Atheists, are morals relative?

Question

If our morals are internal, biological, societal, or self-imposed, how can we impose them on others? or expect them from others?

David M: What if my society and moral code says that rape is okay, do you have the right to say I'm wrong?

Answer 1

It's a good question. An Atheistic worldview has a problem explaining, morals in any meaningful way.

They say "well it's common sense" or "it's logical". Common sense for who? Logical for who? Do you need to poll the people of the world to come up with morals? Who is to say we must follow one person's common sense or the majority of the world population's common sense? Who's to say we even need to be bond by common sense?

So why do Athesists have an absolute sense of right and wrong? Christianity has the answer. God has written the 10 commandments on everyones (including Athesists) hearts and while they are obscured to some degree they basically do know right from wrong. This morality which is on your heart is inward evidence of the Christian God.

Answer 2

First off morals are for the good of a society or culture and there are common morals found around the world and added detail is not a logical one. In all societies there are rules against rape, murder, incest and other abuses. Atheists have morals just like everyone else even though there is no strict doctrine concerning a universal moral code.

A little extra: Atheists have low divorce rate and one of the lowest murder rate and crime rate can any theist group make those claims.

Answer 3

Totsie morals are socially constructed hence what was morally 5 decades ago may not applu today. The basis of religion or the 10 commandments are a good starting point towards being a good human being but is that to say that before moses brought down the commandments all ppl were immoral??? And in terms of imposing certain morals on other, isn't that what you do everytime you tell atheists they are wrong for not believing??? the basis of our morals are based on universal truths, anything outside that is a perverted and currupted version of it. with your rape example, in order for that to be acceptable by a society they'd have to assume that female is second to men and that it is ok to invade ones body through means of violence hence opposing the universal moral code of conduct

Answer 4

Morals are based on what the majority of normal, reasonable people inherently know doesn't cause others hurt or pain. There are some people out there, who for one reason or another, (mental illness, etc.) don't have the capacity to know or care whether they are hurting someone else, and that does give us a right to impose morals. (Rape, child molestation, murder, stealing, physical abuse, etc.)
If the "morals" are based on something that someone has in their mind is "wrong", but they can't give a good, legitimate reason WHY it is wrong, (as it isn't hurting anyone) then it's not really a "moral" issue at all. It's an opinion issue. That's different. (Homosexuality, inter-racial relationships, using birth control, etc.)

Answer 5

They're fundamentally instinctive, and part of society's glue.

The basic Golden Rule should be common to everyone, and *by the rule itself* should be imposed on any mutant who doesn't have it.

The rest of morality is far more dodgy because of its learned and interpreted nature. Only be referral back to the Golden Rule is it possible to decide which aspects of morality are worthy of imposition on everyone - like taxes - or suitable to be decided by the individual - like suicide.

But in reality such self-referential cross-checking is rare. Too many other *immoral* instincts are competing.

CD

Your rape question is interesting. Rape is a zero-sum game, and western society has decided - fairly universally - that the pain caused to the victim far outweighs whatever pleasure the rapist receives. Only ZSGs in which very many people benefit greatly will tip that balance. And entire army will risk horrible death to save a single syjmpathetic hostage, for example.

Answer 6

How can we impose are morals on others? By using authority
Expecting morals from others? by either agreeing or disagreeing with their actions or ideas.

Laws of rape in the Old Testament.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

Answer 7

Yes, morals are relative. They definitely come from nature and nurture, society and culture.

And indeed, you are right, that implies that if you live in a society that thinks rape is okay, I have no right to try and change it. However, if you live in a society where males think rape is okay, and woman don't really like it and are suppressed by that, I do have the right to impose my morals on that society.

Morals are, in the end, also object to 'survival of the fittest'.

Answer 8

Your moral code and my moral code may be completely different,but I think,at least I hope,you can agree with me that rape,murder and child molestation,crimes of that nature,are totally immoral.The only people who see nothing wrong with this type of behavior are the ones who are actually committing these horrendous crimes.If each individual were allowed to decide on their own what is and is not socially and morally acceptable, who's to say these deplorable acts wouldn't become a "way of life" for some,because there is no moral law to inhibit them.Is that really the kind of society you wish live in just so you can say noone tells me what is moral and what is not? Is it really that important to you?

Answer 9

MORALITY IS A PERCEPTION

To understand what you are asking we must first accept that we (everyone) make decisions on whether or not an act is good or evil by basing it on what we "perceive" as good and evil; or put another way, - on what we see as giving us pleasure and/or allowing us to avoid displeasure.

However, mankind has developed 'expectations' from those within a family, clan, tribe, etc... These expectations help insure the group's survival by maintaining its strength in numbers; a typical "herd" mentality.

Over time, these expectations became more defined as groups merged with one another; today we recognize these expectations by labels such as "tradition", "custom",...and "LAW" (it is not a coincidence that common laws stem from holy writs, such as The Bible and the Koran, for it is within these writs that some of the first written "moral expectations" are found).

So you see, it is the implementation of LAWS (reward and punishment) which have had a 'conditioning' effect on man, --- allowing most of us the choice to avoid the possibility of displeasure (punishment) by curbing those pleasure-seeking drives which have been deemed illegal (read "illegal" as "evil").

In his book HUMAN, ALL TOO HUMAN, Nietzsche writes:
"... No cruel man is SO cruel as he whom he has misused believes; the idea of pain is not the same thing as the suffering of it. The same applies to the unjust judge, to the journalist who misleads public opinion with petty untruths. Cause and effect are in all these cases surrounded by quite different groups of thoughts and sensations; while one involuntarily presupposes that doer and sufferer think and feel the same and, in accordance with this presupposition, assesses the guilt of the one by the pain of the other."

Answer 10

I think there are no absolute morals. Correct moral behavior depends on the surrounding context. For example, it is generally immoral to kill another human being, but it may be moral in some circumstances to kill a deranged human who is attempting to kill others, if that is the only reasonable way to prevent him from killing innocent people.

Even the mythical god Jehovah who is considered the source of absolute morals routinely violated those morals. He also condoned morals that may have been widely accepted 2000 years ago (or even 200 years ago) that we now universally reject as immoral (e.g. slavery). I claim that even though I am a moral-relativist in the eyes of most Christians, that I am more moral than Jehovah.

Much of our moral behavior is 'hard-wired' into our brains/bodies/hormones from millions of years of evolution as species who survived by virtue of being cooperative & social. However, as intelligent animals, we can also reason about fairness and justice. We can even develop mathematical models of fairness, and use those models to inform our behavior and beliefs. I try to do all of these things.