Problems with Atheism

Your judgment is based on your culture. I haven't seen anyone who believes in a absolute system of morality propose a way around this problem.

IT HAS already been remarked, that questions of ultimate ends do not admit of proof, in the ordinary acceptation of the term. To be incapable of proof by reasoning is common to all first principles; to the first premises of our knowledge, as well as to those of our conduct. But the former, being matters of fact, may be the subject of a direct appeal to the faculties which judge of fact- namely, our senses, and our internal consciousness. Can an appeal be made to the same faculties on questions of practical ends? Or by what other faculty is cognisance taken of them?

Questions about ends are, in other words, questions what things are desirable. The utilitarian doctrine is, that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end. What ought to be required of this doctrine- what conditions is it requisite that the doctrine should fulfil- to make good its claim to be believed?

The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good: that each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons. Happiness has made out its title as one of the ends of conduct, and consequently one of the criteria of morality.

You also make it clear you disagree with my position-- but you don't really explain why?

This is truly the crux of the matter-- how do we judge which of two systems of morality from two cultural contexts is better?

We are capable of using our reason to distinguish between competing moral claims.

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

As I said before, either your position is that there's an absolute morality or that there's no morality at all. You fall into the latter camp.

We are capable of using our reason to distinguish between competing moral claims.

I find it interesting that the issue of Utilitarianism and Atheism are orthogonal. There is certainly no reason that there couldn't be a Utilitarian God (it would necessarily be a benevolent being).

This, of course, does not change my rejection of the concept of absolute morality. After all, happiness is nothing more than a electrochemical reaction in an organ that evolved in animals to impact behavior in a way that good for survival.... in this way there is little difference between happiness and the other electrochemical reactions that evolved to impact our behavior-- namely lust, hatred or fear (although maybe these are all connected with happiness).

He would be a pathetic incompetent of course, but he would still be a benevolent being.

... or vision, or hearing, or touching, or feeling, or smelling. That doesn't keep you from believing in absolutes like light, sound, weight, and temperature, and molecules in the air -- does it

I have never disagreed with anyone about the existence of light.

I don't claim an absolute morality, follow an absolute morality or even believe in an absolute morality. Yet, I have a strong sense of morality and follow a moral code. I offer myself as proof that one can have a real, meaningful morality without believing that it represents any "absolute truth".

You accusing me of being immoral because I don't believe in an absolute morality is rather reminiscent of religious people who claim (without proof) that you can't be moral without a belief in their understanding of God. (Which, if you care to look back, was one of the reasons that I started this thread).

Quote:

We are capable of using our reason to distinguish between competing moral claims.

I think the claim you are making here (correct me if I am wrong) that two reasonable people, no matter how different their cultural contexts, will reach the same conclusion when comparing two moral claims.

Could you give me a practical example-- What does reason conclude about abortion? Should society accept the practice of abortion?

It's pointless to get into specifics of any issue, since it will simply reinforce the fact that people can always be found who will disagree on moral questions. I've never denied that. What I have denied is that the existence of that disagreement is evidence that there is no such thing as objective morality.

I am claiming that there it not possible to resolve a significant moral disagreement using reason.

Abortion is a significant current issue that I believe reason is incapable of resolving. I am challenging you (since you claim that moral questions can be answered by reason) to use reason to resolve this issue.

... and I'm claiming that, in the same way, you can't use reason to resolve your factual disagreements with creationists -- which is a very significant factual disagreement. Nothing about the impossibility you observe is specific to moral disagreements.

But now I'm going to pause for a bit and let you answer Joefromchicago's question. You seem to have difficulties with his challenges, so I'll give you the time to come up with a good response to them.