Question for atheists and moral relativists.?

Question

How do you determine what is right and wrong? And would you say there is a universal standard to which everyone can appeal? I am trying to understand how you can define things like rape or murder as evil if there is no objective universal standard. If the universe is without any universal, objective morality, then evils such as rape and murder are not really evil in the sense of being wrong, they are only unfortunate for the one on the receiving end. Also, as an atheist or moral relativist, what would you say to child on their deathbed? Tough luck? Too bad? How can encouragment go beyond shallow "youll be ok" phrases if there is no God?

Answer 1

Many of you answered back with ideas for SUBJECTIVE morality, not OBJECTIVE. Youre missing his point. In order to be able to call things like rape and child abuse WRONG, you have to be able to say that those acts being wrong are NOT dependent upon how we think or feel about them.

Like it or not, things like murder, rape, and torture are WRONG and ALWAYS will be wrong. Why? If morality is subjective, then it becomes a matter of opinion! Things like murder arent really wrong, you just happen to disagree with them.

These arguments and many more come from a book called "CAN WE BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD" by Paul Chamberlain. In it, a moral relativist, atheist, evolutionist, secular humanist, and a Christian all explore the foundation, nature, and implications of morality. EXCELLENT BOOK and it defeats any argument posed on here.

Answer 2

You believe there is a god, right? And yet, there is still no consensus within the same denomination of the same religion as to what's right and wrong, let alone the rest of the world.

If you are truly interested in an explanation as to how humans can be moral and altruistic without a god, then I suggest reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and then reading further into the topics of memetics and game theory that are covered in that book.

The basic idea is that it is more beneficial to you to be a "nice" guy than a "mean" guy in the scheme of things. Natural selection favors this in the gene pool, because nice guys are more likely to receive help, be trusted, and so on amongst their fellow beings.

I decide right and wrong based on my moral code, which, as with anyone else is far to complicated to list completely here. I can boil it down by saying two things -

1. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. This is pretty much a universal, and it is found in some form in just about every religion known to man, precisely because most of us instinctively realize this as being 'right'.

2. Wrong is what hurts other people. If you are not hurting others or destroying yourself, I don't have a problem with it. One exception - euthanasia for terminally or chronically ill people is also not a problem to me.

What would I say to my dying child? I have no idea until I am in that situation. But, more than likely, I would tell that child I love him or her very very much, that I will not leave them, that being with him or her has made my life so much brighter, and that I will feel forever lucky to have been his or her mom. Really depends on the age and the circumstances.

Answer 3

I've had this discussion many times, Danial, and it always boils down to the same thing; essence vs invention. Either morality is objectively essential, and would exist whether or not human life was present in the universe, or it's a pretension having no value but the subjective value we individually or corporately assign to it. And if it is that, then it's as pliable as we care to make it. In the larger picture, then, virtue and immorality weigh exactly the same and one has no essential superiority over the other.

Is morality a tool that we create and employ for any number of subjective reasons? Or is morality a function of the universe, to which we conform or refuse to conform?

My own conviction is that existance itself is bound to a moral compass. If that were not so, then our attempts to create moral relationships with one-another would be in vain, our sense of moral reckoning... an illusion. Whatever pragmatic benefit we might see in our moral codes; survival, structure, peace, harmony, etc... would be as finite and meaningless as our short tenure in the universe... concluding, at best, with the next big bang. We would be a flicker in eternity, having effected nothing. Our existance would have no more meaning than if we'd never existed at all.

I don't believe that's the case. We're not here by accident. We are here because we were intended to be. We've come equipped, with purpose, with meaning, and with an innate moral reckoning.

What we do with that is up to us.

Answer 4

Look, it is really easy to tell what is moral. Things that advance the culture and well being of the society are moral. Things that don't are not. Sure you can find some gray area, but that is true even among the religious. You will find that my moral stances are very similar to yours because they are based on the same logic that created yours. I just don't credit them to a god that isn't there. You will find that all religions reach similar moral stands because they are based on what is obviously the right thing.

I wouldn't feel right telling anyone who was about to die something I don't believe to make them feel better. I don't fear death as I don't believe that I will be aware I am dead. I don't see why that is scary at all. I would think it would scare me more if I were religious since there is a chance that you did some minor thing that offended the god and you could be condemned.

Answer 5

Morality is decided upon by society, made up of individual minds. We have developed, as social creatures, the ability to discern what is moral and ethical by what is best for the group without being harmful to the individual.

I don't believe anythingor anyone is "evil" according to the most common definition, but things like rape and murder are clearly immoral in that they are harmful to another person; they diminish the victim's rights. Violence of any kind is always immoral unless it is in self-defense.

As far as a child on their deathbed, I have not had to be in that situation. I see no reason why a god needs to be brought into it though. It would be as easy (which is to say, equally difficult) to comfort a dying child with explanations that everything dies, that life is a circle and that they are part of that circle. Are children capable of understanding that some things aren't fair? No; are any of us really capable of that? It isn't shallow to believe that we are part of the world and that our death is part of it also.

Answer 6

You can define things as evil if they're probabilistically bad things. There's a much greater chance that murder is unjustifiable than it is to be justifiable - so it makes more sense to think of it as evil.

From my point of view theists only could confuse a child into believing that it's ok to die. They can't *really* promise heaven.

You can tell the child how sad you are that they won't have more time. But nobody is taking anything with them. What's important is that the child was able to be with us and us with them. You could do things to make the death less painful physically. You can reminise with the child and afterwards remind them how very special they are and how lucky you were to spend time with each other. One day all memories will fade, and even all the things humans have made will fade and decay. Maybe only the radioactive things we make will remain, but eventually even that will go away and the Earth will be absorbed into the sun.

Answer 7

Quite simply. Life is good. Death is bad. Any animal share this kind-of divine feeling. This is the basis of all religions without the bullshit such as "you must pray 5 times a day" or "you should eat no pork" or "mary was virgin and had a kid"...

So each act which saves or spare life is good.
Each act which makes life harder or takes lives out is bad.

Then, it's an averaging question on the whole humanity. If I sign this deal with Koweit, I will get Petrol for american people (life+) BUT people in Koweit will stay under ruthless dictature (life-), poor (life-) and so on...
If I attack Germany in 39, A lot of people will die (life-) but ultimately, a lot of people will be more free (life+) and we spare some máss murder (life+), make a lot of business to produce weapons (life+ for some people) and can do a lot of business to rebuild houses (life+)

I think anyway, people in the position to take such decisions think more about their own group (and that's the purpose of religions), but as each of them compete for the power, they come to such compromise.

Nice day. I hope you read the answers.

Answer 8

We as humans developed our 'moral code' long before the notion of God given laws. Our behaviour is determined by the societies that mankind has evolved in.

The 'golden rule'(do unto others as you would be done by) is a natural logical code to adopt in that it benefits all who are members of the same group. It's far older than the story of Jesus and is indicative of something we all have; empathy. I can feel the pain you feel on an emotional level when you smash your foot against something hard and heavy. Just as I can lament the death of your youngest son at the hands of a maniac.

As human society advanced and began to form larger tribal groups and eventually form things like states and entire nations, the rules naturally evolved to benefit the power structures of such groups but things like rape and murder were still seen as wholly unhealthy for society. The ruling caste of a given group couldn't murder or rape anyone within his community on a whim, because it would be bad for his group and most certainly cause him to lose the power he held. It's no accident that the cultures that exist today all hold that certain things like theft, rape and murder are bad for the health of their respective cultures, because they are!

If a tribe had formed in which all members had equal likeliness to rape their fellows and murder anyone within their group, or steal whatever they like from their fellows, how long would such a society survive? How many generations? Not likely even two.

It is only through reciprocal relationships and familial kinship that the most primitive of cultures would survive enough generations to develop more nuanced and complex social mores that would ultimately give a code of ethical and moral behaviour similar to what we have now.

So it's not really moral relativism. I believe that murder is bad all over the world and I don't think that certain murder for certain cultures is 'okay' because I know that wanton murder is bad for society. It's bad for the continued survival of the species.

As for the child on their deathbed, all I could do is be with them and be comfort to them in their limited time. I wouldn't stoop to lying to them about fairytales of cloud people and angels. I would simply keep them company as they died.

Answer 9

Hmm....okay.

People tend to respond to their environment. If some one stabs you, then you probably want them dead before they can kill you outright.. If some one steals from you, then you most lightly will want your stuff back, and maybe a little compensation for your troubles.
Now since the reverse could happen to you, wouldn't you be hesitant to commit such crimes?

Just because some religious figure became Captain Obvious in an historical event, doesn't make what he said the standard to judge all morals. These are things that man figured our for themselves quite awhile ago.

as for the child on the death bed, I would say, " There will be no pain, rest child and dream "

Answer 10

Buddy people just want something to believe in, if you found out there was no god your world would stay the same. The things the bible says are good and are bad are just common since. You dont need the bible to tell you murder and rape are bad. Let me ask you, do you honestly believe there is a hell and where in the old testiment does the bible speak of a hell, nowhere. Do you know why? Because the god of the old testiment and the god of the new were 2 different gods. PLEASE dont buy into brainwashing, we were brought up to believe these lies from children. Just use common since.