Atheistic attempts at establishing a basis for objective morality fall foul to a number of issues.
For instance, what possible basis do you have to condemn someone who has a totally separate set of morals from you?How can your subjective feelings be the measure of what others should and should not do?
This provides a most weak basis to criticise religions on the basis of moral objections as many a militant cyber Atheist is wont to do.
Additionally, the current trend is for Atheists to claim that ‘minimizing harm and maximizing pleasure‘ or utilitarianism provides a basis for objective morality without religion.
However, it soon becomes apparent that there are many situations where this arbitrary definition of morality breaks down.
That is to say , such a definition allows acts to take place without condemnation, that seem to fly in the face of what most people would consider moral. Here are some examples:
1. A man carries out a sexual act on a dead body. The body is found in a remote area and there is nobody around from the person’s family or friends who will learn about out, so as to be hurt by it. The dead body felt no pain, whilst the man enjoyed himself. Result: Pleasure maximised, no pain at all. On Utilitarianism Athiest morality, this is not even neutral act, it is a GOOD one!
2. A person consents to their body to be used as food after death. No pain at all, consent given by the person concerned. So why is this wrong on Atheism? Yet we all know, it is indeed wrong.
3. A group of adults gang-rape a child. They inject her with something so she is asleep throughout and feels nothing. They then gently give her another dose to kill her as soon as it is over. The Child was asleep and is then instantly dead. She felt no or minimal pain. The adults enjoyed themselves. On the basis of Atheist utilitarianism this despicable act is morally justified. Someone might talk about the feelings of the child’s loved ones…what if it was her loved ones who did this to her???
4. A ruler decides that all people with severe long-term disabilities should be put down. His logic is simple: The people concerned suffer serious pain and discomfort and their carers also have minimal pleasure due to the onerous responsibility of caring for them. Moreover, the state spends billions of dollars a year on medical care for these people that could be saved and used to improve living standards for the majority of able-bodied people. To avoid unnecessary ‘suffering’ the carers will be given the final say. Is this programme of mass murder not exactly right under utilitarianism?
I think the above scenarios show, rather lucidly that any attempt at retconning morality as a secular humanist/Atheist ideology is doomed to failure.
In truth, only belief in an Transcendent Creator can ground Transcendent and Universal morals:
Without God, all things are permitted…
Fyodor Dostoevsky