Atheists: is "what's good for me is moral" a good foundation for morality?

Question

Once you're not worried about what God wants, you can wonder about what a real moral compass would be.

I suggest that "what's good for me is moral" is a good basis.

Obviously, it has appeal because people like to do what is good for them. Selfishness has it's perks.

However this is not as "bad" as many would like to pretend it is. Following this doctrine, I wouldn't steal, because stealing leads to jail. Ditto murder, etc. I wouldn't use crack because I am smart enough to know being a crack addict is not a long term plan to self-fulfillment.

Loving others can result in love returned, which is good for me. Even better, there is no reason to waste my time loving ungrateful people who will not return it.

Comments?

Please, Christians and others, I respect your questions that say "For Christians" or "For Muslims" etc, so do not troll here unless you have something genuinely constructive to say.

Answer 1

That's what Aristotle proposed, but Plato and Socrates professed a belief in a more certain morality, that existed regardless of its fruits. So did later Greek philosophers.

I think people get too much into the whole moral compass thing. For me, common sense is good enough.

Answer 2

It is a good basis, but I think that the 'me' in it needs to be exchanged for 'most people'. Selfishness is great, but it only takes a person so far. If you don't kill because you don't wish to go to jail, you're missing the point of not killing. One shouldn't commit such a crime because human life is precious and holds great value, and respect for that fact is what should keep us from committing homicide. We shouldn't steal because each and every time we do someone else has to pay for what we stole. We shouldn't do crack because it is incredibly bad for our brains and might well end up killing us, plus if we buy crack it promotes the whole supply and demand thing and we end up partially responsible for all those little kids that end up being cajouled into trying it too, and become addicted.

So, the whole "What's good for me" thing does have its values but it can be entirely misconstrued.

I vote for "act towards others and things in the same manner that you wish them to act towards you"...

Answer 3

There is more to morality than what is good for you. You just proved a simple point with your crack reference by pointing out long term over short term. Take God out of the picture, and you can build a good moral system on the concept of working towards the greatest happiness of the people.

Answer 4

But that requires lavish external controls; i.e. a police state. Many agnostic sociologists still regard religion as a more effective and humane way to motivate good behavior. The only alternative to a "self-policing" value system is fear of punishment; and that involves a potential for capture. So you must have extensive police controls. That's why most atheist societies are police staes,China being an excellent example.

Answer 5

Not an atheist but cant resist. I disagree with you because this leads to people taking advantage of others when they wont be caught or punished. However, from what I've observed, religions and moral value systems almost never stop people from doing selfish things anyways. Those people just find a way to rationalize around it. So kind of a moot point.

Answer 6

No, what's good for people and society as a whole...that's what I would consider to be moral. Selfishness has perks only for the one who is selfish, and even then, not always, and not for long. I've found that people who are selfish tend to be the most unhappy, and that selfishness always comes back to bite them in the rear eventually.

Answer 7

"What is good for society and the individuals in it is ethical."

Would be better.

You are assuming that society has already set up rules. But those rules need to be determined.

It is good for me to be able to steal, cheat, lie, etc., but for nobody else to be allowed to do the same. But that is bad for society. This is why feudal societies have died out in the west.


Whether you should be allowed to benefit yourself above others gets into politics. Obviously to be able to totally exploit others for your own profit (pure capitalism) is unethical and a detriment to society overall. But to spread wealth equally (pure socialism) results in the benefit of the lazy in the society, which is again bad for the society overall.

There needs to be a compromise where people can advance themselves though their own effort, but still help those that need help and ethical treatment. There is much debate as to exactly where that optimal point is.

Answer 8

Im a Muslim. No trolling I promise. :)

The premise of faith in God is, in the event that you harm someone, you can hide from them, you can run and hide from the law, therefore avoiding jail, and any prosecution, but you cant hide from God. Who will eventually make you pay for what you've done to others.

This is my Islamic point of view, we worship the One God who we cannot see, but who we know sees us.

And surely you know, any man who is smart enough to concoct ideas to hurt others, is smart enough to know he can always deceive humans.

I rather think a person who thinks such as yourself, just does not consider what the lowest of the low in humanity are willing to do for money, and what may I be so bold to say, be the majority of humans.

Answer 9

Looking at human history and the various forms of social control up to modern day religions all have the same purpose, control. What many do not understand is that we as humans take the basic concept concept of social control and give it many names and ideas, morality is one of them. But it is essential, it has been determined that emotions such as sympathy evolved in humans for a reason, and the other forms as well, like empathy, compassion, love, all serve a social purpose. What is morality to an atheist? its the same for him or her as it is for anyone,it is only the interpretation and its source that are debated. So you are right, in that what is good for me is good for others. It is one of the first social mechanisms in our early human ancestors.

Answer 10

There is a lot to say for the idea of egoism. But I do think there is more to the human character. We do have a sense of compassion. We do care about our fellow man. It is to our benefit to us to care for others, and so we should.