Atheists: How many of you believe in objective morality?

Question

And what is its source?

Here is a Wiki link that Tucking Fypos offered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism

Answer 1

I don't.

Morality was made by humans. It is part of our survival mechanism.

Answer 2

Objective morality could easily be formed by considering that throughout evolution and history, all life seeks to survive and thrive. Therefore, the source for morality would be the well-being of the human species as a whole (which would include taking care of our environment).

This would mean everyone would need to stop driving their cars, which are contributing to pollution and global warming. And also stop having more than two children, which would help our population problem.

It also easily covers murder, stealing, etc.

This also covers cases 'which aren't so black and white', that other posters have mentioned. For example, stealing merchandise is wrong, because it promotes a society where stealing is alright and therefore all property is insecure, and people become suspicious and eventually obsessed with material possessions, like the dragons of lore. However, stealing food is fine, because it promotes a society in which feeding (and thus sustaining) the rest of our species is alright, which was our original goal (the well-being of the species).

Answer 3

Objective morality must be based on the principle of Universality - I do not wish to be murdered so I should not murder anyone else - I do not wish people to take my possessions so I should not steal.

The important thing about secular or even 'atheistic' morality is that its based on a desire to be moral IN SPITE OF us accepting that there is no reward. As Einstein said if man is only good for the purpose of a spiritual reward we are a sorry lot indeed.

Answer 4

Human morality is an inevitable outcome of living in societies and sharing responsibilities for looking after offspring etc. and there is furthermore the fact that human beings derive pleasure from doing good i.e. they act out of self interest. The arguments for human morality occuring as a natural consequence of our lifestyles are sound whereas the arguments for it being the result of a divine influence don't even deserve consideration because they are so weak.

Answer 5

As more evidence and research accumulates, it becomes clear that there is a natural cause for morality. for example most cultures agree that its ok to divert a train onto another track when its about to hit 4 people, thus saving them, even if it means that another idividual on the new track would die. conversely, it is not ok to seize the organs of a healthy person to save the lives of four people in hospital.

Answer 6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism

I do, I had to look it up though haha. I think that killing anyone is wrong, even in self defense, even though I would if it were a "him or me" situation, even though society justifies so many deaths. (See: Iraq)

Answer 7

Morality is subjective and relative. To subscribe to 'Objective Morality' is to give credence to a higher authority. So your trick question didn't work. We are actually smarter than that.

Answer 8

I don't believe in objective morality. Not everything is black and white.

Answer 9

If you had of defined what you meant by that I may have been able to give you an answer.

Answer 10

I don't believe in objective morality at all.
Lying isn't always wrong, and neither is killing. (We need to eat, do we not?)

Morality, by definition, is relative.