Can we have "objective" morality without a deity?

It's certainly true that objective means something that can be verified. And it's certainly true that it can be objectively verified what gives people more "well-being" and autonomy. So maybe we can have objective morality if we just define it as that which increases people's well-being and autonomy. But I only agree if you keep autonomy there too, I find it troubling how often concerns about autonomy are sidelined in atheist discussions of objective morality.

I like this question and find the objections raised to it here by our resident apologists as nonsensical. I don't see how their conclusions follow from their own premises. They're trying to reduce morality to an appeal to authority which is not only a logical fallacy but is completely nonsensical as you already have to have moral values in order to judge whether a certain authority should be obeyed or resisted.

Morality is understanding right from fallacious, and doing what is right. Everyone knows this, though folks who comprehend God have a more outlined figuring out of what's proper and what is improper (good and evil). Not many go do evil just to do evil. Most attempt to do what they believe is excellent. As a consequence if we all believed the same matters are excellent and unhealthy all would be better. However we feel things are dangerous and a few don't care or believe they're ok or good. So if we had the same defined set of good and unhealthy/evil we might be extra alike. However we get a better list after we all know Jesus. Not of us, but God in us telling us what's good and dangerous. Bless you. The difference in morals is simply what we each and every outline as good and evil. If we all outlined it the equal there could be no argument. Appreciate this? I'm hoping so. We all have morals, just a few are more outlined as to what's excellent and what is evil for us. We agree homicide is dangerous/evil, if we agreed to all evil this manner this might now not be an challenge.

There is no such thing as objective morality. When a person does something a/moral it is because that person believes the action is moral (ie right!) that is a subjective choice.

A 'moral code' shared by a sociaty is also subjecctive - the individual chooses to belong to that morality. Diety or not makes no difference in the obj/subj CHOICE of hte individual.

The ten commandments were written in stone ....... what comes from an individuals heart is either a subjective reflection of that or not.

Sure. The problem is coming up with a teleology to support it. Once you've established an ideal pattern, what a human being is supposed to be, judging whether or not a given type of behavior moves one either toward or away from that pattern is pretty straightforward. Such morality would be "objective", not subject to personal whim.

What you've suggested presupposes an ideal human society. But why should I feel myself duty bound to embrace *your* vision? At some point it's going to come down to authority if not power. You can either convince me to submit to your authority (somehow) or compel my compliance. Religions solve this problem by invoking the supreme authority. So far at least nobody has been able to come up with a non-religious way of solving that problem.

Another person has already addressed the charge of divine whim. His answer is spot on. Morality is an expression of God's essential character. Humankind, created to represent God in the world, is then bound by that character. It's what we were created for.

Well perhaps we could have. But now the idea of the morals of a diety are so fixed in human society that we will never know. In a way you could say it doesn't really matter if god or any diety is real or just an idea because people will still worship that idea for many years to come. But I think humanity could have come up with the same sorts of morals. We'd just see what we hated happening to us or other people or things and then our morals would be against them. Eg killing, stealing.....

You don't have objective morality even WITH a deity since God in the Bible changes what's right and wrong over time. Or else how does one explain why you shouldn't be beating your children to death for backtalk or for wearing clothes made of two fibers? The whole "objective morality" thing is a myth, a non-starter that no one believes in, certainly not the religious.

I don't think we can. The only sensible way I can think to define morality is subjectively, simply by what actions make us feel bad, but even then it leads to some counter-intuitive results.

Atheist moral absolutists tend to refer to survival/evolutionary advantages being an objective metric for morality, but I disagree. For example, there is no clear evolutionary advantage to, say, refuse to kill an infertile old woman. You could take her money and make yourself stronger in society, and she would no longer drain resources. The benefit would be in taking what you want from her, and leaving her for dead. I mean, certainly there are evolutionary advantages in looking out for each other in general, but the actual pay-off comes from protecting those fit enough to benefit the species, not the old ladies.

However, we do feel the instinct to protect these little old ladies, despite the minor setback in our evolution. Our morality seems more aligned with our own subjective instincts than it does to any objective truth about the universe.

Of course, if we reduce morality to each individual's whims, it is not "objective." But doesn't that include the whim of any supposed deity?

Ahhh the old "Euthyphro dilemma" seems Plato's student didn't dash Christianity's hope of survival.

Crudely put; "Is what is good determined by God's choice, or does he choose it because it is good in of itself?"

The answer from Christian theologians is that the question itself is flawed; What is good is determined by God's nature, not his choice. God does not choose his own nature which is "good".

Looking at the nature of humanity is not that bad of a call (unless of course you're trying to separate "nature" from "morality" ;-)

Man is the unique moral agent capable of perceiving right from wrong and it is this sign that some find compelling towards the argument that man is uniquely created in the image and likeness of God... Drawn to "Do good and avoid evil" by his very nature.

Yes,

existence of ordinary and unknown people

who are more moral, pious, conscious righteous and truthful

even than the deities

can not be ruled out in this mystical world.

The only moral standard you need is "do no harm". No deity required.