Can morality be subjective in a world without God?

The Social contract is an idea posed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that points out that a set of rules(ie morality) is brought about when people interact with one another. Within a society, irrespective of the individals cultures/beliefs etc, people will lay down a set of rules that governs the way in which they live their lives. If an individual does not follow these set of rules, that individual is exluded from the society.
John Rawls, poses an even better argument of how morality is derived without religion. He uses the idea of the veil of ignorance which says that one should consider yourself behind a veil. You do not know your sex, age, race, disability or any other characteristic of yourself. Logically if you were to set out rules in order to govern your society, you would chose that situation in which everyone will receive equal rights(if you were to discriminate against one group, you might end up within that specific group). In this manner, you will be able to logically set out rules within your society which you arewilling to adhere to, WITHOUT considering religion.

I do not consider your argument convincing. I do not expect people to feel compelled to accept the beliefs I have formed solely on the basis of intuitition. My "evidence" in such cases is purely private, not public, subjectively intense but not verifiable. And I SURELY do not consider arguments to be demonstrated solely on the negative grounds that they are not "counterintuitive."
You HAVE played the game that you intended not to play. The argument is totally mired in non-falsifiable assumptions.
Frankly, I have vowed after years of frustration not to debate followers of Ayn Rand, Sociobiology, and Fundamentalist Christianity. If I do not respond to other statements, you'll know why.

JLNobody, I like that rationale. No arguments with Randites, Sociobiologists, or Fundamentalists (of any religion, perhaps?) I'll be sure to steer clear of 'em.

And, Thalion, just try to brand me as a Randite just because I liked parts of Atlas.

I didn't imply anything relating to Ayn Rand in particular here. My references to Objectivity are completely unrelated to what her "Objectivism." The only other thing I've wondered about is why you recomend what she's written to everyone if you don't agree with her. Glad to hear you're not an Objectivist, though. We're open for debate then! Assuming that you don't have anything against metaphysical interpretations of Christianity...

Ironic, because belligerent rejection of Sociobiology is often the result of internalized religious drivel.

And by the way, the capacity in humans to engage in calm, nonbelligerent dialogue is favored because without it no progress is possible.

Thalion: I know that you weren't referring to Objectivism with your note on Objectivity (somehow, that made sense...). And, since she's viewed by many to be a great thinker, it makes sense that everybody should have read her stuff - even if they are predisposed towards like or dislike.

All part of the well-rounding process. I mean, we've both read the Communist Manifesto, and neither of us are Communists or particularly fans of Communism - but the insight makes it worth the read.

It's not about predisposition to like or dislike - it's that most of what she wrote is completely wrong. It's just logically wrong (or incomplete - the system seems to be based on an enormous universalization.) The insight is interesting though, as long as one is conscious that what one is reading is in fact incorrect. Plato is wrong, ultimately, but you still have to read him before you can pick up something more complete. It's just a question of whether or not Rand is necessary to understand anything further than her, or whether she is so misleading that it throws off many people.

AllThisBeauty, your comment is VERY ironical, given that I see sociobiology as a religious-like commitment to a reductionist principle that will explain everything. And, I'm an atheist.
By the way, I do think that sociobiology serves to explain much of the variance in insect behavior. My objection is that it seems to feel no need to expand its range of parameters for the understanding of human behavior and experience.

Note, Franscisco and Thalion that Ayn Rand's name is NEVER (in my experience, at least) found in the indexes of any serious philosophical work.

And there's a reason why. Some people would call her a great thinker... I would absolutelydisagree. She tried to understand Kant, who was actually brilliant, failed, and then blamed him for the horrible atmosphere of the early 20th century. But anyway, we're getting off topic.

Thalion wrote:
"It's not about predisposition to like or dislike - it's that most of what she wrote is completely wrong. It's just logically wrong (or incomplete - the system seems to be based on an enormous universalization.) The insight is interesting though, as long as one is conscious that what one is reading is in fact incorrect. Plato is wrong, ultimately, but you still have to read him before you can pick up something more complete. It's just a question of whether or not Rand is necessary to understand anything further than her, or whether she is so misleading that it throws off many people."

Points well taken. Her demonization of Kant is absurd. I do agree with Nietzscne that the history of knowledge is a history of errors. Kant's errors were essential for the development of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and much that followed. His errors were, therefore, advances because of their heuristic value. Rand's errors are no more than ideological fixations destilned to go nowhere, as reflected in my observation that no-one of significance cites her.

I understand why you feel that way. Sometimes I feel that way too, when I read the sociobiology extremist texts. Regarding what I think I know, I embrace, in particular, Alan Watts' "red traffic light" metaphor. It goes something like this.

With my DNA turned off, I approach the red light. Dazzled by the glory of the shape and color, I'm unable to move on. Traffic piles up behind me. Progress ceases. With my DNA turned on, I approach the traffic light and my instinct is to stop, wait, and move on.

I believe my chemistry informs my behavior and my sense of right and wrong so that I keep moving on. For me, this is a benevolent and beautiful process.

Yes, exactly, which leads to "might makes right." Or, if you will, what I call the LORD-OF-THE-FLIES Syndrome.

AllThisBeauty. I'm not familiar that Wattsian metaphor. I do believe that our DNA and chemistry influences all animal behavior; BUT with human behavior, given its cultural dimension, we must include both nurture and nature considerations. A man, say a New Guinea highlander who has never seen an electric red light is not likely to respond to one in the same way as will an American driver.

Yes, I agree, but the principle does work in culturally-sensitive ways. For example, in a given society, if the full moon is a cue for mating, the DNA-on response is to go at it, not to sit by the lake and write poetry about the glory of nature. For such a people, it would be morally unacceptable not to go at it when the moon is full.