Atheists must appeal to an absolute moral standard when complaining about wrongs.

I like to think that harm/benefit is the same thing as unloving/loving... just defined using different words.The caveat to me is... who gets to decide what's harmful and what's beneficial?
To me, this can only be decided by the one being acted upon... not the one doing the action, and not any 3rd party observing the actions.For a simple and obvious example, take the song "Baby Shark."Some people (mostly kids) like to sing/listen to Baby Shark over and over and over and over...
Some people (mostly adults) do not like to sing/listen to Baby Shark much at all.So, is singing Baby Shark to someone loving or unloving? Beneficial or harmful?It all depends on who you're singing it to, and how they judge the effects of the action upon themselves.For a complex and difficult example, take helping someone commit suicide.Some people (most?) will regret attempting suicide as shown by many who have gone through the process and later changed their minds.
However, I'm sure it's not impossible to want to commit suicide without any sort of regret ever (and if you did live, only regretting living for all or your remaining time.) Think of someone with a terminal, degenerative illness who doesn't want to be a burden on those who devote their time to taking care of them.Again, it all depends on who's doing the suicide and how they feel about it.
Perhaps they themselves can't even "see the future" enough to know if they'll regret it or not - but this is an issue with "being able to see the future." Not an issue with who's going to know if it's loving or unloving... beneficial or harmful.So, I agree that harm/benefit is the determination of what's moral and not.
But only if the decision of what is harm vs what is beneficial is done by the one affected by the situation. If you're the one causing the situation, or a 3rd party altogether... your judgement only counts for if the situation was happening to you... it is meaningless to person being affected by the situation in question.

No it does not.We are essentially on the same page. As I read what Tangle wrote using strictly harm and benefit as the criteria, then the emphasis is on the outcome and not on the motivation.By making the criteria loving or unloving then the end result has no impact on the morality of the act. Absolutely

Yes, but if the criteria is harm or benefit then you can't know whether it was harmful or beneficial until later or maybe never. In my example it was a loving act when the money was given but when the money was given it was an unknown as to whether or not it was harmful or beneficial.

Are you talking about actual harm or benefit as the criteria? Isn't it about MOTIVE to do harm or benefit? Tangle seems to be talking about motive, you seem to be talking about what actually happens, but it's only the motive that counts morally.If you intend to do good to the person you are morally in the right.BUT in the case of giving money to a street person I've known for years that it probably will go to drugs or alcohol and knowing that it won't benefit them as I intend I won't give it. I may give them a bag with a sandwich and a drink and snacks, but not money.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sure you're right. I think though it rather than just saying harm or benefit it would be more accurate to say: intent to harm or intent to benefit.

Semantics.Would you say your action is taken with the intent to be loving or with the intent to be unloving? Does it matter that the adjectives are loving/unloving or beneficial/harmful? Are you trying to sneak in a religious connotation?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

If we use the term loving then intent is implied. That isn't really the case with beneficial.

All you're doing is substituting love - and by inference - hate, for benefit and harm. If you give the panhandler money out of love and he then buys drugs and overdoses you have an hateful outcome.Intent.

I think insisting on either over the other is missing the point.
Like insisting that hitting a single is somehow "greater" than taking a walk. If you're on base, then you're on base.Intent is for judging the "morality of the person" doing the action... did they want a loving/beneficial outcome? If so - good try. If not - screw them.
Of course, the judgement is made manifest by the reaction of the person to the end result.
If the end result was good - does the person continue to try and do the same action? Perhaps tweak for a better result?
if the end result was bad - does the person continue to try and do the same action without in-spite of the bad result?The result is for judging the "morality of the action" itself... without commenting on what was intended, was it a good or bad thing to do it at all?
-This information can be used by the person doing the action to continue or change their methods - depending on whether or not they care about being a good person for the situation in question.They are both important aspects, and part of "morality" in their own way.
They both have their own specifics, and their own details.But conflating the two, or trying to say one out-classes the other, is a waste of time.

I am an atheist, and I think morality is subjective. Morality is based on human needs and wants, and that is what I base morality on. Therefore, it is entirely proper to claim that something is morally wrong if it goes against the subjective needs and wants of human society and individuals. Our emotions absolutely do matter to us. That's the whole point. In fact, it could be argued that our emotions are some of the most important things. There will be occasions where this is hard to figure out. This is why morality has long been a heavily debated topic.The problem for you is determining what is moral in the face of two people who claim to have absolute standards, but those standards disagree with one another. What happens then?

Um, some individuals have a strong need and want to have sex with children. Some individuals have a strong need and want to commit murder: study the cases of serial killers, it's a strong need they have. Same with needs and wants to hurt and humiliate others, some to torture and kill animals. These things subjectively feel to these people as strong needs and wants. You have a very nave idea of what lurks in the human soul.

The majority of human society doesn't have those needs or wants. In fact, they have the opposite. They have a need and want to protect their children from sexual predators.If someone said that God told them it was ok to have sex with children, would you be fine with that? You have a serious misunderstanding of what human society is. Human society is not the immoral needs of a tiny minority. Human society is the common thread that runs through the vast majority of human society.

There are two blog posts that really helped me solidify my thinking on this topic.

quote:

---

Is it even possible to have an objective morality? I would argue that it is not possible, and even if such existed it would be irrelevant because we could not know about it. Further, there is no compelling evidence that anyone, any group or society, has access to an objective morality.

​

The notion of an objective morality assumes that morality is something that can make sense apart from the context in which it is used (in our case, human society). Is it objectively wrong, according to some moral law of the universe, to harm another creature? If you try to justify this moral position, then you are actually engaging in moral philosophy — the complex and messy human understanding of morals.
Objective vs Subjective Morality - NeuroLogica Blog

---

quote:

---

Thus, if morality were an absolute set by a god, something could be immoral even if every human disagreed. If, instead, human feelings and desires are what ultimately count, then that is a subjective morality.

​

Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?

​

Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality?
Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense | coelsblog

---

I agree that intent is the point. Firstly being hateful and unloving are two different things. Hatred is unloving but it is only one aspect of it. In a broader sense unloving is simply indifference to the well being of others.My point was that you can have a negative outcome from a loving moral act. Just to use the terms harm or benefit focuses on the outcome rather than the intent.

I think you've just explained why this business of love and heart and sacrifice and so on is really just well meaning religious waffle.What our sense of morality is built on is the wellbeing of others, which means reducing harms and increasing benefits. Unlikely but possible but also irrelevant. Morality is an attempt to do the right or wrong thing. Help or harm. Nope, it's the intent to harm or help that matters and usually it will result in the intended outcome.