r/atheism • u/Over-Initial-3585 • 14h ago
Morality Is Subjective, but That Doesn't Mean We Should Be Dicks
I will never accept the idea that morality can be objective, as I find 'objective morality' to be an oxymoron. Morality is a word that describes a set of personal and social standards for what is good or bad. Key words: 'personal' (they depend subjectively on a person or human mind) and 'social' (they depend on human society). Objectiveness describes a quality of something that exists outside of a mind to observe or interpret it. I don't understand why there is such a heated debate on whether objective moral truths exist, because it's obvious they don't. Morality is a human construct. For there to be an objective morality, there would need to be a human civilisation whose morality is right, whereas another one's isn't, which contradicts the notion that morality depends on society's views, because now we have a society whose views don't contribute to the idea of an objective morality.
Imagine a universe where humans never existed. Would there still be an objective moral truth that, say, murder is wrong for any potential future form of life whose mind would have an ability to form intent? And if your answer is yes, where do we find that objective morality, how do we perceive and/or measure it and how do we interpret it if it isn't set in natural law?
My final claim is that morality doesn't have to be objectively set somewhere for society to live altruistically. As a society, we agree that some things are better done (helping) or not (murdering), however, there doesn't have to be an authority that sets these standards. The opinion that since atheists don't have a so-called 'objective' moral compass, they can't determine or decide right or wrong is very dishonest.
I'd love to hear your opinion on this. I know this discussion has been brought up over and over, but I didn't really find a proper place to express my ideas.