Do atheists have a moral code?

Question

I'm sure you believe so, as do I. What is it, and where did it come from? If it is some kind of societal norm, than you are falling into moral relativism, right? What keeps you, as an atheist, from following in the footsteps of the most recent 'Godless' societies - China, Cuba, USSR, etc? I argue that the 'golden rule' was developed by theists (not that all follow this basic rule).

Peace to you. I'm not attacking you, just interested in how you develop your moral code, and what it is based on.

Answer 1

My morals are rooted in empathy. I believe that humans evolved from social animals and that all social animals have empathy. Even very young babies can tell when another baby is sad or happy.

When intelligence and abstract reasoning evolved on top of this foundation of empathy, the natural result was belief in fairness, justice, and ethical behavior.

Answer 2

There's no moral code inherent in atheism. Atheists generally do follow moral codes, however, and these are usually based around social contract theory and the Golden Rule. The principle of the Golden Rule does not involve a god, so the fact that it was developed by theists is irrelevant.

Answer 3

Of course the atheists have a moral code. The philosophy of life and other philosophies which are basics from the thought, the mind of the intellectuals. There is nothing to do with the countries you mentioned. Those countries have the principles of communism to run the countries. Atheist is not necessary communist. They are two different things. The atheists are not necessary believe in communism. The atheist do not believe in God, but everything is the result of the evolution, of the nature. Communism is another ideology, an ideology basics from Marxist.

Answer 4

mine is more or less the same as yours. And we even got it from the same place, although you would have it came from a book.

It comes from our parents, our peers, our friends, our loved ones. In short, it comes from society, and yes, as you remarked, it changes with that society.

Proof: Slavery was OK not too long ago, and the bible really doesn't say anything against it. Yet most sane people now would condemn it. Woman voting and equality has been around for how long? Exactly. Hell, in biblical times stoning people was OK. Try that today.

But the key is it is evolving. Not relative, because we as a society won't suddenly at some point decide that murder is OK. But for instance, most enlightened humans at this point accept that homosexuality is perfectly normal, and not an abomination or icky. How are you doing on this issue? Are you ahead, or behind of the relative morals of these times?

Additionally, every sane rational human being will come up with the 'golden rule'. It's just that in those times all the people believed in sky daddies because really, what alternative explanations did they have?

Answer 5

Morals are greatly shaped by the society that we live in. I personally, as a resident and citizen of the United States think it is immoral to beat your wife. However, if you asked a person from, say, the Middle East, he/she might say that beating your wife is okay if she disobeys you. To them, there is nothing morally wrong with this. It's based on the culture that a person lives in, and the norms set forth by the society into which the person wishes to belong. There are multiple factors that determine a person's morality:

1. Parents
2. Peers
3. Education
4. Socio-economic status
5. Religious beliefs
6. Legal standards
7. Culture as a whole

And surely more that others could pinpoint. Religion is not a prerequisite of morality.

Answer 6

The golden rule wasn't invented, it evolved. Humans, and indeed every social mammalian species on the planet, have two social instincts -- an instinct for empathy and an instinct for altruism.

And yes, all morals are relative.

Now, as an obligatory comment since some seem to think 'morals' and 'truths' are the same: This sentence is the only absolute truth because all others are relative. There, no logical contradiction.

Answer 7

No, you're precise. i'm an atheist, and because i do no longer think there's a dude in the sky gazing my each and every circulate and judging me for it, i'm gonna circulate rape some domestic canines with a soldering iron and run over some old people. and additionally you may certainly do the comparable in case you have been an immoral atheist like myself, precise? And on yet another observe, your good judgment is suitable with unquestionably no flaws or great, obvious holes in it. If this united states of america did no longer persist with the bible as heavily because it does, we would descend into finished and entire anarchy. I propose, in basic terms look at Sweden, those each and every person is insane! in spite of each and every thing, it is been scientifically shown that human f*cking decency on my own isn't adequate to make us act like first rate people. No, we choose a 2000 3 hundred and sixty 5 days old e book to let us know that killing somebody is in basic terms a tad bit f*cked up. all of us know of that!

Answer 8

I think that each individuals moral code is defined by influences from within their lives. Many of us follow the same moral codes as our parents and peers, or fight against morals we believe to be unjust. I don't think that as an atheist I conform to a moral code set out by other atheists like myself, my morals are based on my experiences and my beliefs on how society should function, not on moral codes set forward by other atheists

Answer 9

Since there is no atheist organization of any consequence, there is no overall atheist moral standard, but experience shows that most atheists adhere to moral philosophy or "ethics". For me, that means that morals should base on reason, for example that behaviour which causes harm to anyone should be considered immoral, and behaviour which causes no harm should be considered moral. Would you accept that as a valid norm?

Answer 10

Humans evolved basic morals based on evolved empathy towards fellow human beings. They are further enhanced through education and the use of reason.