Atheists: Question about Moral Relativism?

Question

...do you favour it? if so, why? How would you resolve the difference if someone thought it was not immoral to kill you, when you believed that their motivation was unjust?

...if you do not favour moral relativism, what 'absolute' would you say morality is relative to? or rather, how would you explain that it is not relative?

Looking forward to your answers! Most of the atheists I know do try to be good people(with much success I might add!)...but I am curious about atheistic morality and the roots of its foundations.
I'm sure a lot of Christians are unsure about the prospect of morality without reference to some divine absolute, and it might be fruitful in establishing some common ground to share on this matter. Kindness, righteousness, honesty, compassion...we all seem to believe that these are good traits, regardless of whether we believe in divinity or not (Piety though, I'm not so sure! ha ha j/k)

Anyhow, I look forward to your responses!
Thanks for your time.

-Rob

so far (from the first 6 responses), I get the impression that people are advocating a sociological morality rather than philosophical / spiritual morality. Interesting.

The sociological approach in essence seems like it would have to be deterministic if it is in fact a workable idea (seems that way - might not be!).
If it is deterministic though, it would have to be linear (no?), and if it is linear, then wouldn't it have some 'absolute' basis?

[and people needn't substantiate their atheistic stances by reference to any particular religion. I assume that the atheism would be valid (to you) even if religions did not exist, right? As such, I'd appreciate answers which are pro-atheistic rather than anti-religionistic - that is if people can manage to discern the difference. It just helps things to stay on topic).

Keep the responses coming! this is interesting stuff!

-Rob

Answer 1

I imagine that there is an evolutionary advantage to feeling empathy for other human beings. Groups of humans who were able to work together probably did a better job surviving hardship and procreating than groups of humans who competed selfishly against each other.

One aspect of empathy is the ability to see the world through another person's point of view. Such an ability has obvious applications to survival in the wild. For example, you might recognize an expression of fear on someone's face and, from this, become aware of some nearby danger.

Answer 2

We each do - you are doing it as you read this.

The impotent question is "How do we know right from wrong?"

We learn it quit literally at our mother's breast. For as we are satisfied by the food she gives our integration with her starts the learning process. Indeed we learn more in the 1st year of our lives that all the rest put together. It is just that want we learn is our morality, our language (which contains right and wrong), social integration etc.

Later it is both the parents acting together (or not) which then develops our understanding of right and wrong. We are rewarded when we do something that they believe to be right and punished (a frown or harsh word is enough for a small child) when we do wrong.

Later still our interaction with children our own age - infuentual adults - the media then put more into our understanding. People who are considered good are seen to get reward, bad are punished. An interesting aspect is that many believe that this is not the case, however then they need to look are the values of the society they are in. Look at films - look at say James Bond -good or bad mmm hard one - well he is killing for his Queen and country. Who are those who get rewarded by our society - look at the pop idols. Now wonder at why people get screwed up. Because the message we send is that they are 'good'.

So where does religion and spirituality enter into this? After all you asked your question in this section not in philosophy or psychology. Well religion is an encapsulation of how people think we should live. It has been developed over centuries and passed from religion to religion. Christian and the Cult or Ra to the Jews; the Jews to the Christians and the Muslims; they pass it to the many divisions in their religions and so on. It evolves to match the society it fits. After all there is no moral code in the bible about driving a car or using a computer, they were not invented when it was written so that has to be interpreted.

Even an atheist like myself cannot escape it. When I served in the navy I had to fill in a form so that if I was killed my next of kin would be informed. I put atheist on the form. The Buffer came to me and asked - "Are you a Catholic atheist or a CofE one?" And actuality it is not as daft as it sounds. For just like Christians and Muslims having many values and beliefs the same as Jews because they have evolved from Judaism so I am greatly influenced by the values of the CofE.

And for those who then say - "Arr well then they come from god." I ask - "So if I was born in ancient Britain, under the religion of the Droids, Would that be the same as from the god of Christians." If so then any faith will do

Answer 3

this is a tough question.

i do believe in moral relativism. quite frankly i believe everything is relative. absolutes are like right angles - they are artificial, man made, they don't exist in nature.
we all are different people with different experiences and therefore different priorities. then again, there are some clear guidelines, and issues that go beyond moral and into things like laws or social contracts. there will always be things others do that seem unjust to me, and when i feel it is appropriate i see it as my duty to do what i can to repair the injustice. in other cases, it's not so much a case of just or unjust as just a case of perspective.

as for your situation (someone thinks it's not immoral to kill me), i don't see why it would be my situation to resolve. my problem is, someone wants to kill me and i want to live. morality doesn't come into it, just survival. i probably wouldn't try conflict resolution skills or try to talk him or her out of it, i would run or stike back, depending on circumstances. now, if you're talking "crime and punishment" scenarios, then the answer is simple. because morality is relative, it cannot be the deciding factor or guide the resolution.

Answer 4

Hi Rob. The basis for the Christian's morality is God.

The basis for the Atheist's morality is each person's perspective of right and wrong.

We can't find a common ground on this issue because to the Christian there are absolutes, presented by God and He is our source.

The Christian must follow the teachings of Jesus. Some may call themselves Christians who do not follow Christ's teachings however, they are not. To be a Christian, is to be a follower of Christ.

To the Atheist, if someone wanted to kill, it would be up to whether they felt it is right or not. The same with stealing, lying adultery, fornication, etc. The only thing to stop them from doing so, if they felt that it was right for them, would be the law.

Answer 5

Had I lived in the middle ages, quite a few people WOULD have thought it was not immoral to kill me. Those people would have been called 'Christians'. I would have believed their motivation was unjust. The difference would have been resolved by my death--exactly as it was for the thousands who died in the Inquisition, or, depending on who was ruling in England, were burned at the stake for being Protestant or for being Catholic. This is what I call 'moral relativism'

Answer 6

Simply enough, religion is not a prerequisite to good morals. killing is killing, and if your religion leads many to do so, then it's time to use your cognitive ability...

Answer 7

morality is in the genes and predates Christianity by millions of years:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20611FE3C540C738EDDAA0894DF404482