Question for Atheists: What is the basis for your morality?

Question

I know some claim that Christians accuse them of having no morality. I don't share that belief but I would like to know how you determine say simple murder is wrong? Note I am not raising contravercial aspects such as abortion, or wars. Just simple murder. Assume I am a bike gang member and I feel it is a good thing as it part of survival of the fittest. Why is murder wrong? Again consider that laws change and different socieites have different laws determined by their own common sense. Who says one persons morality is superior to another? If evolution is the governing truth should we not be more concerned with survival of the fittest at the expense of the weak? Sorry for the lengthy question but I am trying to get people to dig a bit deeper.

I would like to discuss this more with you all (as time cosuming as it is) but last time I posted this question it was removed for violating community standards. I'm not sure what I did or said as they offered no suggestion how I violated any standard.

Thanks to all answers.

How do you account for those who don't share your viewpoints? Those who's common sense doesn't agree with your own? Who is to say who is right or wrong?

I realise some people feel empathy. As do I . But not all people do. I wouldn't want to work at a slaughter house. I like animals and don't like killing them. But I can't say thatothers who work there are wrong. Wouldn't that be imposing my beliefs? (and a tad hypocritical as I like eating some meats).

If survival of the species is the basis for morality. Then shouldn't anything that hinders our survival be viewed as immoral? I know this is ugly but it is a logical conclusion that some have come to. It could be argued that if survival of the species is the basis for morality than it is our moral obligation to exterminate anything that uses up the resources needed by the healthy to survive or contaminates the gene pool. Please note I am not promoting this ideology. And to the person wo says we don't need a book for morality. Thats good. It does remind me of one person who told me once that we didn't need a book by any God then assured me we had law books. Does that mean morality chanes every time a law is changed?

Two final thought and again sorry for the length. Allot of interesting answers so far. How does evolution explain morality practises different from our own and how do we know that morality itself isn't evolving as well?

Sorry I'm breaking my own word but I found a way to say it a little clearer. Aren't people who practise morals other than what we might consider acceptable doing so because they evolved that way? If not then is there some other way to account for behaviour? Feel free to keep posting.

Answer 1

Hi, Edward!

Although Atheists can and do live moral lives, their worldview cannot successfully *account* for any non-theistic system of morality. When you and I speak about "morality" we are referring to an objective and absolute standard. Atheism cannot account for any *absolute* standard, nor does any attempt to give an objective account succeed in providing a rational explanation *why* anybody would be obligated to observe any proscription Atheists articulate.

Many respondents to this question illustrate this perfectly:

vinslave says, "Logic is the basis for my 'morality'. It doesn't take a slide rule to examine thoughts and actions which cause harm and suffering and which do not."

Of course murder, rape, etc., causes harm and suffering, but, according to Atheism, WHY is it wrong to cause harm and suffering?? All a nonconformist need say is, "Whatever it takes for me to get ahead and anybody who gets in my way gets smashed."

Atheists are self-professed lovers of logic and science. Well, if that's true, then merely making the *claim* that causing suffering is wrong does not amount to proof. It isn't so because they say it is (as they often remind us). What logical rule or what rational standard are you raising to condemn that behavior?

GLH says, "My morality is based on common sense." Oh, really? He never bothers to explain what it is about his common sense that anybody has to respect. He says he doesn't get his morality from a book. Okay, that appears obvious; but can't somebody else say, "I don't get my morality from GLH!"??

J.P. says, "Evolution has instilled in all social mammalian species an instinct/predisposition for empathy and altruism. Combined and expressed in plain English: Do to others what you want done towards yourself. This *IS* survival of the fittest, for social species."

This claim is vitiated by the fact that MANY animals DO NOT have any instinct/predisposition for empathy and altruism. Example? A lion will kill another lion to take over a pride, then kill the offspring in the pride because he wants his own kids. Against this, the claim may be made that *most* humans are empathetic and altruistic, but that doesn't translate into anything obligatory in the moral sense because that's arguing ad-populum. Most people live moral lives, but that doesn't tell us why they should. For example: Assuming evolution to be true, hasn't evolution instilled in the overwhelming number of human beings the belief in God (or gods)? After millenia of evolution, the vast majority of human beings believe in God(s). Does that mean all Atheists are *obligated* to believe in God? Of course not. Similarly, assuming most human beings are "altruistic" says nothing about the rational justification for morality under Atheism.

Several other respondents repeat previous remarks and/or state their views (without supporting argumentation) and turn ad-hominem by attacking Christianity. The replies under your question demonstrate that "logical fallacy" is an equal opportunity employer. Atheists resort to non-sequiturs as much as anybody else.

Blackacr... says, "society can not [sic] function absent laws restricting the ability of one member to damage another."

There are a few glaring philosophical problems with this rationale. Is he/she saying that if two hermits are living on the same mountain, one hermit is justified killing the other hermit for the limited food supply because they live outside society? Also, Nazi society functioned just fine while they committed their atrocities. American society functioned fine while we were lying to Native Americans, breaking our own treaties, and practicing slavery. Social "workability" cannot carry the water of objective moral standards because the bucket is too full of holes.

Simon T at least attempts to give a rational answer, but he/she nonetheless falls way short. His/her opponent will simply say, "I could care less what you want or don't want. I want your money, your car and your life; and if I have the power to take them from you, so what?" Simon's answer merely indicates his bias. He also appeals to the social contract argument refuted above.

Mike K again appeals to evolution and uses a selective definition of survival of the fittest. Many societies have historically thrived while trampling the rights of others. His answer ignores the many, many instances of "murder" and robbery in order for species to survive. If this is "evolution," then on what basis do we condemn the same behavior today? The answer? There is no basis in Atheism.

Again, while Atheists can and do live moral lives (many of them better than many Christians), your question addresses the logical justification for morality under Atheism. Atheists want proof. They say they are "free" thinkers who go where logic & science lead them. That being the case, they cannot merely *claim* an objective standard for morality. Where's the proof?

Best wishes,
Scalia

**EDIT**

I'd like to address the "social eugenics" argument J.P. has proffered.

He argues that the elimination of a species (or genetic disease) is potentially damaging to us. However, potential damage is not actual damage. In fact, many species *have* been eliminated for one reason or another without deleterious effect on *our* species.

Let's say we decide to rid the planet of mushrooms. Scientists could still grow mushrooms for scientific research while governments take them out of circulation. Let us also say the nation of Narnia decides everybody over seven feet tall needs to be executed. Narnian scientists could still keep a few seven footers around in case some spare genes are needed. In fact, with the advance of science, genes & cells can be preserved without keeping the "whole package" alive. These are, admittedly, extreme examples, but they illustrate the point: Potential damage to our species does not *proscribe* immoral acts.

J.P.'s Golden Rule is rather curious. What about the "Diamond" rule: Do unto others before they do unto you? *Why* should I respect the rights of others? Why can't one be *selective* with this Golden Rule? Again, nations and civilizations have thrived while committing moral atrocities.

Sorry J.P., but your Golden Rule/Potential Damage argument does not get us to morality.

Answer 2

"Survival of the fittest" is one of those things describing evolution that confuses some people... "fittest" doesn't mean biggest or strongest, but the ones more likely to survive. A group of humans who don't kill each other will be more likely to survive... It does get more complicated, but natural selection favors cooperation. Humans, like many other social or pack animals, have evolved with morality hardwired into our genes.

Societies have different cultures and laws, but a great many of them are universal. Killing, theft, infidelity, rape, damaging someone else's property, and many more are banned throughout all humanity, and these things are also "outlawed" in groups of chimps, wolves, gorillaz, prairie dogs, etc. Indeed with most social animals there are unspoken laws that will get an offending member driven off. A chimp that steals food or resources from another (especially a female or pregnant female) will be killed or chased off. Humans also see all these things as immoral, it's mostly the punishments that are different (some cultures will cut off a thief's hand for example while others will imprison them).

It's really a fascinating subject and one I don't really have time to get into at length, but there is an evolutionary reason for every bit of our morality - in fact evolution would require that we develop morality as the natural consequent.

From an evolutionary standpoint, our species can not survive if we have people incompatible with society and our social beings. If someone is killing us, raping us, stealing our food, and so on then they are a hindrance to our survival and must be dealt with.

Even christians don't get their morality from the bible, they cherry pick based on what they like and what fits with the contemporary morality at the time. Morality is changing and people are becoming more considerate and morally aware. In WWII thousands of soldiers died in a day and we didn't care much, but now we get uspet when a couple die. We are also more accepting of other races and women, becoming more morally conscious - and that's a good thing.

Personally I get a lot of my morality from eastern philosophy, but I recognize that morality is inherent in all of us because that's what evolution preferred we have.

Answer 3

I think the basis for secular morality is a social contract between each person and the civilization they inhabit. Bluntly, I am not a murderer because I do not wish to live in a civilization of murderers. I am not a thief because I do not wish to live among thieves. I imagine a Christian would find the same sentiment is approximated in the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I am certain that fear of punishment is not a deterrent and does not prevent crime anymore than the police do. It is a person's own morality that actually prevents crime. The legal system creates more crime than it prevents because it serves only to punish offenders who were stupid enough to get caught. This encourages some to imagine they are smart enough to be successful criminals. Christianity, with its asinine message that every sin will be forgiven if one only believes their sacred mythology, is even less effective at crime prevention. It is personal morality that actually renders a person a fit citizen for their civilization.

Edit: After reading ScaliaAlito's response (below), I realize there is an issue that I have failed to consider previously -- that believers imagine there must be some sort of absolute standard of morality. Frankly, this view smacks of totalitarian tyranny. The idea that there is some sort of extra-legal standard of morality was discarded by our Deist founding fathers and by the enlightenment in Europe. It fills me with dread for the future to know that people who adhere to such archaic superstition have any place in America's legal system. What was the point of the American Revolution, if not to seperate ourselves from such arbitrary tyranny?

Answer 4

Personally, I don't know where morality comes from. Many religious people say that morality comes from religion, and that if religion did not exist, then there would be no morality. As an atheist, I see Christianity as a load of rubbish that was written a long time ago, and which was probably based around the laws that existed at the time, one of which presumably was about not killing. As I see it, there must have been morality before religion, because religion is based on morality. I think it is wrong to kill people, but that notion is just based on what society believes, and I am not going to question exactly where it comes from, because i see nothing wrong with that.

Answer 5

No evolution is NOT "the governing truth" it's a scientific theory, neither more nor less important to us than gravity, physics etc.

Short answer; conscience.

Long answer (I forgive you for your long question and I hope you'll indulge me for a minute, I kind of got pissed off by a Christian websight with no comments section and an apologist who was much more of an ******* than you but talking about a similar subject. So, if it's OK with you, I might get it off my chest here)

If one girl goes clubbing willingly and another woman is being blackmailed into unpaid prostitution by Chaldean gangsters, which one is the true ****? If a conscripted soldier and a psycho both shoot innocent people, which one is the true murderer? Between an 18th century slave in America and a wild cow, which on his the true plant killer?

If two people do the same thing but one of them only does so out of fear of punishment, the OTHER one is the one that deserves all the blame/praise. You need a threat of hell to be good, we just, kind of are.

So, the question is not "why don't atheists murder people" but "why do Christians need threats of hellfire to stop them from murdering people?"

Answer 6

Murder is wrong for two reasons: 1. humans evolved empathy; and 2. society can not function absent laws restricting the ability of one member to damage another. A similar question would be whether religion is the only thing preventing religious people from killing others. If so, then it says a lot about them as people: and not very nice things at that... and would encourage the theory that Atheists and Agnostics are more advanced as they can control themselves and exist in a society without the fear of an omnipotent being hanging over their heads.

Answer 7

I am an atheist and have come to this conclusion after studying religion very closely. I believe that we all have a right to believe what we want and to talk about it to other people, and that I also have that right. A lot of things that Christians say annoy me (for example the Pope saying people should not use condoms in AIDS infested areas) but I believe they have the right to say them. Jesus as a human being had a philosophy which is extremely sound. I do not accept that he was divine - in fact that spoils it a bit for me, because there is no kudos to doing what he was doing if he was a god, but his sacrifice and opposition to the hypocrisy of religion are more admirable if he was merely human. Again my point was that many Christians don't exactly follow his word - the Pope living in a big Palace for example, or hating homosexuals.

I am an atheist, but i do have a spiritual leaning towards certain moral and ethical codes that 'religion' has tried to make 'us' all abide by. Sadly, religion has been under the control of 'man' for far too long and the original messages have been abused, lost or altered to fit the biased views of small minded control freaks! As an atheist i do not believe in 'gods' or 'messiahs' - but there is a lot to learn from the basic principles of any faith.

Answer 8

Evolution has instilled in all social mammalian species an instinct/predisposition for empathy and altruism.

Combined and expressed in plain English: Do to others what you want done towards yourself.

This *IS* survival of the fittest, for social species.

------------------

The concept that we should terminate that which uses up resources that are needed for humanity, or to purge those with weakened genetics, hits multiple walls.

Social eugenics has already been tried, and proven to be a flawed system.

Since we do not know the full operation of the ecology of the planet, we may find that removing a species causes cascade damage that injures us. For example, if we killed off every plant but grain plants and grasses, and every animal save those we use for companionship and food, the ecosystem becomes very very narrow and thus highly susceptible to disease and die off -- and since we'd have removed other options, we'd be up shtuff creek without a paddle.

Eliminating genetic disease is a worthy goal, however, all people have some form of human potential -- it is in our best interest to continue to increase the human potential as best we can, as a species. This is survival of the socially fittest, even if it allows genetically inferior persons to survive. Further, some mutations and diseases have positive side effects. Sickle cell anemia, for example, is very bad when the person is double-recessive for it ... they develop sickle cell anemia. However, someone heterozygous sickle and normal, is highly resistant to malaria. This opens up avenues of research. Genetic illness, then, can be of medical importance and discovery, despite the limiting effects on the individual.

So no, social eugenics is not moral under the combined concept of the golden rule and survival of the fittest.

Answer 9

1 Do as to others as you would be done by yourself.

I do not want someone murdering, raping, robbing, conning, etc. me or my family, so if I want society to protect me it must then protect everyone.

They come from rational thought and the morals of a successful society.


These rules do not come from god. They are simply rules for successful societies. The tribes where the priests - AKA gods- said it is O.K. to murder etc. died out and were replaced by the ones with more successful laws.

If this sounds like evolution it is. Richard Dawkins introduced the concept of a meme as a cultural equivalent of a biological gene.

Successful memes propagate across societies, bad ones die out. Much of our morality comes from these memes.

Also when you look at societies in terms of evolution of memes rather than laws in stone, you can see how and why the laws change.

In a desert environment, with poor storage and cooking eating shellfish and pork is a good way to get sick. By Roman times, societies had a better handle on how to handle and cook foods and these laws were bad (they removed a food supply form society.).

We need to see that a changing environment for our society means that our memes (laws, morals etc.) should change and adapt to those changes.

Answer 10

Not an atheist but the answer to your question lies in the 10 commandments..that's right. Did you know the egyptian book of the dead has 9 of the 10 commandments similarly written?? Going back even further, did you knw the summerians had their own version?

Because without those basic commandments, how could a tribe, a village, a town, or country thrive without going into total chaos?

Basis for morality is tied with the basic need to coexist in groups.

Answer 11

hate to answer any question with a quote. But it seems so very fitting.

Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion of the human race has ever been expressed.
--Robert G. Ingersoll

there is nothing sadder than a person who is "good" only because they expect reward, or fear retribution if they are not.