Atheists: Do you hold that there are any moral absolutes or is all morality relative?

Question

Lion of Judah:

I know you couldn't resist.

I am an atheist -- I have moral absolutes. I do not need your deity to have them. Humans evolved with two perfectly good instincts for morality: empathy and altruism.

You are wrong.

Ryan H:

Sorry dude, the research does not support yoru claim. Empathy and altruism evolved far before humans did, we are merely benefactors of our evolutionary history.

Even were I able to sacrifice all my food for those who are starving -- the infrastructure does not exist to feed all the starving people in the world. As such, altruism alone cannot solve the problem.

Baby May:

I don't fear your delusions of your deity. There is no god, and Jesus was a fraud. Cope.

Answer 1

I think there are no morals, absolutely. :P
Honestly? - I'm still learning. The best answer I can give you is a sincere 'I don't know yet.'

--Buddhist.

Answer 2

Well...you may have moral absolutes but, not absolutely.
Without an absolute authority or call it power, behind rule, law, moral, whatever...the absolute will always become relative given circumstance (unless you are some kind of saint and as an atheist, that seems a tittle you would not want).
Example: Let's start simple. A man has the moral absolute conviction that stealing is wrong. However, he comes to a point in his life where his children are starving and he steals food to feed them. He has decided that this moral absolute is trumped by the dire needs of his circumstance.

This doesn't have to be an atheist. A very devout religious person would probably make the same choice. So...what's the difference?

Well, possibly the atheist will have less to wrestle with in his mind when changing his absolute. Anytime he feels the need to change a moral absolute there are no consequences that he need worry about. He does not have to think about any final judgement ever being put to his actions.

The religious man may make the same choice but, he may bother to ask himself some questions. Such as: Is the person I would steal from also in a bad way? Does he have children who may suffer if I do this? What does God say about what I am about to do? Is there a better way than this? And, if nothing else, he may seek the comfort of God's mercy even if he fails to uphold his moral absolutes.

I'm not saying that an atheist can't be a good person or that they can't sacrifice for others. I'm not saying that an atheist would never put the needs of another before his own. But, I am saying that a civilization will ultimately be better served by a population that feels that they are compelled not just by their good intentions but, by the absolute authority of God and that they will ultimately pay for their actions.

A society of saints would never need this. However, I have yet to find a society of saints. Many peoples morals are very convenient to their needs and wants of the moment. I saw a recent listing on Yahoo Answers where someone posed the question of what would you do if you found a wallet with $200.00 in it. I was actually very surprise at how the vast majority said they would keep the money. A few said they would try to use any credit cards also.

Beyond this common moral laxness, their are the truly evil among us.

Criminal statistics show clearly that crime over the last 100 years has increased tremendously and that extremes of crime have found ever new boundaries of hideousness.

Whether you believe in God or not, there is a truth that can be proven by history. In a society where people are universally raised with moral absolutes given of God and where they know they will answer for all they have done, the numbers of those who routinely violate those absolutes remains quite low.

Now is when you jump in and remind us of all the evil that has been done in the name of religion. Perhaps in it's name, but (at least by Christianity) not by it's bidding. And, I said Christianity, not Christians. Certainly there have been those who call themselves Christians and have done great evil in the name of Christianity. Anyone who has read the new testiment knows that these are not the desires of Christ.

I don't write this with any intention of changing your beliefs. That would be extremely unlikely. But, there is more to a moral absolute then a mere human being can control through sheer force of will. He needs a very strong dam to back it up. God is that dam. And no jokes about the dam God, okay?

Answer 3

Lion of Judah sure has his thong in a twist about atheists!

The world does not need a god to establish a list of morals we should all adhere to. The laws of a pseudo-democratic country that establishes the parameters agreed upon by International Human Rights is all that is needed to keep a society civilized.

It's simple to establish a set of laws to abide by:

1. We don't like being killed or our friends or family killed, so there should be no killing.

2. We don't like getting ripped off, so there should be no stealing.

3. We don't like being assaulted or beaten up or harassed, so that should not be allowed.

4. Nobody should be able to make, coerce, manipulate or force anyone else to do something they don't want to do, which means, every individual has a right to make their own decisions.

Everything else falls under the above rules in some form or other.

I'm agnostic. I thought those rules up on my own based on no belief system in a deity or in prophets or angels or hobgoblins. It's just common freaking sense to enable a large group of people living together to get along without killing each other.

It's not rocket science ... and it didn't come from a mountain carved in a couple of rocks.


PS - I'd like to add two other rules that don't really fit with the other four:

5. We should be able to and WILL defend ourselves and others against bodily harm. Material things can be replaced but a life is worth keeping, especially if it's yours. In the pro-choice debate, I believe pro-lifers should "help" in all cases, but if their help is unwelcome, they should "back off." They did all they could.

6. We are our brothers keepers. There is hardship all around us and we cannot turn a blind eye to it. We have to ASK those who need help whether they want it or not, and if they do ... we MUST have the compassion to assist however and whenever possible. NOT because we'll go to heaven, but because it's just the "enlightened human" thing to do. Subsequently, if they don't want our help, we should back off ... until they do.
.

Answer 4

I have no idea what "Lion for Judah" is talking about. Religious moral texts are about as UNABSOLUTE as they can be. It contradicts it's own messages of killing,justice, tolerance, love, etc. Two religious people read the text, but both just cherry pick what matches their lifestyle. Pampered idealized people usually pick the loving God and people who live in crappy parts of the world often deal with the Angry and Judgmental God.

Religion does not make society better in terms of morals. It only reflects what they want to believe at that moment.



And as an agnostic, I have to say I'm not sure what a moral absolute is. Do you mean something is completely wrong or right? It would have to be an extremely narrow action, rather than a person for absolutes

-Killing people who are not a threat to you for pleasure
-Stealing from people who will suffer greatly , and for your own excessive comfort
-Rape

Etc

Answer 5

If humans evolved with altruism, why are poverty and starvation rising worldwide? The idea that people are born to care about others beyond those other meeting their needs is false, regardless of your religious beliefs.

As an atheist, you cannot have moral absolutes because morality is relative from society to society and without a God to hand down decrees, who is to say who else is right?

You may believe in moral absolutes, but if you think that is logical as an atheist, you are mistaken.

Answer 6

I'm a Zen Buddhist, and my morality is relative. I prefer to think of non-violence as a absolute, but since in real life I know I would defend myself if threatened, even that belongs to the realm of situational ethics. I was thinking about stuff like this last night after the Republican debates, because only Guiliani seemed to grasp that shades of gray exist between the absolutes, and he was made to look foolish for trying to explain this in sound-bites. The rest of the Republican candidates, however, are the real fools...

Answer 7

You know something, I am really starting to dislike that Lion of Judah idiot.

Oh, I completely agree with your statement about moral absolutes.

Ryan.
Poverty and suffering are a direct result of religious restrictions and fanaticism, not because of a lack of it. God does not "hand down decrees" Haha! Which god are you talking about? The one the Hindus follow? Do their decrees count? Or is it just the western god?

Ridiculous.

Answer 8

All morals are relative. Your might be absolutes TO YOU, but unless you can get every single human who has and ever will live to agree, they are relative.

Yes, I have my own moral absolutes - but to me, indoctrinating children into religious belief before they reach the age of reason is child abuse, so I know mine are absolute only to me.

Answer 9

morality is absolute ,a is a there are objective standards that exist beyond our perceptions , to kill to steal,to lie these things are not relative but wrong under any circumstance despite ones perceptions ,i only stole a little ,it was a white lie, he had it coming .or worse he's better off ,or i did not have sex with that woman.and so on .

Answer 10

I personally think all morality is relative, but hey that's just what i think. besides just because we evolved like that doesn't mean it's true or anything for that matter. And we still have sociopaths