Atheists Morality?

Question

Of course you're moral. I'm interested in how you feel an atheist society would fill the void left in society where there are no theistic institutions. In all of the atheist websites I've seen, I haven't seen anyone mention how they feel a society needs to teach the concept of right and wrong.

1 - Is it (morality) something that is relative to the society or the individual?

1a - If it is to society, who teaches it?

1b - If it is to the individual, how do you decide which wrongs need to be enforced?

Comrade - Albania? There constitution says all religions are equal and the state does not have an official religion. I hadn't heard they were an atheist state. Do you mean under Hoxha? He oversaw one of the worst economies in the history of the world - running neck and neck with his inspiration - the Gang of Four - he is viewed as a failure. You might be interested in reading up on Ablania - to jump off, simple article found here - http://countrystudies.us/albania/57.htm

Megatron - I take the 'kid' comment as a compliment. Your answer is fairly weak however. Seems this one is more trouble for many than I thought it would be.

The Brights! Thanks. I'll check it out.

Chippy - you bring up a problem I have with relative morality, if it truly is relative - how does a moral state deal with one where slavery is acceptable?

My friend Jack, couple of things - I knew that they 'were' in the past, but they are no longer. They did attempt to stop all people of faith from practicing their religions. This practice was viewed in Albania as one of the drivers to the horrible economic failure of Hoxha's leadership. Turkey is officially a Muslim state, and is in the EU.

And I disagree on your point regarding Socialism, if that's what you'd like to call the previous Albanian governent, although I think most would consider them Communist / Maoist.

Repressing religious practices has an enormous effect on any population.

Answer 1

Morality is common to both individual and society; what is society, if not made up of individuals? The common touchpoints of morality are thus the same for both. There is an intrinsic morality that man is born with and which he lives by; all laws merely set down in definition what has first been impulse in the heart.

I must mention Albania, since I see that it has been the subject of discussion here and wish to clarify a few things:

1.)Albania was indeed the world's only officially Atheist state, from 1967-1991. Does this mean that religion was wiped out in Albania? Certainly not; there was no public religious observance, and technically it was forbidden in private homes, but private observance never actually ceased, nor is it likely that ever such will be the case, despite any state's "official" policy. Ultimately, the attempt to force the private beliefs of its citizens was admitted a failure and the ban on religion was ended. Albania today may accurately be described as Europe's only Muslim state.

2.)The economy of Albania during this period had absolutely nothing to do with religious policy; Albania remained for decades the most isolated of nations, and after Deng Xiaoping's reforms in China, had no official ties to any state until the the reforms of the early 90's. As Albania is poor in natural resources as it is, this isolation greatly harmed development. One cannot even lay the blame for the poor economy at the feet of Socialism; it was the narrow and isolating policy of Enver Hoxha that ruined the State, not official Atheism.

Last bit of trivia: the most famous Albanian of all time? Mother Teresa

EDIT:

It is important for me to address several statements you direct to me:

"I knew that they 'were' in the past, but they are no longer. They did attempt to stop all people of faith from practicing their religions."

What in my answer is at variance with this statement? I stated they were officially Atheist from 1967-91 and that there was no religious public observance, and technically it was forbidden in people's homes. I also stated the policy was a failure. In stating what you did above you make it appear as if my answer did not address this.

"This practice was viewed in Albania as one of the drivers to the horrible economic failure of Hoxha's leadership. Turkey is officially a Muslim state, and is in the EU."

Did you read in my answer about Albania's isolation during this period? Economists agree that this isolation is what harmed the economy to the extent it did. Who do you say blames religious policy for economic failure? I'll bet your source for this claim is a religious one. No legitimate economist will claim Albania's religious policy during this period is what ruined it. As for Turkey, there is no "official" state religion. The mass of the populace is muslim, but the official policy of the state is secular.

If you are going to address an answer I give, please read it well, instead of just trying to embarrass me over it.

Answer 2

I wonder, how a philosophical teacher can agree with this silly idea! 1) If moral only was the idea of a god and nothing else, it would be dispensable. But if moral has a goal, we don't need a god for it! We can also find our own moral rules, in the same way, we find mathematical laws. Moral is a superpersonal idea, like maths. So it is by definition not the creation of a person, and even not a god ones! 2) If we get moral from the Bible, then the same things of 1) are counting! And: We couldn't appraise the bible morally. I bet, your teacher won't spare moral... But I guess, your teacher is a very stupid one: When he is a philosophical teacher, has he ever read Kant? Buddha? Kungfutse? They all have written and proven, that moral doesn't come from a god. Buddhists and taoists are also atheists.

Answer 3

You might not have noticed, we have already created a legal system with courts and judges.
If you do the crime you do the time.
--------
Sorry, I just had to do something for a while.

I think morality is not a serious problem.

I think a far bigger problem is figuring out how to deal with holidays.
I can think of no real atheist holidays or even any good candidates for some.
Labour Day and Independence Day kind of work OK, but then what? Solstice day? Equinox Day?
The problem seems much more serious than what to do about morality.

-------------------
Edit to details:
How would a morally relativistic society deal with moral issues like slavery is interesting. I wonder because the bible actually endorses slavery. It sets some limits about the terms of slavery in the Old Testament and it also gives instructions on the morality expected of slaves in the New Testament.
It was an atheist president who passed the anti-slavery bills during the American Civil War. Most of the rhetoric in favour of slavery came directly out of the bible and was delivered by preachers.
I think there is no possible claim religions can make for superior morality regarding slavery.

Answer 4

There appear to be two components to morality. One complies with the Edgeworth Box. Basically, in transactions, anything is immoral that would only occur if the counterparty would have to be individually irrational in order for it to occur. For example, imagine you had a car and I had a penny. It would be individually irrational for you to trade me the car for the penny. Therefore, if I take the car by force and give you a penny, that is immoral. All immoral behavior then is a form of theft, whether you are stealing an object, someone's body, the truth, or innocence.

The second side to morality, however, deals with the difficult problem of focusing on oneself or others and individual mastery or sympathy. Do people have duties of loyalty? How much? Do you possess a duty to care? How much?

The Edgeworth Box questions are objectively solvable. The "transactional emotions," questions are on the other hand very subjective. They are built upon observations from psychology in reversal theory.

1) Both....the discussion is really over "how much." Both the Edgeworth Box and the Transactional Emotions component say this is the wrong question.

2)Whomever society delegates the job to. Right now, it is primarily pastors and kindergarten teachers.

3)Law exists for a reason.

Answer 5

Well First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can even be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s aren't.

Objective morals are those that are based outside of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview.

Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't." Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly, and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning.

Let me put some flesh and blood on this and show you why. What if there were a global economic meltdown and social turmoil ensued so that robbing people at gunpoint to get food became common place. Robbery would then be a social norm. Would such a norm be wrong? If it is not wrong, then you affirm situational ethics and can’t complain when the situation suits somebody else’s fancy and you get robbed at gunpoint. Of course, this would lead to anarchy.

If you say that such theft is wrong, then why is it wrong? If it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice, but opinions don’t make ethical standards. If you said that it is wrong because it is wrong, you are just begging the question. Besides, that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that would imply a Moral-Law Giver.

Anyway, some atheists maintain that the best moral system is that which brings the greatest happiness, the least amount of suffering, and the greatest freedom for as many people as possible. That is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t work. Take a look at slavery, for example. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that a minority of people should suffer in bondage. This way, the greatest amount of freedom for the majority is ensured. But if the atheist says that it is wrong to enslave a minority to benefit the majority, then why is it wrong? Because he said so? If he says that it’s wrong because the minority is suffering, so what? Why is suffering wrong? It may be unpleasant. It may not be nice. But, from an atheistic worldview, why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the majority? Atheism can’t help us here. It just isn’t up to the task of providing solid answers.

Let me reiterate by saying that atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason. By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self-contradictory and can lead to anarchy.

True morality is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food. There is something more, and the Bible offers us more.

It offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character, and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. Therefore, it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and to bear false witness but not so in atheism’s empty moral vacuum because morality is formed in a subjective manner.

So, after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching or the atheist who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?

Answer 6

You didn't look at the websites enough. Here's a few links:

To answer your questions:
1. Morality is too complex to be relative to a single "entity" like the society or individual. Rather, morality is relative to the particular environment in which the action takes place and is therefore relative both to the society that influences the action and the individual who performs it.

1a. It is not "taught." What is acceptable is simply learned in the same was language is acquired.

1b. Enforcing morality is a question of legality, and not a question of morality. You shouldn't confuse the two.

Answer 7

Morality is something that's relative to the individual. If it were relative to the society, you'd have to agree that nobody within said society is capable of thinking for themselves, and needs "the group" to tell them what's right and what's wrong. I don't believe that way.

I believe we all inherently know the difference between right and wrong. There's no invisible force that watches over us and instills "right and wrong values" within us. There are going to be some shades of grey on some situations....but on the really basic ones...we know when we're doing something wrong...or not.

It's how we deal with the wrong that we've done that makes us either moral or immoral people.

Answer 8

1- athiest morality would have a #2, or at least number thier questions in a manner that made sense.

as for your #1, yes, morality is relative to a person or society.

1a morality comes from the social norms of society. there are different types of morality. there is a "general" morality that is basically just human logic that is (1b) a collection of laws that MUST exist for the minimum ability of a society to exist (don't kill, don't steal, don't let britney spears babysit your kids, etc.)

the rest of "morality" can be categorized as social norms and idioms. things people may chose to do or not do but aren't necessary for the basic operation of a society. Ie: aborting babies, two hot girls having sex in public (okay-that should be a law that all bi and lesbian-girls MUST do for the good of society), using a napkin, etc.

these are things that one would chose to do as they fit in with the generally accepted social norms of a society or a sub-group within society, but should not be law as they are not necessary for the operation of society.

it might be immoral to patronize a prostitute or watch ben aflack movies, but it shouldn't be illegal and should come down to morality especially since people will have different mroals and any society should recognize that and only put to law those natural morals that are the minimum basic requirement to create order without trying to push one group's morality over another.

Answer 9

Morality is not defined through simple norms in the absence of logic. If society switched so that collecting souls for the afterlife slavery campaign was accepted (triggered through some sadistic mechanism), then how is morality a part? Good and evil must be defined before morality is meaningful.

Answer 10

Nothing would change... there would be no "void"... we have laws in place, and they would continue to be upheld and enforced.

Those "laws" of the church (10 commandments etc) are not given any attention anyways (example - divorce - Christians do it just as much as non-Christians)

Morality is relative. It has evolved from society. Its such a powerful force that it even changed Christianity... for example, now beating people is okay in the western world. Killing sinners is not okay, and slavery is no longer okay. Those things are condoned in the Bible.