Atheist Support for Global Morality Vote?

Question

For atheists: The world continues to produce flawed societies (Nazi Germany, Rhwanda) where a majority rises with a distorted collective conscience of right and wrong--and atrocities occur. To systematize a code of morality, would you support a global vote on right and wrong? This concensus could educate those with damaged personal conscience, and reduce the capacity of powerful personalities to sway societies into violent value systems. "Universal Truth" is off the table for the atheist--so shouldn't we have a worldwide vote to at least establish a global definition of right and wrong? Majority rule is all there is, so wouldn't a global morality vote be the best?

Answer 1

Why would this majority rule then be correct? As in, who gives you the right over someone else? You'll force them? That doesn't make sense. Beyond this, I'd love to see a transcultural model that actually works. It won't. Because guess what? Are you going to let everyone practice religion? Whatever one they want? Even if it goes against your code? If you don't, this won't work. Also, if you apply certain moral codes, and someone doesn't ascribe to them, so what? What are you gonna do? Punish them for bad morals? If you don't, then what was the purpose in the first place? If you do, then you have become an oppressive society. And before you become one of those you had better be sure you know what you're doing. Another point, because everyone believes it doesn't make it right. What if you wanted to amend it later on to say that killing is OK? Would it then be OK? If you have a universal standard of morality, then it can't change, otherwise what's the point? If it can't change, then majority rule is not the determining factor of universal moral guidelines. So what makes your first majority any more special than the ones to come? This is illogical, impractical and unfeasible at best.

Answer 2

THe problem with rescuing a system of morality is that if a "truth" or "good" is really what we define it--it will cause too much problems. Good to whom? or who decides on what to do with minorities? If happiness or morality is determined on delivering the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people--that leaves minoritys helpless. It leaves open the possibility there is a way we should behave. Using you example of Nazi Germany, at the Neuromberg Trails when the judges were on trail the question that rang out was "Is there not a law above our land? Is there not a law above a laws?" They all stated they were just following their man made laws. I belive that if there is such a thing as good, there must be a moral law on which to differentiate beween good and wrong, which can only be given by a moral law giver. I have been told by those who dont belive in a higher being still say that morals are universal. Isnt that were our conscious comes in? Where does that come from? The global vote would not work

Answer 3

I think what you're talking about might be impossible, actually, so long as religion is there to divide us.

For example, people as a whole know what's right and wrong. They know they shouldn't murder people, for example. But they can excuse murder if it is in a war, which is typically fought over differing ideologies.

We have the United Nations to prevent unprovoked aggression, for example. There are nations who benefit from being in the UN, and those that don't. Those that don't, choose to remain outside of it. And then there are even those in the UN, who defy them anyway... (President Bush)

In essence, morality will always be in the eye of the beholder, and personal interests will often override it.

Answer 4

I'm a strong atheist and I admit that I do look poorly on religions such as Christianity.

However, I do accept people who chose their religion. I respect them for their choices.

I don't think we can have a "Morality Vote". Who says that our vision of right and wrong (or the majorities version of right and wrong) is the absolute universal definition of right and wrong?

I like to preserve cultures. I think religion is a heavy part of ones culture. I would not want to impose my views on others... after all... I am no an evangelist. I do not dictate what others are to think and I do not try to make them change. I do; however, challenge what they believe in and ask them the difficult questions.

I think it is important that people "chose" their religion. I don't agree with people being born into it, forced into it... or coerced into it by material or societal goods. People should join a religion because they agree about the teachings and believe in the respective God(s). I don't' agree with people joining religions because of their parents, government, friends, or because Christian groups will only give them aid or food if they believe in it.

Different people see things differently. Different countries do things differently. I think it is wrong to Jay walk across the street... for another, it may be the only way to EVER cross the street.

Your definition of right and wrong are different than mine. Is that not the beauty of atheism?

Answer 5

What would be the result of this? Could a group of people ever even reach a consensus on "global morality"? And cause this to be accepted universally? How would this be enforced? It would be another means of imposing the ideas of one group on everyone and injustice would inevitably follow in some form.

Answer 6

The UN Charter is the universal truth you're talking about.

You're right, the majority rule is all we have, and that's actually the biggest problem. We can only establish right from wrong if the majority treats minorities better. And my biggest fear is that won't happen too soon.

Answer 7

This exists.

The United Nations Charter.

If we disagree with a part of it, can't we take that through channels?

It makes slavery wrong, which is in the Bible! So yea UN Charter for being a better moral document then the Bible

Answer 8

That would be too much like global unity , when that truly happens this world will be too far gone . In this world there is always going to be opposition . Let the just be just and the unjust be unjust . Follow Jesus Christ and embrace your salvation if you haven't already .

Answer 9

In flawed societies, you forgot USA. But as an atheist, I support everything you say. Religion is the cause of all wars.

Answer 10

Unfortunately, Right and Wrong are merely points of view.

If a definition of right and wrong were drafted though, I'd have to review it extremely carefully before signing off on it.