What is the atheistic basis of absolute morality?

...correct...and while no specific moral value is absolute the need for moral values is !

Having defined my understanding of morality in the above post, I can now proclaim there would be certain things that will always obstruct our purpose of survival and propagation of our genes. If an activity harms our objectives under all circumstances, then it would be an absolute immoral, similarly if something universally helps us to reach our objective, it should be a moral absolute. For example "molesting children for fun" cannot be good for our purpose of survival irrespective of context, societal acceptance etc. Such an activity remains immoral under all possible circumstances, thus becoming an absolute immoral.

The debate here is not whether God exists or whether it is a human creation. What I'm trying to understand is whether we can there be a logical basis for the existence of absolute morality from an atheistic perspective. Utilitarian approach to morality essential makes it relative, what gums up the wheel in one era might not do so in a different era or culture or planet maybe. But despite this can we draw some underlying absolute moral laws that remain valid irrespective of variations in dimensions of time and space?

My view on morality is very similar to yours (refer to above two posts). But what i'm trying to figure out is that despite the subjective nature of morality, can there be some moral absolutes, and if yes what would be the logical basis of those absolutes.

Just because morality is utilitarian doesn't imply that it can never be absolute. There could still be some rationale for existence of some absolute moral laws, this is what i'm trying to figure out.

...and if anyone asks me why is absolutely wrong to kill a children but not wrong for a lion to kill its offspring I would reply that advance intelligence, the notion of the "I" and memory make it hard to cope with the possibility of our close ones being the next in line...besides empathy is just a sophisticated form of selfishness once the "other" always comes on the direct reason of ultimately protecting the "I"...

I don't consider killing children an 'absolute wrong'. Infanticide has a long and very interesting history.

You see, forms result of functions and are for functions... take the context and they don´t work any more...moral is no different !
If you want absolute norms create absolute contexts...

...its not even the case that everything is relative like if it was an working accident...the fact is every time those forms repeat with similar contexts you will see exactly the same functions !

...Relative it is very much absolute !

killing children might not be an 'absolute moral' wrong but killing children for sadist pleasures would be, what say?

but shouldn't absolute morality go beyond contexts and be universally applicable?

Therein lies the antithesis of "absolute morality".

And as far as "logic" is concerned, note that it already presupposes the "absolutism" of permanent set membership (as in law of the excluded middle) But in addition to "own species considerations", since we humans have contextual set membership which can be conflicting in terms of our differing allegiances, the applicability of logic is doomed from the outset . Try applying your "child molestation scenario" to circumcision for example.

I hope you haven't missed the complexity, remember, he killed the good sister too, at which point his own moral justification went out the window.

There´s nothing that goes beyond contexts, it just so happens that some things fit few contexts or that some of these contexts work in a similar manner... for instance all objects manifest themselves through space and time that´s their context...it is not the case that I say their being is relative because say they could in a different Universe manifest themselves in something else different from space and time...set membership should be applied to functions not to "things"...(in the sense that different things many times describe the same function but have different names, although truthfully in context they have the same main function and thus should have the same name)

Similarly absoluteness should be applied to the form of the function, the algorithm in terms of efficiency...
...and Relativity to the operation in between the source and end of the function...
(I know nothing on this in the way we use these words presently, and that to me is the problem)

There are plenty of ethical systems that are non-theistic, in that they do not depend on the existence of any god(s) for their validity -- Kant's categorical imperative, Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism, Rawls's original position, Reid's intuitionism, Smith's sentimentalism, etc. etc. etc. These aren't atheistic, and a belief in god can be easily reconciled with them, but they can also be reconciled with a disbelief in god. I'm not sure if there are any systems of morality that rely on the nonexistence of god(s) for their validity, but then I can't imagine why anyone would bother.


I don't know if any system of morality has been subject to a widely accepted proof.

Or even could be. How would one prove that this is good and that is bad in an absolute, objective sense?

Lions maybe social creatures but like most other animals, they lack empathy. I don't believe god came first, I think empathy for the victim came first, then morals or rules to live by. I don't think you have to believe in god to realize that life is precious. It can only be lived once. You only have to see a child or a person cut down in their prime to understand that life is fleeting, that a life cut short limits possibilities. That it's wrong to kill unless under dire circumstances.
It doesn't take religion to know that lying, cheating and stealing is wrong and will, at some point, come back to bite you on your ass. Your victims wont like it and will want retribution. I think that emotion is older than religion too. And we all know god fearing moralistic people like their vengeance.

I see no sense in using "scientific" concepts, like "proof," in discussions of the validity (whether absolute or subjective) of morality which is fundamentally a matter of values and social interests rather than knowledge.

I guess one could say functional inefficiency is always bad in itself...as for goals, it depends on the functional efficiency on the chain string of functions that draws itself a function towards something...

I agree with Ceili that we do not need the notion of God to have the capacity for love, compassion and an appreciation for life. Otherwise one would never meet a loving atheist.

I agree with Ceili that we do not need the notion of God to have the capacity for love, compassion and an appreciation for life. Otherwise one would never meet a loving atheist.

That's a subjective judgment only valid from the point of view of humans. There's nothing either absolute or objective about it.