Atheists, do you believe in definite right and wrong?

Question

I'm an agnostic, so while I have some doubts about the existence of God, I have none about right and wrong. Many Atheists oppose the Catholic Church on the grounds that "their priests are perverts" well, unless you believe that perversion is definitely evil, you can't say that.

Answer 1

I'm an atheist, and yes, I believe in definite right and wrong. I believe that there are absolute morals.

The fact that people don't agree on what those morals are doesn't mean that there aren't any - it simply means that at least some of the people are wrong.

Answer 2

There are layers of morality. A particular sexual behavior, or an attitude toward ownership of property, may be admired or condemned depending on the culture. But preservation of life is always a good. A great many moral dilemmas are not clear cut and compromises are necessary, so essential value such as justice, peace, and dignity must be used as moral guides. But rules regarding specific behaviors and acts can never cover every situation. When confronted with a specific incident, laws can remind us of our general values, but we still need to think about the particulars as we judge the right course.

Legalism can be abused. If one scrupulously observes all the established mandates and prohibitions with the intention of deceit, one can do evil without breaking a single rule. And people can get into all sorts of legal trouble for doing what they saw as more ethically compelling than the law permits.

The "priests are perverts" argument doesn't work because it generalizes priests and it doesn't define "perversion". If perversion is defined as taking advantage of vulnerable people, it may exclude some so-called "perverted" behaviors and add a great many more. And the actual tiny percentage of abusive priests aren't nearly the problem that institutional denial of the problem has been. The huge settlements that have threatened many dioceses with financial catastrophy has been due to the acts of a handful of poorly managed priests in each case. The precautions now being put into place will only work if the diocesan administrative culture has truly been reformed.

Abuse is evil. Capable and knowledgeable tolerance of abuse is evil. But as secular jursiprudence has hopefully taught us, there are many other acts that are morally ambiguous depending on extenuating circumstances. And don't forget that the other purpose of laws is to create order. An unjust law can create the illusion of peace but may do violence to the people it subjugates.

Answer 3

Dude, as an agnostic you should know the answer to this question. Without a church or bible to guide you, how do you know what God thinks is right and wrong? You think about it, and come to logical reasons for thinking certain things are evil. I don't need God to tell me that priests molesting children is wrong, because the children either didn't consent, or did, but were coerced, and aren't considered mentally mature enough to make that decision anyway. There is also still a legal code, you know. Do you think God inspired every law on the books? Does jaywalking provoke God's wrath?

Answer 4

Love and ethics are implied as universal states. The fact that all of the points within space/time do not fracture, each taking a different evolutionary trajectory than the others, shows affinity and mutual connectivity. Ethical action seems to be a means of maintaining this connectivity on a social level. There is no love in harming a child.

Answer 5

It's all relative. What is right for one group of people may be wrong for another.

The followers of hitler felt he was right while the opposers felt he was wrong. There is no "definite" right or wrong.

I too am a believer that not all catholic priests are molestors. I went to a catholic church and I was never molested..... no matter how hard i tried!

Answer 6

I do think there is a definite right and wrong, and among atheists I'm probably in the minority for thinking this, so let me explain...

I look at morality as analogous to medicine. Here's how the analogy works (words capitalized for importance)

In medicine, doctors will take the observable, repeatable, concrete FACTS of the human body, and with the GOAL of being HEALTHY they will prescribe SHOULD statements. For example,
"If you want to be healthy, you should eat a balanced diet."
"If you want to be healthy, you should exercise daily."
etc...

Analogous to this is how I see morality. Using the testable, repeatable, concrete FACTS of human psychology, and applying the GOAL of HAPPINESS, we can come up with SHOULD statements:
"If you want to be happy, you should treat other people as you want to be treated."
etc...

As we learn more facts about biology, doctors can get more specific about their should statements. Likewise, as we learn more about human psychology, "moral-doctors" can become more specific about the moral "laws" (should-statements) that they prescribe.

There's a few things to notice about this idea of morality.

Firstly, it's a statistical approach, so it doesn't capture every last human. Some people have genetic disorders or allergies such that eating vegetables will make them sicker, not healthier. Likewise, some people's psychology is such that they will be exceptions to the moral norm.

Second, although the moral "laws" are unchanging, they can allow for a lot of flexibility. For example, pretend this statement is true: "In order to be happy, a person should try to fit within the definition of 'normal' within their society."

When applied, this "law" would allow two different people in two different cultures to do completely opposite things, yet the moral law itself is rigid and unchanging.

Finally, you should note that although the motive is selfish (personal happiness), the consequences are not. Humans are social creatures. My personal happiness is intrinsically and unbreakably tied to the happiness of many of the people I interact with. I think that even acting on purely selfish motives, I could find reasons to be altruistic.

So in conclusion, I believe there is a certain way, specific to each person, in which they can live their life the happiest. This is what I call "Right." Everytime we stray from this path, it is "Wrong." (Just like healthy and unhealthy). Straying from the path a little is fine, just like a greasy cheeseburger won't kill you, but consistently doing things that do not make you happy and accepting of yourself will lead to unhappiness.

That's my take on a concrete, scientific morality...

Phew....long post.

Answer 7

You can still make moral choices without the benefit of God. And, in fact, humans are moral creatures because we've evolved to be that way.

Morality, much to the dismay of absolutists, is in fact somewhat relative. All you have to do is read the Bible - they used to think slavery, rape, and incest was cool as long as you did it to people of other tribes. So the best definition of a universal moral good is "what most people in most cultures at most times would think is good." And the converse for evil, of course.

How do you make your decisions in the meantime? Well, it starts with the Golden Rule. Most moral systems boil down to "treat others as you wish to be treated." That covers about 95% of your day-to-day morality needs. For the rest, go read the book I put in the source.

Answer 8

No, I do not believe in definite right and wrong. Everyone has different standards. And I do not go under the stereotype that all Catholic priests are perverts.

Answer 9

Most moral issues are not definative.
But, causing harm to others, let's say torture (practiced by the Catholic church for 600 years and by the Bush administration for the last 4), I'd consider wrong... definitively.

Answer 10

Actually, you can call people perverts without making a moral judgment. They have different sexual desires than most members of society.

Regardless, I don't believe in absolute morality (at least not in the way most people mean). However, I can make moral judgments based on the relative acceptability of various different actions in society. Therefore, I can say "The priests who molested children committed a vicious act." (Vicious = full of vice)