Atheists since you don't believe in God - on what grounds do you base your morality?

Question

If there is no moral law giver how can there be a moral law? Does atheism boil down to ethical realitivism? What is right and wrong is left up to peoples say-so. In my mind if torturing people for fun is right then its morally just for me. Right? If you say No then on what grounds do you make that judgement?

(Playing devils advocate here I'm an atheist myself. Its so easy to pick apart Christians I figure I'd give my fellow free thinkers a challenge)

Wow! Extremely weak answers from free thinkers. I'm surprised.

Answer 1

Morality is born out of our nature as a species that lives in community. (In fact, all morality that is relevant is based on how to treat other people.)

It is reasonable that the big three (don't murder, don't steal, and don't mislead people) are necessary for good community functioning.

In addition, in a more abstract way, human beings have summarized those rules in the rule "Don't do anything to someone else that you wouldn't want done to yourself in similar circumstances." In other words, the Golden Rule.

All other moral issues are open to discussion, and because we have carved out dynamic societies, differing conclusions are often reached. On those matters, there exists (and should exist) moral relativism. But we approach morality from the stand point as everything else: Everyone deserves to be treated as well as you would want yourself treated, so that we can live together in as much peace as possible.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 2

People don't like the idea of moral relativism precisely because it presupposes that there is no physical manifestation of morality (God) outside of the human mind/body. People like things to be orderly. But everyone is a moral relativist. No two Christians have the exact same morality, nor do two atheists. Society and culture help to codify popular morality into custom and law. Those are the grounds on which most people base their morality, regardless of their particular religious faith or lack of.

Answer 3

What is right or wrong when all morals now face decadence? All those "morals" and "ethics" are all man made. Before humans, there wasn't a concept like that. Animals commit incest and murder all the time. Human morals don't apply to them and we have no rights to say anything about this.

I think anyone should be free to do whatever one wishes unless it is out of the boundary of law. Humans are social animals, I admit, and therefore we have to give up some of our freedom to compromise with that.

Law should never be prejudiced, equal to everyone, since it would actually lead to the destruction of the society if people aren't happy with it (I know things can't work out good for everyone. Still, it should be as close to it as possible), and only/mainly focused in keeping the society's shape.

Well, I do do "good" things sometimes. I have a sponsored child in Worldvision, not because I'm a "kind" person or anything but I was "driven" to it. Is it because humans are naturally "kind" beings? No, I am tempted to do "bad" things as well, but since they go against the society, I keep these thoughts to myself. I don't stop from doing "good" things because they are my "urges" and they aren't considered negative in the society.

Answer 4

Common sense, consequences of actions, empathy. We have evolved as social animals that thrive in communities and societies. Basic "morality" is seen in other social animals. They generally don't murder others in their group and even share, cooperate, and care for each other's young. As a more complex human I can think through consequences. I don't need the Bible to tell me I would not enjoy spending my life as a drug addicted crack whore. Just watch a few episodes of "cops" or "VH1's Behind the Music", far better examples and motivation to not become an addict than a preacher saying Jesus wouldn't like it to me. I also appreciate that in creating a peaceful, safe society I need to be willing to be part of that by not engaging in activities that degrade those conditions. If everyone goes around wanting to live in such a society but breaking the rules themselves it doesn't work. I have empathy for my fellow humans enough as well such that I can put myself in another's shoes. If I were suffering or in need of help I would hope someone would be there. Thus, when I see someone and help them it brings me a feeling of well being that I have done something to make the world I live in and leave for my children better.

Plato demonstrated the logical independence of God and morality over 2,000 years ago in the "Euthyphro". The concept that morality is something that can exist independent of God or a divine lawgiver has been further explored in works by Kant, Mill, Rawls, and others.

Answer 5

It is an insult to humanity to assume God or no God that we are so ignorant we can't function properly without a book to take us to our conscience. If anything it limits our ability to truly feel.
All you need to be "moral" is the responsible use of common sense/logic, life lessons and compassion.

Edit: I would also like to play 'devils advocate" and add that since "morals" have and are still changing in societies all over the world. Meaning what was once moral is now considered immoral. Than is morality itself immoral?

Answer 6

This question comes up at least once a day....interesting how so many people think that morality is somehow tied into religious beliefs..

My morals were set by my parents; and theirs by their parents. There is no need to have some holy, mythical, gigantic god thingie telling you what to do.

There is right and there is wrong behavior. Anyone with a lick of sense can tell the difference without instructions from an entity.

Besides, those without a natural moral compass and who rely upon their religion, fall too frequently into immoral behavior and lies. Look to your own great christian leaders who have led lives of low character while preaching about your god.

Answer 7

Christians, or followers of any other Deity, subscribe to a set of beliefs. In these beliefs, they have assigned rights and wrongs associated with their teachings. Atheists too have a developed set of beliefs. However they develop these through societal input rather than a church. The idea that any group is more, or less, moral due to their beliefs truly depends on your own point of view. Christians kill as often as non-Christians. They lie, cheat and steal just like anyone else. The idea of right and wrong is pretty clear to most. But both groups also find ways to reinvent their beliefs to suit the situations they face from day to day. "It's OK to cheat on my wife, god will forgive me." "It's OK to kill, as long as it's for my country."
A belief in a higher power, does not make you automatically any more moral than anyone else. History is filled with people killing others in the name of god.
The presence of a central character, to represent your beliefs, is less important in my estimation, than knowing what is right and wrong, and letting that guide you in your daily life.

Answer 8

So far I have seen a few people say it is passed on from their parents or by society. If you follow that logic back far enough...where do you think it will lead?

Also, someone said that morality is internal or it is in your heart? Really...then why do parents always have to tell children "no"? Why don't they just "know" what is right and wrong?

Answer 9

My morality stems from blending the ideas of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills. Kant argued about moral duty and the rights of autonomous beings, Mills argued about the greatest good. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Needless to say, this is an oversimplification.

I prefer this method to the contradictions of religious teachings and the overall laziness of people who believe that religion is the end all be all of morality. These people are moraly bankrupt.

Answer 10

Social contract. Socialization from parents in childhood. Psychological development of a conscience. Evolution of group dynamics.

Ethical relativism, no. Because ethics are personal and do not change. They are not so much a function of group dynamics as of individual application.

Socially relative morality? Sure. But they are based on an entire group, not just the whims of the individuals in that group.