your human subjectivity?

You tell me. Can "theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights" be ascertained outside of a single consciousness? Yes. So no, it is not the product of "human subjectivity." By the by, it's a red flag for me when people try to personalize rather than address the arguments.

 

Not to mention that it is absurd. Someone who consistently murders children is as moral as someone who consistently gives charity. Someone who always lies is more moral than someone who consistently tells the truth.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that murder is morally identical to charity? As for lying, that's not a behavior that's binding upon others, so there is no moral consideration. Hypocritically, you were accusing me of just making stuff up while here, you are putting forth your preferences as if binding upon others.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

The preference for being alive is key to morality. If you concede that there are many [people] who have the preference for being alive, and have the capacity for co-ordinating action by communication (I am not attempting to prove that here, either concede it or say you don't), then I expect you to concede that these [people] could trade behaviour for behaviour. Now there could exist some pattern within the set of bahaviours, some pattern of behaviour which would negate the benefit (to a person with a preference for being alive) of trading with the other [people] (as opposed to say: killing them all). If such a pattern of behaviour can be identified, it could be given a name (say: evil {with euphemistic synonym: not good}). I contend that such a pattern has been identified, and it's sub-patterns have been given names such as murder, assault and theft. All of these (if done by you) negate the benefit (to me) of me trading with you: behaviour-for-behaviour.

 

This references no external authority, but references an internal preference which you may agree is widely shared.

 

Preference is subjective; I have already provided a paradox that demonstrates the impossability to state 'subjective' morality in a coherent non-self-refuting way that amounted to "It is a universal value to reject universal values".

 

I concede the existence of that pattern in cerain populations, but I also affirm that it is irrelevant as it is subject to change via. hypothesis of common descent or social conditioning, along with rejecting its unjustified speciaism. Or would you imply that the cause of libertarianism is immoral because it violates the appeal to popularity?

 

Referencing to what behavior is beneficial or not is a category error; you might as well say that math is the source of morality. Sure, you can use math to help you not take other people's money unduly, but you'll never get an equation that tells you that stealing or cheating is wrong; even if such a thing exists for the sake of argument there is no reason to follow the equation nor an obligation to obey it. Now, when you talk of determining moral values based on the benefits and harm of the behavior you seem to be similarly confused. A pattern is a method that aids us identify better way to help humans flourish, but it in no way tell us why we ought to help humans flourish, or why it is wrong to murder. It tells us what it is, not what it ought to be.

You have not established why ant flourishing is inferior to human flourishing, inflicting harm on an other person is wrong, or how nature at work (ex. animal rape) is wrong when applied to humans.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

Not sure what the point of this question is, but since DNA is not a voluntary behavior, a person cannot be morally responsible anymore than a dog is for chewing up a shoe.

 

I didn't see the point behind the concept of self-ownership, hence I considered it along with my statement off-topic. My point is that there is no such thing as absolute self-ownership; we are limited in ability and knowledge while being dependant on exterior things; including other people.

 

 

Thinking was not the end, but rather the means for for disproving morality is subjective by proving self-ownership which, when universalized, created an external, objective standard, refuting your claim that "moral authority" is internal.

 

I never claimed that moral authority is internal. I claimed that if moral authority is internal, then it is subjective. But it would seem you agree that morality is incoherent if it is subjective?

 

 

Ironically, you're referring to an unchosen positive obligation, which is unethical. You cannot derive an ought from an is without an if. IF you wish to act with consistency, THEN you ought not steal, assault, rape, or murder. A scale cannot tell you what things OUGHT to weigh, just what they do weight. Morality doesn't tell you how you OUGHT to behave, it just identifies what those behaviors are. If you take my bike and I take it back, we've engaged in mechanically identical behaviors, demonstrating competing claims. Morality can serve as an objective arbiter here to help all of us identify who is in the right.

 

Are parents having an unchosen obligation to their children unethical? Are people with various violent tendiencies having an unchosen obligation to not murder children unethical? What if someone wants to act unconsistently?

 

No. You cannot derive an ought from an is. Period. Your if is a factual is statement like any other, and cannot rationally derive an ought. "If it's the case that action X IS in your self-interest/desire-for-consistency, then you OUGHT to take action X." If that is the basis of your moral system, then we can conclude that it is fallicious. Your statement is confusing; refer to the math analogy above.

 

Why are you maintaining consistency as a universal value, and yet claiming that there is no universal value or an ought to act consistently?

If someone consistently steals bikes, stashes them in his apartment, and then sells them to a shoddy dealer, why is he wrong?

 

You tell me. Can "theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights" be ascertained outside of a single consciousness? Yes. So no, it is not the product of "human subjectivity." By the by, it's a red flag for me when people try to personalize rather than address the arguments.

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that murder is morally identical to charity? As for lying, that's not a behavior that's binding upon others, so there is no moral consideration. Hypocritically, you were accusing me of just making stuff up while here, you are putting forth your preferences as if binding upon others.

 

“Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.” ― G.K. Chesterton

 

The notion behind property is that Person A declares something to be property, and then threatens anybody who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it?

 

 

Even if we grant the truth value of your statement for the sake of argument, it is still remains an is/ought fallacy; describing what theft is doesn't rationally tell us anything regarding what should happen regarding theft or whether theft should happen. If it is not absolute that leaves us with human subjectivity.

 

 

The basis behind what is moral in your system is consistency regardless of the behavior that which is consistent. Based on the logic provided, If murder and charity are done consistently, then there is no difference as consistency exists in both. You seem to switch the goal post by adding "not a behavior that is binding upon others"; is what is moral in your system (which would be subjective and incoherent if it is not justified) what is consistent while being binding upon others instead? Wouldn't you bind others to get false information when lying?

By definition, objective morality is not affected by human opinion (ex. if the 3rd Reich had a successful propaganda campaign on children), thus it is binding upon them.

[Des]

Preference is subjective;

However, the truth value of "there exists more than one person with a preference for being alive" is an objective fact (which you accept if you personally have that preference and you see at least one other person showing you sufficient evidence of that preference). It does not seem simple to prove this fact to a person who does not have that preference, or to a person who would insist that make-you-stay-alive-to-suffer demons are controlling the behaviours which would (otherwise) be evidence of this preference for being alive. However, the evidence supports the objective truth of: "there exists more than one person with a preference for being alive".

 

 I have already provided a paradox that demonstrates the impossability to state 'subjective' morality in a coherent non-self-refuting way that amounted to "It is a universal value to reject universal values".

I get it. "Only the Sith speak in absolutes", said the non-Sith Jedi master.

 

I concede the existence of that pattern in cerain populations, but I also affirm that it is irrelevant as it is subject to change via. hypothesis of common descent or social conditioning, along with rejecting its unjustified speciaism. Or would you imply that the cause of libertarianism is immoral because it violates the appeal to popularity?

Making a special case of the preference for being alive is rational (justified, valid) when one considers that if the contrary/alternate preference could be known, then we would know someone prefers death and can thus be excluded from any trade of behaviour for behaviour. This person can be excluded from moral consideration. This has nothing to do with popularity. If there were only two [people] in the set of life-preferring, behaviour-trade-capable [people], then those are the [people] to whom the objective standard of behaviour is objectively applicable.

 

Referencing to what behavior is beneficial or not is a category error; you might as well say that math is the source of morality. Sure, you can use math to help you not take other people's money unduly, but you'll never get an equation that tells you that stealing or cheating is wrong; even if such a thing exists for the sake of argument there is no reason to follow the equation nor an obligation to obey it. Now, when you talk of determining moral values based on the benefits and harm of the behavior you seem to be similarly confused. A pattern is a method that aids us identify better way to help humans flourish, but it in no way tell us why we ought to help humans flourish, or why it is wrong to murder. It tells us what it is, not what it ought to be.

You have not established why ant flourishing is inferior to human flourishing, inflicting harm on an other person is wrong, or how nature at work (ex. animal rape) is wrong when applied to humans.

Trading "I'll do w and refrain from x, and you'll do y and refrain from z" cannot be relied on to yield the benefit of w unless x includes murder, assault, fraud and theft. Similarly it cannot be relied on to yield the benefit of y unless  z includes murder, assault, fraud and theft.

Murder, assault, fraud and theft are names of patterns of behaviours that fall in the set of behaviour which objectively is evil.

No-one has to trade behaviour-for behaviour, but if one person performs his part of such a trade without assurance that evil is inhibited, he does so without the benefit of the trade (to him). If there were zero assurance, he'd be crazy to bother.

I'm not talking about flourishing, I'm asking in what conditions can I personally survive (it's within a condition of at least some inhibiting pressure against evil as defined by the objective measurement I have outlined).

[dsayers]

I didn't see the point behind the concept of self-ownership, hence I considered it along with my statement off-topic. My point is that there is no such thing as absolute self-ownership; we are limited in ability and knowledge while being dependant on exterior things; including other people.

I'm even more lost now. So if I say that I own my car, you hear that I don't need a mechanic? When you're taxed in the name of the State, do you tell them they can't do that because they didn't produce your DNA? Here, you even say "my point." How do you know the point is yours?

 

Are parents having an unchosen obligation to their children unethical? Are people with various violent tendiencies having an unchosen obligation to not murder children unethical? What if someone wants to act unconsistently?

A parent's obligation is chosen. Not murder is a negative obligation, which CAN be ethical. I don't get your last question. Do they consistently want to act unconsistently?

 

If that is the basis of your moral system, then we can conclude that it is fallicious.

In what way is "theft, assault, rape, and murder are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights" false? In what way can that objective claim be credited to me, personally? If I never existed, that objective claim would have the same truth value.

 

Why are you maintaining consistency as a universal value, and yet claiming that there is no universal value or an ought to act consistently?

If someone consistently steals bikes, stashes them in his apartment, and then sells them to a shoddy dealer, why is he wrong?

It is clear to me that you don't understand what you're talking about. Value is subjective and cannot be universalized. Theft is wrong because it is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

 

The notion behind property is that Person A declares something to be property, and then threatens anybody who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it?

In the bike thief scenario, the right is given to the owner of the bike by the thief. The thief is using his body, asserting that property rights are valid. The bike's owner used their body to produce value to others, which allowed him to come to own the bike in the first place. Since the thief asserts that property rights are valid, he is voluntarily creating a debt to the bike owner in the amount of the value of the bike, plus whatever time and effort needs to be invested in order to reclaim the bike. Any attempt to prevent or reverse the theft is the settling of that debt.

 

describing what theft is doesn't rationally tell us anything regarding what should happen regarding theft or whether theft should happen. If it is not absolute that leaves us with human subjectivity.

No, the consistency of matter and energy (the world we're born into) tells us that something cannot be itself and the opposite of itself simultaneously. This would be true without humans even existing. I don't understand your first point here. Being able to identify a shoelace as a shoelace doesn't tell you whether a shoe should have buckles or velcro instead. So what?

 

If murder and charity are done consistently, then there is no difference as consistency exists in both. You seem to switch the goal post by adding "not a behavior that is binding upon others"; is what is moral in your system (which would be subjective and incoherent if it is not justified) what is consistent while being binding upon others instead? Wouldn't you bind others to get false information when lying?

Murder is internally inconsistent. The perpetrator is claiming that they have a right to their life at the same time their victim does not have a right to theirs. The benefactor of a charitable action agrees to it.

 

In what way is a lie binding upon others? "All the food in your house is poisonous." Does this prevent you from eating the food in your house?

[Des]

I concede the existence of that pattern in cerain populations, but I also affirm that it is irrelevant as it is subject to change via. hypothesis of common descent or social conditioning, along with rejecting its unjustified speciaism. Or would you imply that the cause of libertarianism is immoral because it violates the appeal to popularity?

I can argue that all preferences include the preference for being alive to enjoy the preference, therefore the preference for being alive is the one and only special case of preference (no-one can have rational preference of anything and not also prefer to be alive).