Ok, atheists- Do you believe there is right and wrong?

Question

Who makes that call? If you believe in Darwin, who taught survival of the fittest, why is it wrong for a man to kill another man if he wants what he has? A lion will kill a gazelle, but we don't set up holocaust museums for gazelles. Yet we do for humans. What man has the right to declare it's not right to steal or kill? Darwinism teaches us that you do what you have to, to survive.

Answer 1

First to say, particularly if you are under 20, you have asked a very intuitive question for one raised in a religious environment. I'm pleased of this and unlike others i encourage such questioning! So thanks for the opportunity to give you an answer from an atheistic perspective.

Right and wrong does not exist for atheists in the way that it does for christians, morality is not for us, in the form of a man handing down immortal commandments from a mountain and is not instilled in us from the fear of punishment or the expectation of eternal reward. A morality for us, is developed in the same way a morality is developed in a community of monkeys- we have found through research. Forgive me for getting undergraduate on you, but i have no idea of your level of education, but, in the first state of man (as the old philosophers called it), as babies, we are at our most vulnerable, we only are allowed to exist because of the love of our parents- we only get what we want because our parents love us, we learn quickly to acheive our goals socially, by crying or making noises with our mouths... thus humans are introduced at their inception to something a clever man once called a 'social contract'. This social contract tells us that we are dealing in our lives, and to the achievement of our goals, with other human beings. These people need social signs, and we have the power to reward others for services, socially. We learn intuitively that when we hurt or upset other humans, we do not achieve our goals- intrinsic to this lesson comes the lesson of empathy, which others have mentioned.

Empathy is one of the first things we learn, it is a necessity. And the foundation of developed morality, empathy is a life-skill because, in order to know how to achieve our social goals we must understand the motivations of others, we learn how to selfishly empathise as young babies by seeing the effect our crying or happiness has on others. A person who has the ability to empathise cannot hate others, cannot condemn others to a fate that they themselves would not want for them, in fact, one could translate the christian golden rule as a rule derived from empathy, we know what we wouldn't want done to us, and we recognise that other humans are like us in some way and therefore we would not inflict a fate on others that we ourselves would not want.

However Empathy is a lesson that so many forget due to later social conditioning. One thing many atheists feel disparaged about by christians for example, is the lack of empathy percieved by athiests that christians have for homosexuals. Long before scientific research on identical twins taught us that homosexuality was genetic or 'god's choice', anyone could ask a gay person whether they were born gay, and they would have answered emphatically with a 'yes'. However religious dogma has obscured the lesson that empathy taught people tens of thousands of years ago- because the book of leviticus states the God hates homosexuality, and incidentally, that the author hates it too!

So i will say, there is a right and wrong, Long before the Torah was written, people lived in communities. One need only look at social animals like monkeys and wolves and see that in their own social circle exists a morality and a law- however different or more 'barbaric' then our own and that this law is based on the need to socially achieve our own selfish goals in our society and also, through the recognition that each member of a tribe or social group carries the same 'entity', and has the same reactions as others in the same group.

Through empathy, through appreciating other human beings as being worth every bit as much as we are, as having their own unique experiences and understanding there lies the most sophisticated form of morality- one that transcends the written words of bronze-age tribesmen and ancient prophets. Through empathy lies a divine morality.

Answer 2

Let's see if I get this right. Why is it wrong for a man to kill another man if he has what he wants.A lion will kill a gazelle.
For Money? What? Evolution says survival of the fittest.
I'm surmising that you are a "christian"
Do you think you have the inside track on morality. Check with ALL the worlds MAJOR religions. They ALL have the inside track on MORALITY. According to them!
Not being one, from what I've seen atheists are so much more moral than most fundes. They don't think it's OK to lie to get their point across

Answer 3

the theory of evolution says nothing about what we SHOULD do, it is simply a description, not a prescription. Also, it is quite possible for a basic sense of morality to evolve if you remember that animals that live in groups tend to live in family groups (ie: with other animals that share a portion of their DNA), since evolution works on DNA rather then individual animals, a gene that make an animal less likely to kill members of it's group (pack, flock, whatever) could spread throughout the population. More intelligent social animals (chimpanzees especially) have been seen to have a sense of fairness which presumably evolved because it made them work better in groups.

Humans, being intelligent enough to look into the future and judge what the long-term consequences of our actions will be, and to reason what would be the best for us and our family and friends, can use that to expand our morality. We also possess the knowledge that each other person has thoughts and desires of his own and we can appreciate what he would like. I could go around offing people but I don't because I don't want to live in a society where everybody goes around offing people, and because those people are intelligent, feeling people, that have loved ones who would be upset if they got offed.Also, I might get caught and go to jail but that's not the main reason I don't off people.

In short, morality comes from our history as social animals, our ability to think ahead and refrain from acting on immediate impulses when those immediate impulses could cause problems for us or others in the long term, and empathy for other thinking beings.

Answer 4

I am beyond tired of this line of reasoning. First of all, there is no such thing as "Darwinism." Darwin is not a god, prophet, spirit, or whatever else you want to accuse him of being.

Second: yes, Darwin taught that animals kill each other without regard to empathy. He didn't teach that this was a good or a bad thing, he simply taught that it happens. Evolution is NOT some sort of offer of morality for you to go ahead and kill things, or some way to justify your doing it.

Evolution explains what happens in nature. Period. Whether you're uncomfortable with it, disgusted by it, skeptical of it, squeamish about it, love it, fart on it, or are indifferent toward it, it's still true. And no amount of "but it's immoral!" is ever going to change that. Darwin DIDN'T CARE.

Answer 5

Ok , non-freethinker... Yes, I do think there is right and wrong; moreover, I happen to understand why I do and how I do.
( I wonder if we share the same depth of understanding? )

First of all... I really doubt that there is anyone around who believes "in" Darwin. Darwin had a good theory and it has been built upon to become a standard and an accepted part of modern scientific thinking.... but believing his work to be true and believing "in" him carry different connotations, don't they? It's not like anyone sees him as a "god."

Now for right and wrong... These are terms that have relative meaning according to the moral standards of a society. In a society that agrees it is moral to hunt humans and eat them, as it is in some cannibal tribes of New Guinea, it is not "wrong" to kill a fellow human. In our modern western cultures you will find that killing a fellow human is also not wrong - it is morally accepted for the state to call for the death of some individuals who have been considered unacceptable to society for reasons of crime and it is morally correct to kill at times of war.... additionally, it is morally correct to defend ones own life by taking another, etc., etc.. So is it wrong to kill... "No" and "Yes" I must judge each situation and so must you and everyone else. The "Right" and the "Wrong" of any situation or act is not a static thing... it is relative and decided by each of us AND all of us.

So... now that we have somewhere to start, do you think its right or wrong to kill another person???? Is there ever a time when it's right...? Is it a relative notion... or is it fixed and inflexible.? Both right and wrong can be right or wrong. It's all in how it is viewed.

Finally... I suspect that I probably have the same moral values as you do if you are from a modern westernized society or if you are at least not from a New Guinea tribe. Morals are not decided by gods or religions... they are the products of the majority of minds and common behaviors of a group of people, a society, and not the products of any fantasy driven beliefs or gods.

(I have the distinct feeling that I ought to add the words, "Grow up" ... I wonder why that is? )
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb62/Randall_Fleck/Worth_reading_GIF.gif
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb62/Randall_Fleck/Confidence_GIF.gif

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 6

First of all, I'm a Christian and I think that evolution is true like all other widely accepted science. Some science in any field may in the future turn out not to be true; it is not religion for anyone and nobody holds onto it like a doctrine. And no...Darwinism is also different from religion because it isn't preaching to us how things should be...it is just explaining how they are in the animal world.

Answer 7

Yes.it's called enlightened self interest. We all want a world in which it is safe to live and bring up our children.
Society developed to that stage long before anyone thought of inventing christianity.
The great civilisations of Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece would have been impossible without some sort of ethical guide lines and laws.
If you want to drag the Holocaust into your argument , this was carried out in a christian country by people who often went to church.

Answer 8

um...

i think you have looked at that at a bit of a skewed angle!

i am sure that there was a time in our distant history when we DID kill each other for survival.
but if you have grasped the concept of evolution, you will understand that it is related to progression.

a lion kills a giraffe in order to eat it and feed her family. a lion will not gather all the giraffes in the area and slaughter them because she thinks they are evil or because they do not fit in with her concept of who should populate the world. a lion does not hunt and kill for sport.

genocide is a particularly human trait, born out of intense fear, arrogance, ignorance and immense ego. most animals do not not develop those traits. most animals kill to eat to survive.

man kills man these days over petty issues such as oil, gold, diamonds, power etc.
most humans do not kill each other over what they want - otherwise many neighbours would have been killed by each other over issues such as their spouses, cars, BBQ s, trainers etc.
instead the humans in power send the rest of us out to kill for them, often under the pretence of some humanitarian issue, but in reality it is all about wealth and power.

lions, et al, do not consider such base and trivial matters. they need to survive and feed their families.
perhaps we should be looking to the animal kingdom in that respect!

therefore, your argument does not hold water i am afraid.

blessed be
)o(

Answer 9

I think most, if not all, social animals have developed and honed their altruistic traits over time.

The reason for humans to mourn or recognize the death of fellow humans is probably the same reason why elephants show interest and emotion when they encounter the skeletal remains of other elephants.

Answer 10

Thanks, I think I will have a nightcap.

Darwin never claimed to be teaching ethics; in fact he was rather concerned about the moral and religious implication of what he had learned. What you're talking about is a simplistic version of social Dawinism, none of which is in any way implied by atheism. One point, though, for knowing the plural of atheist.