Please, from an Atheist perspective. A question on morality.?

Question

Firstly. If you send an answer that attacks me then you show the weakness in the Atheist movement and ideology.
I am genuinely curious and I don't want idiots or narrow-minded morons answering this question.

Secondly: If you are a Theist with an absolute rulebook (Christian, Muslim, ect) then please don't answer this question.
If you are a Theist without an absolute rulebook then please answer as well.

My question is: If something is right because I believe it is right then why is it right? If someone else disagrees with it how could it be right?
Let me give you an example: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM or female circumcision) is a practice that is despised by many people, but there are countries why say it is normal, good or right for this to be done. How can we in the west say it is wrong and how is it wrong just because we say so?

Example 2: The death penalty. The US has it in some states but not others, how can it be right in some states but not in others?

With the death penalty I mean:
If one state says it's ok to have the death penalty and another says it's not ok then who is right? Does it matter? And if it doesn't matter then how do we make decisions in our own life regarding what we do or don't do?

I know we have 'empathy' and all that but so do people who have practices that I would consider barbaric. Why am I right and they wrong? And what about actions that they consider barbaric that I do (like getting women to shave under their arms or whatever)?

Answer 1

Well I wouldn’t say that something “is right because I believe it is right” any more than I would say something “is true because I believe it is true”. But then neither does something being true or ethical necessarily make those facts available to us. The two issues are separate and to confuse them breaks the fifth philosophical commandment:

“Thou shalt not conflate relativism and scepticism. For to do that is post-modernist.”

Scepticism says that you cannot know something. Relativism denies that that something is objectively there. My well worn demonstration is to ask you to flip a coin and cover it without looking at it. Is it heads or tails? You don’t know (scepticism) but it is one or the other (objectivity). Notice that if you had bet on the coin being heads and thus heads was very desirable it wouldn’t effect the position of the coin: what makes it true or false is separate from what we think or want.

Now, as far as ethics and a lack of God is concerned, the atheist is in a sceptical position. The lack of commandments from God makes it very tricky to figure out what is right and what is wrong, just as “not looking” makes it tricky to see whether the coin is heads or tails. An act can, never-the-less BE right or wrong just as the coin IS heads or tails.

The atheist doesn’t have God to tell him what’s ethical. This would be useful. Unfortunately its usefulness makes no difference. It may be desirable for God to exist but that desirability no more makes Him exist that wanting that coin to be heads makes it heads.

I actually think that the theist is in a worse position than the atheist. Firstly he still hasn’t got a source for morality. He can define it as “what God wants”. Unfortunately that doesn’t establish God’s wishes as moral without the PRIOR ethical judgement that “what God wants is good”. Even accepting that we have, as you have pointed out, severe difficulties. The wishes of God are not directly available to us. Sure all religious traditions claim to be revelations of God’s wishes. Unfortunately they say differing things, they thus contradict each other and cannot possibly all be true. At most one religious tradition can be consistent and thus at most one religious tradition can be true.

Now religious tradition “A” says female circumcision is fine, most others say its barbaric. How do you decide? You can’t decide on the basis of God’s commandments because you don’t have knowledge of God’s commandments outside these traditions. The only way I see of deciding is to say:
1. God would say the right thing
2. Female circumcision is clearly wrong
3. Therefore religious tradition “A” cannot be from God
Of course here I am not using theism to inform ethics, I am using ethics to decide theism!

Neither tradition has a clear basis for ethics: but that shouldn’t lead to relativism.

Answer 2

Secondly: I'm a loosely religious polytheist with an atheist father. Hopefully that helps

Everyone has their own moral code. Even Adolf Hitler, even serial killers. They believed something was "right". Everyone has a different moral compass...society is what judges whether it is socially acceptable and legal. Generally, I subscribe to the ideology of Wiccans and other pagans "If it harms no one, do what you will"

This counts for harming yourself, as well. So for FGM, I'd have to go with that being wrong, unless there was a clear benefit from the mutilation/circumcision like there is for male circumcision (or like there used to be, anyway...hygeine has advanced to the point that it's debatable).

As for why the west (or east) judges people, it's pretty simple...people are often closed-minded and arrogant, as a collective. "A person is smart. People are dumb." --Men In Black

Again, it's a question of legality and the structure of the USA more than actual morality. Because the USA has such a delicate balance of sovereignty between the national and state governments, states can decide on their individual laws on some things, and must obey the national restrictions on others. So, just because Texas fully embraces the use of its death penalty doesn't mean other states must do the same thing. Particularly states where severe problems with the corporal punishment have been found...I believe it was the governor of Missouri who said "I shall no longer tinker with the machinery of death" after several innocent men were executed.

Answer 3

What is right or wrong, moral or immoral, is a matter of personal opinion and must constantly be subject to review. As an example, capital punishment is thought to be correct (by some people) because it is thought to be a deterrent to crime. However, there is no conclusive proof that this is true.

The practice of sati was common in India a hundred years ago and was a well-established tradition in India till the 19th century. It is frowned upon now (and against the law), but a few hundred cases still occur every year.

FGM is thought to have originated about 6000 years ago for social and cultural reasons. Parents who insist on FGM for their daughters are seen as loving and caring. I personally think it is cruel. It is not practiced in the West and the West sees it as barbaric.

Many countries have banned the death penalty. Some countries have the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for over 10 years. Some countries might view the death penalty as a barbaric punishment as well. There is always the possibility that convicted prisoners might have been mentally unstable or been coerced into confessing to crimes they did not commit.

Answer 4

As a rule I base my morality on whether it victimizes someone else. To use your example of Female Genital Mutilation,why would I consider it immoral regardless of the fact that some cultures advocate it? Because it victimizes the girl,plain and simple. First off there is there is usually no anesthesia,therefore it is extremely painful,and unlike male circumcision it is not always done early on when any pain felt will not be remembered by the person as an adult. Secondly it again victimizes the girl by the fact that it will greatly decrease any sexual pleasure she may get later in life due to the removal of the clitoris,thus turning her into nothing more than a pleasure device and baby machine for her husband, which is of course the intent of the act really,just one more way for those who clearly seem to despise women to use and victimize them in certain societies.

Whereas with the death penalty I see no victim,the victim in every death penalty case has already payed the ultimate price.What is wrong with society demanding that the victimizer also pay the ultimate price? I call it justice,and if some choose to not enforce that justice that's their business, although I find it rather repulsive when society essentially places a higher value on the lives of those who victimize others,than they apparently place on the lives of their victims.

AD

Answer 5

The first question is easy. It's cultural differences. Look at food. Some cultures think grubs and body bits are delicacies, but find "our foods" like cheese disgusting. They think of it as bad milk. FGM is a problem in the UK at the moment, but not in other areas so it all depends on the culture. Some may be against it, but it still boils down to the majority.

Second question is that the states have the right to decide certain issues on a state level without federal approval. One of the factors of the civil war was state's rights. Here again it depends on the majority of the people and their representatives whether or not it is allowed or not.

The questions are more about government and morals than religion in general though.

Answer 6

Morality isn't approximately genetic evolution, and it isn't grounded in faith. Morality is a social assemble: it's the algorithm which a society adopts and imposes on each and every citizen to be able to advertise a steady and effective society. Morals don't require a supernatural entity to make sure their enforcement, regardless that it's totally possible as to why persons might suppose the sort of factor. Ultimately, persons wish to understand that justice is served, that immoral persons are punished whilst persons who act morally aren't. However, that is accurately what the crook justice method is for. Flawed regardless that it can be, that is all now we have. I uncover it interesting that the argument coming from theists approximately morality constantly assumes that the perpetrator "knew for a reality he/she would escape with it." In reality, it's in no way a warranty that a man or woman will "escape with" against the law they pick to dedicate, and a crook constantly assumes the hazard of publicity and incarceration after they make their offerings.

Answer 7

I think there is a universal right and wrong on things, but what keeps us from understanding those rights and wrongs is our biases--which are conditioned by our perspectives (being cultural or otherwise).

So, I think there is an answer to whether or not the death penalty is right or wrong, or right in some cases, and wrong in others. The same goes for FGM, and what not. To discover the answers we'd all need to be perfectly phenomenological and probably a lot wiser than we are.

So, something isn't neccessarily good because you believe it is, it's good and right because it conforms to goodness and righteousness. Trying to figure out what goodness and righteousness is one of the greates pursuits in life.

Answer 8

well, it's evolution. some of the ways of the world are still living by traditional ancient times, some don't. Some people evolve, for the better. parts of the world have evolved standards. Our system is improved significantly. We know more. We're certainly not perfect, we have a ways to go before we leave the first phase of humankind.

What was not wrong before: child labor, rape, beating the spouce, animal cruelty, child abuse and sexual abuses, a numerous other things. Such as cruel and unusual punishment and execution.

We've evolved a long way and so have our morals.

Answer 9

I don't see how this concerns atheism or any other group. Morality is something you decide for yourself. Of course you will be influenced by environment including religion. But there is no absolute evil, no absolute good. Examine why these things are being practised and make up your own mind. FGM is used by men to control women and in my eyes is evil. So is the death penalty. But they are just the way I feel.

Answer 10

i am an athesist and I think you don't need to be a theist to have morality. i think it is your surrounding enviroments in which affect you. like that is why you may be raised in a different country with a different mindset, so you think FGM is ok. I think nobody can be right, cause no one will ever know what right is. People just use theories to shape themselves. like the theory of death penalty and theory of mutilation. so NOBODY is ever RIGHT.