That seems not at all likely. I've occasionally run across people on the internet who didn't believe in morality, but the idea of most atheists or skeptics being in that category, that estimate seems to me to be off by orders of magnitude.
I am curious what you base that on. Most atheists I know are moral subjectivists.
Well, if -- absent a particular context -- I don't know what "objective" means, I think it follows that I also don't know what "subjective" means. These words are mostly used for equivocation, for dancing back and forth between conflicting meanings.
Nevertheless, let us stipulate, for the sake of discussion, that most atheists are subjectivists. Does it follow that they believe, as the OP claims, that there are no moral facts? I don't believe that.
People who believe morality is subjective still believe morality exists. At least this has always been my assumption.
They view all moral positions as stemming from subjective human desires, feelings, preferences about how things ought to be. They recognize the theist morality is merely dishonest subjective morality where the believer imposes their preferences onto an imaginary God to make them appear beyond human preference and give the veneer of objectivity.
I think you're overstating your case. I think people are mostly confused (and often self-contradictory) about morality. It's a mistake to project your own views onto them because you think your views are coherent.
Of course, even if God existed, then theistic morality would still be subjective,
I agree that gods don't come into it. Any definition of "objective" that makes god-based morality objective will also make godless morality objective. Any definition that makes godless morality subjective will also make god-based morality subjective.
just the subjectivity of God rather than humans.
I think you could find many atheists that haven't really thought about the basis for their morality and might argue about moral issues as though they are arguing about objective truths,
Being skeptical, in most circumstances, of the word "objective," I try to understand sentences like the one above by ignoring that word. People might argue about moral issues as though they are arguing about truths. If you mean something different, then I'm missing it.
but if you walked them through the logic of what moral objectivism means
I'm available, if you want to do that with me.
But I already accept that for some definitions of "objective," morality is objective, and for other definitions, it isn't.
they would reject it and acknowledge that their moral stances are based in what they "feel" is right, not what they "know" is right in the same sense as knowing that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
That confuses me. I'm not sure that analogy serves you well.
Motion is relative. Therefore, the claim that the earth goes around the sun is not
truth apt. It is no more true -- and no more false -- than the claim that the sun goes around the earth. I can't tell whether you're confused about this, or whether you understand it and are using it to make some point.
Wiploc said:
believes that moral claims can be made sense of by translating them into preference claims. (Thus, "Rape is wrong," means, "I'm against rape.")
I don't fall into either of those groups. So I still think I'm a moral realist.
What do you think morals are based in, if not human preferences?
I'm a utilitarian.
I would argue that the only alternatives are the preferences of some non-human (e.g., theistic morality)
As you pointed out above, positing gods doesn't affect the objectivity of morality.
As I pointed out above, until we nail down what you mean by "objective," I'll just read that as if it says "or facts."
that are true independent of human goals and desires, which is moral objectivism.
1. Things that have a strong tendency to make people unhappy are wrong. (Utilitarian premise)
2. Rape has a strong tendency to make people unhappy.
3. Therefore, rape is wrong.
3. In some possible universes, rape has a strong tendency to make people happy.
4. Therefore, in such universes, rape is not wrong.
If we stipulate the premise, are the other statements objective?
I don't see a logical difference between that definition of "realism" and "objectivism".
Are you saying, then, that subjectivists are nihilists? Is it your position that most atheists are nihilists?
That definition also is problematic by ignoring the position that moral preferences are real b/c human emotions are real and subjective experience is real, and yet morality is not "true" independent of it's relation to preferences.
I have trouble parsing that, but I suspect that I agree.
If one person prefers to die than suffer, and another prefers to suffer and live. Most atheist would say it is moral to allow the first person to die without preventing it if you can , but immoral to do so in the second case. That shows that subjective preference is THE determinant of morality.
I've seen pictures of a guy who got tattooed all over with lizard scales. And he had his tongue split lengthwise, so it's forked like a lizard's. He likes being the lizard man.
If you did that to someone against his will, it would constitute a great injury.
Whether it's a favor or an injury depends on the subject's attitude. So one might argue that morality is subjective.
On the other hand, if we believe that the underlined sentence above is a truth (what you might call an
objective truth) then one might argue that morality is objective.