Ellatynemouth: I agree that “Most atheists' morality is intrinsic, which forms directly from the person.” The operative phrase is “directly from the person.” This is consistent with my argument that “By definition, morality is human morality” and “Man's life is the standard of value.” The important part of this equation is what is of value to man: basic needs (in particular). We all have the same basic needs. So this is the standard of value that should define our morality. Anything that interferes with the basic needs of another is immoral.

And I couldn’t agree more that “Religious morality is insincere.

I think we are essentially on the same page but please let me know if I have misconstrued something about your reply.

@SeekingWisdom

Just as an aside, I would also argue that morality, whether theistic or atheistic is not uniform and universal.

It differs from person to person. I'm thinking of psychopaths, narcissists and sociopaths. I've met some horrible people in my life.

CraigK: Regarding your uncertainty about the existence of truth: this is a common point of uncertainty and even disagreement. While it is true that there are very few absolute truths, we know them when we cannot consider their opposite. For example, “a finite whole is greater than any of its parts.” It is impossible to consider the opposite of this truth.

Truth must correspond with reality. Imagined concepts, like god, do not.

I will add that a “relative truth” is an oxymoron. An object of thought is not true if its truth depends upon it’s relationship to some other condition.

As I stated in my original post, truth must also be

• Universal - it is true for all if it is true for one
• Global - there are no cultural boundaries
• Timeless - it is true now if it was ever true, and will be true forever
• Absolute - there are no degrees of Truth

Otherwise, it is an approximation of truth, that is - an opinion. Perhaps it is an opinion in the strong sense, with a high probability of being correct.

There is also a correlation in the world of science with the concept of “theory”:

If you have ever flown on a large plane like a Boeing 747, consider that the theory of aerodynamics is not proven. Yet most of us accept it as true and don't hesitate to fly on 747's or other large jets.

Few, if any theories are absolute. Most scientists seem to agree that theories cannot be proven. However, there have been some claims of proof for theories, such as a recent claim for the existence of gravitational waves.

Even if none can be proven absolutely, many are so close to 100% probability that we don't think twice about accepting the scientific evidence (like aerodynamics). The most important thing to understand is the process:

Opinions in the strong sense are similar to theories that we accept as true. But they are not equivalent to "truth."

@SeekingWisdom You stated that "relative truth" be an oxymoron.Then you declare a number of things to be actual.
Your cup seems full. That is a notion from some Chinese philosophy.
You know absolutes. Good for you.
I suppose that the sociopath can certainly find much satisfying 'proofs' that the altruist is working for personal gain in some manner or other.

I see two folks digging in a ditch and know that they are doing the same thing.
But I might come closer and find that one is working for a wage and the other is helping his buddy. Now I know that the fellow is doing an altruistic act until I find that the helper wants the job to go quicker so that buddy will take them fishing.
So what of the first assumption that they are doing the same thing?

CraigK: Regarding your uncertainty that religion has no philosophical foundation I will begin with the definition of philosophy:

Philosophy is “literally "love of wisdom" _ the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.” [Wikipedia] While religion has at times dabbled in some of these areas, it is usually with the predetermined goal of validating “god.”

@SeekingWisdom Do you say, "Regarding your uncertainty...." a lot?
You seem very certain that you know very much, for sure.
Myself knows nothing but I suspect a lot.

@SeekingWisdom Oh! That there be some single thing as foundation.
When I speak of possibilities I feel that I was not understood when someone focus on what they would make as uncertainty.
I might question if religion corrupted the philosophical metaphor and you are certain that religion created it.
With that attitude, who would make the better use of the metaphor?

@SeekingWisdom "Philosophy is “literally "love of wisdom" " The root words define it?

novoxguy: Your definition of morality, the conflict with good and evil, is the de facto biblical/religious definition. You seem to have simply embellished the issue that I am arguing against, rather than commenting on or arguing against my claims and conclusions. Or have I missed your point?

I know from reports of field studies that wolves and wild (African) dogs have algorithms for sharing food so everyone gets enough; the lead dog leaves a third over, then the next dog leaves a third over, etc. Wild dogs will eat their fill at the hunt site, and when they get back home, the vomit up food for the mommies and pups.

So one day, we were taking care of a friend's dog, and eventually it was time to feed them. We were feeding Nora Stella & Chewy with a sprinkle of this dried vegetable stuff. We wanted to give Nora and Java the identical meal (they were same breed, same weight) so there wouldn't be a problem. They both at 2/3 of the meal, leaving 1/3 - the vegetables - aside. Then Nora ate Java's vegetables and Java ate Nora's. So I agree, what we call morality is survival adaptation going back at least to the early mammal line.

mordant: Nice points and I appreciate your critique. I should have been more clear with my fourth paragraph. Here is what I should have said:

By definition, morality is human morality, since the term “morality” is not a thing. It is a concept, like “freedom,” “democracy” and “truth” for example. Only humans have the ability to make these types of conceptual judgments. No other lifeforms do. I do agree that there are many examples of other animals that show empathy and cooperate (in varying degrees) within their social groups. Some also show a fairly sophisticated use of crude tools, but this is not the same thing as forming concepts of non-physical things.

As you state, lower animals lack the complex language and abstract thinking. These are required for forming concepts. Hopefully, my clarification above helps. I do not agree, however, for the definitional reasons cited, that lower animals have simple or cruder moral codes. We humans might recognize their behaviors as what we consider to be moral, but they do not have the ability to conceptualize these actions.

To suggest that morality is mutable (and should be, if I understand your position), is, within the context of my argument, the same thing as saying that truth is relative. I suspect you will agree (Rudy Guiliani’s recent comments aside) that this is not only incorrect but is a dangerous belief.

If we are in agreement, then where we appear to differ is in my claim that “practical truth” (that is, truth applied, in the realm of morality) does not correspond with man's life; is not self-evident; is not universal, or global, or timeless, or absolute. Or do you acknowledge some of these but not all?

I don’t mean to be argumentative, but rather, I am curious. Understanding others thoughts on these matters helps me reevaluate my own belief system.

BTW - I edited my fourth paragraph so that it will be more clear to others. Thanks again for your input.

@SeekingWisdom If morality were self-evident then there would be total (or at least wide) agreement by all mentally competent adults on what is moral. Instead, we spend huge amounts of time and energy arguing about what is moral. A woman's right to choose vs an infant's right to life (and whether those rights even exist) for example. So I do not hold it as universal, global, timeless, absolute, OR self evident. Indeed, when anyone says anything is self-evident I see it as a likely cop-out to allow them to assert their own view without having to evidence it. After all, it's self-evident. (I don't have you specifically in mind here, I understand your claim of self evident to apply to morality, not necessarily to your own preferences. But my point is that nothing is 100% objectively self-evident, not even the fact of my own existence as a physical being).

There is also the issue that human needs and preferences differ greatly. To pick a random case in point, my wife has a tremendous need to talk out any conflicts or issues and resolve them; her young adult daughter has a tremendous need NOT to and indeed will claim that her mother's efforts to talk neutrally about something involving her daughter's behavior and how it effects her or others is "an attack". Nor is this just a mother/daughter kerfuffle, the same attitudes and actions leak into all her other relationships; for example she's on thin ice at work because of it.

You can guess which point of view I consider more rational and better adjusted, but the point is that these two women in my life have vastly different perceptions, values, and ideas about what is moral, at least in certain consequential matters. Her daughter for example never apologizes for any behavior regardless of how egregiously hurtful or carelessly cruel or counter-factual it might be. Her substitute is some grand symbolic gesture of kindness (which, thankfully, she IS capable of). Actual apology, to her, is a display of weakness and acceptance of other's "attacking" judgments of her, judgments which have no connection whatsoever to her agency in the world and how she choses to use it. Also, she thinks it's ridiculous that people give any -- much less outsized -- weight to the emotional content of an experience. If I tell her that people don't remember what you say or do so much as how you make them feel, she thinks that's wrong / invalid and therefore discards it -- because she does not take any responsibility for or even acknowledge the concept of emotional harm or assault or any connection of that to the concept of kindness or forbearance. In short, she does not believe in the precept that's often expressed colloquially as, "don't be a dick" or in Google-speak, "don't be evil".

Now if you posit some vaguely or subjectively defined character trait like "kindness" as a universal moral concept, these two women are going to have vastly and at time diametrically opposed ideas about what is "kind". So even if there is some abstract "kindness" "out there" to be discovered and quantified, it's clear that many will not see it, much less follow it. This means that if absolute morality in any sense exists, it has minimal utility.

I resolve this tension by regarding morality as an imperfect group consensus of the moment. It is sufficient to push society in the direction of civility and equality and compassion, and thus tends to protect its survival and stability, however imperfectly.

mordant: I agree that it does seem reasonable that if morality were self-evident then there would be wide agreement. However, the Catholic Church and then Protestants and others, have imposed their version of morality on world-society for millennia. This “morality” has become the accepted norm and has stifled serious thought on this issue, especially in the last few centuries. However, a line of thought that began with Aristotle and was adjusted and adapted by others over time was stalled primarily, by the inertia of moral imposition by the church.

Not until the 20th century did someone seriously reconsider Aristotle’s thought. After clarification and some correction, philosopher Mortimer J. Adler presented a rational, objective, and logical answer to Aristotle. Very few people are aware of this, partly because philosophy has not been held in very high regard since the achievements of science. It is Adler’s position that I have presented.

The reason we spend “huge amounts of time and energy arguing about what is moral” is because, most often, we are using the language and the standards of religious morality. Sometimes religion (or some sect of religion) gets it right; other times not. Hence the confusion. What Adler presents is an alternative based in reason that recognizes that man is the standard of value and man’s basic NEEDS (food, shelter, clothing, health, education, equal opportunity and freedom) are the way morality should be measured. It is not the specific issue that defines what is moral, but rather the impact that specific issue has on you, the individual, and/or the impact it has on others within our (world) society. Also, because all men are equally human, this morality must be self-evident, universal, global, timeless and absolute.

I appreciate your caution about the use of the term “self-evident.” It is important that we all are careful about using absolute language. I use the term in this context only and with the qualifier that there are very few absolute truths [no offense taken, btw]. However, I disagree with your point that nothing is 100% objectively self-evident [see my reply to CraigK, below].

I agree that human needs and human preferences (I prefer to use the term “wants” ) differ greatly. In fact, this is critically important. The standard of morality I have presented is based on those things that all humans need. Their “wants’ are irrelevant to morality unless acquiring those wants is harmful to the individual desiring them, or to others. Any others. Your characterization of “an imperfect group consensus of the moment” is essentially the way morality is and has been viewed. It is just that the group consensus default is almost always based on the religiously based morality.

As far as your example of the “women in my life have vastly different perceptions, values, and ideas about what is moral,” I can only speculate that the lack of a consistent standard of morality you reference is due to the religious influence mentioned above. A standard that they can both agree to might be helpful.

Lastly, you are correct to question the use of character traits as a moral concept. One's character might be formed by bad (immoral) choices, or by good (moral) choices. Character does not guide morality. Morality forms the character. The question is - which morality?