Yes, atheists can have objective morality

They ought to behave in such a way that produces life and happiness. "Good" means that which is beneficial to a purpose. Purposes could be grounded in the desires of God, but purposes are also grounded in the bedrock desires of a universal human nature. So if a universal human nature seeks purposes such as life and happiness, these are grounds for objective moral values. It is objectively wrong to do actions that are destructive towards human life and happiness for all. It is a violation of human nature.

 

Would you consider the one child policy of China to be good since it was beneficial to a purpose of population control? Or was it bad because it resulted in many, many, abortions? Yet, the population was held in check.
Can you not see how your definition and position is subjective, relativistic morality?

 

You are confusing natural law morality (which I am defending) with utilitarianism.

natural law says abortion is an intrinsically evil act, as it is the destruction of an innocent human life. It is a direct and severe violation of the good of life and happiness for all human beings, as it directly destroys a human being.

China’s one child policy was a moral atrocity under natural law.

 

Where is the natural law stated that abortion is an intrinsically evil act? Many, many, cultures invited child sacrifice as the norm, not evil.
It seems to me that you are making up the rules as you type.

 

Not atheists.

 

Insane reasoning.

 

Your question “where is the law stated” presupposes a morally subjective framework, do you see that? An objective framework asks “what is?” Not “who said so?” If you are asking “who said so?” then you are assuming that morality comes from a person or authority - which is subjective.

The natural law is not “stated.” It is what it is. Law means consistency of behavior. The laws of physics are what they are. What we “state” in physical sciences are ways of communicating what the laws in fact are.

Life and happiness for human beings are objective things. It is objectively true that human nature seeks them as bedrock purposes. If this is the case then it is objectively a violation of such purposes to murder.

 

The fact of the very occurence of life is a matter of natural law.

 

Lots of atheists support abortion. Abortion is child sacrifice.

But there are lots of pro-life atheists, too.

 

So, atheists who abort are actually 'sacrificing' to a higher entity? Sort of an oxymoron, you think?

 

China's one child policy ... atheists, too.

 

Aggression and competition for resources for human beings are objective things. It is objectively true that human nature seeks them as bedrock purposes. If this is the case then it is objectively an extension of such purposes to murder.

 

Oxymoron alert. Which higher entity were these atheists 'sacrificing' their children to?

 

The STATE ... the PEOPLE (collectively) ... the "GREATER GOOD". Communism places the STATE as the "god".
However, strictly speaking, a culture only needs to collectively accept an action for it to be "culturally" 'GOOD'.
An example would be eating the heart of your fallen enemy to gain his courage. EVIL to us, an act of honor to a cannibal.

[Isn't CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY great stuff?]

 

"It is objectively true that human nature seeks them as bedrock purposes."

No, that is not true. Aggression and competition for resources to do not lead to the life and holistic long term pleasure for all human beings. Aggression and competition and murder violate those goods.

 

Objective, or subjective?

 

Atheists who abort are sacrificing the child for a higher priority.

Everyone worships. Worship just means "worth-ship," that is, the ascribing of worth. Everyone has a hierarchy of worth that dictates their actions.

So yes, when an atheist aborts a child, it is because they worship (ascribe worth to) something more than the life of the child.

 

Ahhh ... a fantasy land. Nature of Eden.

My mistake. I was thinking of the real nature where people want to survive and need to hunt for food or defend their farm from animals or face droughts and migrations (like the Tribal Migrations across Europe caused by the early Hun successes in Asia.)

Carry on, I have no idea how your UTOPIA functions.

 

I get that. A higher priority, but NOT to a 'deity'.

Perhaps you should provide your definition of Atheism..

 

deleted.