What do atheists think about Absolute Morality?

Question

I will agree with you that there are certain cultural differences and minor moral details that people need to be taught. However, I am yet to hear a half-decent explanation for why every culture has similar morals. No culture has ever admired those who run from battle, or those who torture children. I don't think any other explanation for these can be found than an Absolute sense of morality that God placed in us. (Please keep responses clean and to the point)

Answer 1

There are indeed natural explanations for morality.

Running from battle shows weakness. Showing weakness makes it more likely that others will try to take advantage of you, and whether you are actually weak or not, the more attempts to attack you are made, the more likely you are to die.

Torturing children - well, actually, plenty of cultures have engaged in child sacrifice and torture. Ancient religions engaged in child sacrifices and more recent cultures have killed children accused of witchcraft.

Morality is relative. There is no moral that is shared universally. Even murder is defined differently by different cultures and is justified in different ways.

However, there are certain morals that a large portion of humanity shares, "murder is wrong" being one of the most obvious, where murder is defined as killing another human on purpose (excluding the death penalty and defense of self, property, or loved ones).

And evolution explains this.

Societies evolved because it is easier for us to survive by helping one another in a give and take sort of way than it is to survive on one's own.

Individuals who treat others as they want to be treated - that is, they don't kill, lie, steal, betray, deceive, etc. - function in those societies.

Individuals who do kill, lie, steal, etc. are mistrusted, shunned and possibly punished, imprisoned, or executed. They risk losing the survival benefits of being a member in good standing in their society.

Also look into game theory and "the prisoner's dilemma". Googling either will give you plenty of results.

Answer 2

I don't feel that there is a such thing as absolute morality. I feel that if something is moral then is should be able to be supported by logic. I also do not feel that it was god who gave us morality, but rather morality is a combination of our own rational thoughts and various "environmental" influences that have shaped our individual behaviors.

There are people who do things that seem immoral to some, but not to others. Clearly, this sort of contradiction would not be present in a omnipotent god-produced conscience. It is much more reasonable to think that some people(s) do what they feel is right based on the time and conditions that are present.

Your question suggests that the people who god placed his morality in (namely those of whatever religion X belongs to) are morally correct when there are numerous examples of immoral acts committed by "good" people in the name of religious morality. So, there cannot be such a thing, and in my opinion what is or is not moral can change given a particular situation.

Answer 3

A culture whose warriors run from battle would be conquered and assimilated. There are cultures that torture their children-or at least some of them. Think of FGM, foot binding, etc. There are a few 'moral' precepts that are found throughout cultures-but they are the ones that are probably impossible to run a culture without. If these moral precepts came from some inner source, wouldn't there be far more similarities between the moral codes of various cultures?

Answer 4

I actually had a really indepth discussion with my husband about this last night. It was like roleplay. I was playing the part of a believer, and he was being himself.... well that's a long story.

Anyway, the conclusion we came to is that good morals are necessary for society to function. It just makes sense that if it's ok to kill others, someone can kill you, so maybe it's just best to accept that nobody should. Same goes for stealing, lying, etc. Even when looking at this from a religious standpoint, I don't feel morals a necessary thing for any higher power to have placed in man. After being killed, robbed and lied to, we would have figured it out anyway.

Answer 5

I'm afraid you're wrong.

First, morality is by no means uniform. Certain societies for instance place no value on the lives of non-members. Certain societies place no value on the freedom of the individual. In certain societies murder is an acceptable solution to certain interpersonal problems. In certain societies, slavery is acceptable, as is rape.

But certain values are almost universal because societies that fail to share those morals have been destroyed or assimilated. If, for instance, a society failed to shun a soldier who ran from the field of battle, the predictable result would be that the military of that society wouldn't be able to resist invaders, and the culture would disappear. Likewise, a society that failed to protect its children would soon vanish. It's not necessary to resort to a man in the sky to explain this stuff.

Answer 6

What do atheists think about Absolute Morality?

Truth is they don't, because they cannot.

Morality (Right & wrong, good & evil, etc.) comes from God alone. And with morality come consequences (both good and/or bad). Example: If you kill someone in "cold blood" and you will go to jail (maybe even be punished by God himself.) Many civilized societies have based many of their rules and laws upon these views of Morality.

Atheists and their many like partners can only subscribe to evolution (which is survival of the fittest). There is no morality in evolution. With evolution there are no consequences. Example: If you kill someone in "cold blood", it doesn't matter, heck you could ever kill as many people as you like just because.......you feel like it. That's survival of the fittest. No consequences. An immoral society.

These two concepts are mutually exclusive.


I am not an Atheist, I'm an American Christian and proud of it.

UPDATE: Notice how Atheist attack me. That's ok. As a Christian, I am used to it. I can take it. I say "bring it on". However, make no mistake, being a Christain does not mean that I am weak or do not ever fight. I choose my battles carefully. Even Josuha fought and killed many and God was with him every step of the way. Don't forget who is on my side.

Answer 7

it is incorrect to assume that every culture has similar morals. morals change with cultural evolution, and the morals of cannibalistic Britons 5000 years ago is very different from that of modern citizens of the UK, for instance.
it could be stated that the social evolution of human communities produces "better" moral codes, and these codes are ever closer to a "perfect moral code" that is always beyond the social horizon.
to obey moral codes people needed some form of support, and they usually found it by declaring that their version of moral code is a dictate of the current deity they worshiped, but modern human society is slowly ridding itself of the need for worship of any Deity, however, that society is even more flexible in it's ability to modify moral codes towards that perfect code.

Answer 8

i think its something genetic developed in centuries of human race.
Something that protects the human species. A norm that was instilled in us against such anomalies.
In some sense, I would say that this is a common denominator for God, the desire for Absolute Morality.

Answer 9

I think morality bears certain key similarities between cultures, such as don't commit murder, because common sense worked them out across human cultures. If you want to create peaceful societies then you have to have some sort of order and peace for people to work together and create security and prosperity. No one wants to be murdered themselves so it is natural to reason for most that you can't expect to kill people. If people in the society are killing each other vigil anti style or the stronger are mashing the weaker over the head and taking their goods than society is not fulfilling its purpose. We all want to live in peace and prosperity because who wants to think it could be their daughter getting raped or tortured on the way to school or someone stronger might bop them over the head and take their belongings. These things still happen in society but we developed morals that they are wrong and justice systems to deal with them. People have an innate distaste for some crimes because of their own developed empathy and understanding of how it would feel to experience it or have that happen to them. Empathy (or whatever you want to call it) being an adaptive emotion that we evolved to live together as social animals. Even animals other than humans show this trait. It is rare for animals that live in social groups to kill other animals in their group. I'm a 115 lbs and my dog is an 80 lb. all muscle and teeth Dobermann. He could definetly rip my throat out and take my steak but he sits watching me eat with big eyes instead. So animals exhibit forms of social control or morality as well. It may be explained by evolution in animals that evolved to depend on and live in social groups.

Morality is not often absolute though. We have decided murder (killing just another word for it) is okay if someone gets the death penalty, in self defense, or in war. Guess what? That is moral relativity. Murder is not always wrong. Is lieing always wrong? Generally we say it is because no one who has been hurt by one would like to be lied to. In general if you want others to be honest with you than you have to be honest with them. But there are situations where lieing is the ethical thing to do. For example, Nazi Agent: "Have you seen any Jewish people in the neighborhood?" You thinking of the family hiding in the warehouse done the street, "No, I haven't seen any Jewish people around here."

Moral absolutes often don't really work in all situations when you really think about it. If you were in a situation so bad that people were dieing of starvation would you steal to feed your child? Would it be morally wrong to do so? How about taking the food that might have gone to someone else's child to save your own? Your child will be the one to die if you don't. It seems there are even situations where there is no right, just a choice between wrongs and which is maybe the lesser. There are however, rules that we have found apply in most cases for creating order and peace in society. Society benefits most as we acheive much more and survive better within it.

Answer 10

Moral codes derive from evolution, which applies to societies as well as to species: a society which adheres to a sound moral code will survive preferably to one that does not. It is obvious that activities such as murder and robbery are inimical to any society, and these are correspondingly condemned. Religious claims as arbiter of morality are specious.