If there were only two atheists left in the world, would they get to decide what is morally correct?

Question

Let's say the entire population was reduced to a single man and woman, and neither one believed in a god.

Now there is no more higher power, or a society from which to derive moral or social ethics. At this point, they get to choose, and they have the ultimate moral power - to decide if the human species goes on, or goes extinct.

Does this not give them the right to decide what is morally correct for all humans that follow, since they were the life givers to the "new" human species.

If you say no, is this not the same exact power you are granting to your god?

Doesn't this prove that humans, and ONLY HUMANS should get to decide what is moral and ethical for our species?

Answer 1

They only have to please each other.

The real purpose of morality is just to allow people to live in relative peace near each other. That purpose is a naturally derived one. Those societies that didn't figure out how to live together perished.

Religious superstition really has little to add to the subject.

Answer 2

I think that, in this case ... A) their decision making power would only last for so long, rebels would eventually spring up - it is an inevitable human trait ... And B) It actually would not matter because two are not enough to produce a viable dna and gene pool - humanity would be riddled with abnormalities and defects before they got to the point of becoming a society once again. They would de-evolve or, more probably, die. And C) if they did, they would surely do a far better job than the christians, since the christians claim that they created marriage as well as christmas and morals, and now ***** that something is seriously wrong with all the above.

Answer 3

Ummm what? If there were 2 people left in the world who were christians does that give them the right to make moral decisions? Why? They are not the majority of the world. The truth is there's 2 people freakin' left alive!! lol they can do w/e they want.

Answer 4

Only humans EVER get to decide what is moral and ethical for our species. That's the way it has always been.

Answer 5

Ahhh, my friend. You are a scion of faith. You believe that just because the population is all be absent from the scene that there is no higher power(?), no more society(?), no more ethics(?) To believe that these things will cease to exist with a dwindling of population is to have great faith, indeed.

I think that if you check the definition of any of those elements, you will see that they each have some existential independence aside from just being emergent results from a "whole bunch of people".

Answer 6

Of course I would do what is natural. propagate the species. My morals would be based on what I was previously taught. Since you said "left on earth".

I'm not a Christian, I just follow what I believe.

Answer 7

If there are two people, they are all of society. Whatever they do to preserve society is moral. It does not matter how they accomplish this or what their prior beliefs are. Should they succeed, the rules they set may no longer apply when the new society becomes larger.

Answer 8

Who cares.

Your need for a moral compass does not prove the existence of sky-daddy.

Answer 9

Considering that the society they created would most likely be quite primitive under the circumstances a religion would most likely surface just as it did with earlier man.

Answer 10

If the last two people on earth were atheists and God didn't make his presence known to them...then would that not be proof that he didn't exist? If he existed, he would let them know it.

atheist