"Highest Well Being" and the Atheists Problematic Moral Worldview

Sam Harris if famous for his "highest well being" argument for atheistic morality. I think the argument is problematic in many ways.

1. Due to a universe with no meaning, purpose or value there cannot being any of the following for ethics (in the atheistic perspective).
2. Therefore, the argument for objective moral values in the atheistic worldview is nonsensical. I do not argue there are NOT subjective opinions on morality; there obviously are.
3. The "highest well being" argument is extremely flawed because there is no value differentiation between rocks, plants, animals and human beings. You can actually argue that humans (in the atheistic worldview) are causing more damage than good.
4. How can humans be more valuable than anything else on this world? It's all opinion (in the atheistic worldview).
5. There is a God and that is why the fellow man has these objective concerns about each other and atheism cannot establish it.

Here are also some quotes from famous atheist philosophers and writers: * Friedrich Nietzsche: "Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities....There are altogether no moral facts." Indeed, morality "has truth only if God is the truth—it stands or falls with faith in God."[5] * Jean-Paul Sartre: "It [is] very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him."[6] * Bertrand Russell believed that "the whole subject of ethics arises from the pressure of the community on the individual."[7] * E. O. Wilson locates moral feeling in "the hypothalamus and the limbic system"; it is a "device of survival in social organisms."[8] * Jonathan Glover considers morality a "human creation" and calls on humans to "re-create ethics."[9]

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheists
• atheism
• problematic
• morality
• value
• purpose
• meaning
• richard
• dawkins
• sam
• harris
• daniel
• dennett
• christian
• bible
• muslim
• jewish
• education
• video
• the
• god
• delusion

[OpenAirAtheist]

I find it funny that you think it odd that Hawking believes the universe came from nothing when that is exactly what you believe . You believe god created from nothing .

[xchampx]

@OpenAirAtheist There has to be an unmoved mover. Do you believe in eternity as a #? There is no such thing. An eternal past # of events is illogical and there must be an unmoved mover that as beyond space, time and matter and the only logical and REASONABLE explanation is God. God can do all things, there is nothing illogical about that. Now out of the natural world-it is.

[OpenAirAtheist]

@xchampx god is neither an answer or an explanation. see OpenAirAtheist.Blogspot.com . if morality is objective because it come from BlahWeh (god) then my personal morality is objective because it is from my nature . so BlahWeh can force its morality on others because BlawWeh has the power and his name is God? but if Hitler does that he's a dictator? slapping the label god on something doesn't change the equation!

[xchampx]

@OpenAirAtheist Who is Hitler subject to? God. God will judge him. Who is God subject to?......Nobody. That pretty much ends the "issue" of the misunderstanding about objective. I am puzzled at some atheists get that confused.

[xchampx]

@xchampx That is the whole issue with "right" and "wrong". For every law there is a lawgiver. If there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver. Now. If it's not God then who is it? Also, If God creates, he is independent of everyone else, making him objective.

[GoyaDePainter]

It sounds like you're saying morality is determined by God's will, could I be wrong about this? Most theists would say morality is determined by God's nature, so as to avoid making morality arbitrary. If morality is God's nature, then God being lawgiver, judge, etc. are pretty much irrelevant. All your saying is God has X nature and X is morality. But any atheist can just say the universe is X and cut out the middle man.

[CMrace]

@xchampx

Here is a new moral argument for you

user/CMrace?feature=mhee#p/c/B­6DE2222DD7421C3/4/v1Q5Uef5rNs

[OpenAirAtheist]

@xchampx you have only proven that you believe might makes right . Thanks for proving my point.

[poolerboy0077]

The amateurish questions you've raised have already been dealt with in Harris' book. Simply speaking Harris does not argue that morality exists as some Platonic Form of the Good. He recognizes that we can speak objectively about ontologically subjective experiences (this is how sciences of the mind study things like depression). For any individual or a collective to maximize well-being, it will depend on tracking states of the world and of the brain. A celestial consciousness is not needed here.

[rooio3]

@InitiumNovum -reasoning. Now, people can form their own subjective morals, yes. That does not mean morals cannot be rationally defensible objectively. Reason based on observed facts of reality is the determining factor of "right" outside what is good for us". Everyone can form their own reasoning, but not if it's based on objective reality.

[rooio3]

@InitiumNovum -As said before, the basis of ethics is causality- everything has consequences. How we determine what is right is through the context of our actions and what is being effected using factual objectivity. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist. Objectivisim is not the same as absolutism. That is why there are many forms of universal morals among cultures, it is determined by the nature of reality to be discovered by one's mind through the process of logic and

[rooio3]

@InitiumNovum - Murder obviously deal directly with survival because it causes the cessation of life. Lying is much more complex. In some cases, not lying can threaten survival. "What most people understand by morality is the idea of "right" completely outside of what is good for us"- Morality come about from from casual objective facts, observed regardless of our own subjective views. So we make rules based on these factual observations. That is what make it objectively universal.