Do athiests have ultimate values?

Question

For athiests: where do you get ultimate values? As in, is it ALWAYS wrong for, say, all men everywhere for all time to rape little boys, or is it just wrong for you? If you say that it is wrong for everyone throughout all time, upon what basis do you say so? It seems that if evolution is true, and we're just talking meat-sacks, then we're no more bound to a system of morals than a fish is bound to not kill other fish. But maybe I'm not seeing something?

Note: I'm not saying that athiests don't have values. Many athiests are fine, moral people, and they find no need for ancient documents to tell them the difference between right and wrong. What I am saying is this: if you don't believe in God, WHY do you hold to ULTIMATE values, meaning values that you would feel free to impose on others, even if others don't agree with those values. WHERE do those values come from, and WHY do you think they apply to everyone?

Answer 1

If one doesn't believe in a higher power, there's no need for "ultimate morals" ... except ...

-- If one wishes to live in a civilized society,
-- If one wishes to be free of fear,
-- If one wishes to live in relative peace,

Then one must subscribe to at least a minimum set of standards for interacting with others.

It's called a "social contract." First developed by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in 1660 and expanded upon through the 20th century, social contract theory suggests that to live productively in society people must inherently agree to certain moral principles. Otherwise, life would be too chaotic to thrive.

Before Hobbes, of course, civilizations had been entering into social contracts for millennia. Hobbes's theory explains why these mutual agreements are necessary and how they work.

He wrote that humanity's "natural" state was one of hedonism and conflict, in which people strove to get the best they could for themselves -- at the expense of others if necessary. Life in that state, he wrote, would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." It would be a "war of every man against every man." This "natural" state would require people to do unto others *before* others did unto them. (If I don't kill you and steal your dinner, you'll kill me and steal mine.)

Realizing that, Hobbes wrote, people formed into groups that offered comparative safety for their members and the opportunity for cooperation for mutual survival (or prosperity). That couldn't happen if everyone went around killing each other or, even worse, cutting ahead in theater lines. So rules, laws, morals were in order.

Religion has had a major role in shaping social contracts by providing codes of morality. Governing systems -- from those passed down orally in tribal chiefdoms to those codified in industrialized nations -- have played a large role in creating and enforcing laws (social contracts), which usually are based on some sort of moral code. (Some government codes, such as those in Nazi Germany and in other authoritarian states, are considered repugnant and immoral by most Western standards.)

For many people -- and for many nations -- morality is somewhat relative. For example, the Bible and other religious texts say it is immoral to kill. However, many adherents to these texts believe it *is* moral to kill enemies in war or to execute people who commit certain crimes.

Atheists I know tend to have a simple moral code that comes from the Christian Bible but doesn't require a belief in God:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Answer 2

Humans innately work together and defend each other. To say atheists have no values is ridiculous. The fact of evolution doesn't negate all religion. Study up and you'll find that some religions take no issue with evolution.

Also it is important that you are familiar with the distinction between atheism and agnosticism.

Evolution doesn't say we're talking meat-sacks, we are evolved creatures. And we are built up of universal components, built of light, like everything else on the earth. That's physics, that really exists. There is no conflict between this theory and my religious identity. (true story)



~Not an atheist, but a Jew

Answer 3

Great question. Somehow they 'know' that hurting someone else is bad. But how? and who? Is it bad to kill a spider, or a whale, or dolphin or someone's dog? How do they know that whales didn't evolve from man and are superior in intellect, we're just too stupid to understand whales? If you have something and I want it, why don't I just take it? What right do you have to have more than me?And apparently, they've ruled that insulting people of faith is JUST FINE, thank you, so be prepared to get slammed by the 'empathetic' community of atheists. Oh, and there's nothing wrong with taking away your freedom of speech either. So us hurting their feelings by saying the name of "God" is Bad, and their suing us to shut us up is Good. See, when you have no absolutes, that's an easy thing to conclude.

Answer 4

Consciousness endows us the ability to consider pain and pleasure. We do not want pain, we do want pleasure (there are those for whom the two are mixxed in the majority's eyes, but from their personal view, they want THEIR pleasure and THEIR pain). As social and conscious creatures, we are aware that we want to build societies that provide maximum pleasure and minimal pain.

Because we each have a potential for pleasure and pain, our individual right to life is unquestionable, excepting that we recuse ourself of that right by attempting to deny it others. To kill is to end this potential intrinsic to both the person and the society to which the person belongs.

When we see another person being injured, we are moved to pity, emotionally injured by witnessing their pain. That person's potential to contribute to his/her own life, and to society, is diminished, lowering the sum of pleasure and increasing the sum of pain.

Sometimes force must be used, but this must be counterbalanced against what the use will gain. To kill a good and loving person who seeks to spend an entire life increasing potential and creating pleasure is in violation of this goal. To kill a dictator whose policies are causing the deaths of thousands or millions, is to remove one human potential in the act of saving countless others, and is in keeping with the goal.

The basis of this morality is the 'categorical imperative'. In essence, to determine if something is moral, one must ask, "I wish to take XYZ action for ABC gain. If all rational agents were to operate on this principle, would this increase the pleasure of society or decrease the pain, or rather, would it decrease pleasure or increase pain?" If the answer is that the action and purpose will not decrease pleasure or increase pain, then the action is morally permissible -- indeed, if the pain increase is significantly lower than the pleasure increase, it may be considered required. If the net balance is maintained, the action and purpose are morally neutral, that is, it is not forbidden, but nor is it required. If the ratio of pleasure to pain is lowered, then the action and purpose are forbidden. It is worth noting that the action and purpose cannot be separated, and that only conscious and self-aware beings can be held to such a moral code.

It is not the existence of a higher power that requires moral behavior, it is the fact that we are self-aware and social, intrinsicly driven by our evolution to seek individual and social comfort and happiness.

This process of morality (and let us be clear: morality is a PROCESS, not a set of rules. A set of rules is a dogma, they are not to be questioned) is a combination of Deontology and Utilitarianism, in that the combined effect is that the Duties of Deontology are the consequences of Utilitarianism.

Answer 5

Just because I don't believe in God or Heaven or Hell doesn't mean I don't know right from wrong. Harming a child is always wrong, and we are more than just 'talking meat sacks'. We have the potential to reach the stars when we work together.

Answer 6

I get my values from my parents and from the fundamental principle of any religion - the Golden Rule... If everyone was following it, we would not need any religion. So if you are religious, does that automatically mean you do not break the laws of your religion? I doubt it... I know a lot of people who seem to be religious, but being assholes instead of tolerant people. It is not religion that is needed, it is INTELLIGENCE to know what is right... And some people really lack it... Like some really religious people on this site who write hateful remarks, etc.

Answer 7

We have empathy. We are a social group, like: wolves, dolphins, chimps, etc. Social bonds, empathy, and all that you call morality helps our species work together, and survive. War between groups shows this, as we bond with our group to compete with the other groups for resources. Survival of the fittest, and it is seen in animals. You seem to be against evolution, so you are probably too weak minded to understand, or just do want to. This is allot for you to understand, so read it a few times.

Answer 8

Doing something that hurts someone else is bad. It's pretty simple.

I realize I'm not taking the time to really answer your question. But it's just before lunch and I've run out of energy.

Answer 9

Values are ultimately the product of the highly evolved complex human brain, just like god & religion are also products of the brain.

Answer 10

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that it's possible to have morals and values without a book that's thousands of years old telling you how it is? Are you telling me that you wouldn't have realized that killing is wrong if it weren't for the Bible?