Atheists: What moral grounds do you base your views on?

[Looncall]

Superrational game theory. The game is social interaction, the goal is to survive, and so the answer is to cooperate.

I like this too.

 

[9Westy9]

On another (and i know you aren't saying this) those that say that atheists don't have any morals because they don't believe in their favourite god are being stupid because is god did indeed create morals they would apply even if the person doesn't believe in the god.

Depends what we mean by create morals.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I'm not questioning whether you have morals or not, to avoid any misunderstanding. What I'm asking is, is there any universal standard for morals, in your opinion? And if there isn't, what grounds are your morals based upon?

Universal standard? Not as far as I know. My morals are based in a broad sense on those shared by most of the world. In a narrower sense they are based on the moral customs of the society I live in.

I suspect that what you're really asking is, Why are we (atheists) moral? The answer to that is reciprocity. But then, that's exactly why most theists are moral as well whether they admit it or not. All of us who behave morally do so because we hope others will do the same. The world is a much easier and better place to live if most of us behave morally. It doesn't take a genius (or a theist) to figure that out.

 

[Willamena]

What I'm asking is, is there any universal standard for morals, in your opinion?

Kindness, i.e. similarity.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Depends what we mean by create morals.

Is there more than one way to read that?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I have a minimalist approach to agnostic theism (arrived at through Ignostic and Fideistic approaches)... as opposed to being atheism but I will respond anyway.

I do not believe that a person's particular religious positions indicate their moral stance, however their philosophical positions do.


I do not believe in an absolute good or evil, nor for that matter an objective morality; as I believe that this is the result of our subjective minds in terms of examining the outcomes and (in)actions to identify their acceptability and desirability. For that reason to identify my position on the morality of something I look at those involved in the circumstance and attempt to identify whatever possible affects that circumstance might have (i.e. possible not just intended outcomes) on those involved, to determine if those outcomes would be acceptable or desirable to those people to my knowledge or reasonable belief (such as the golden rule). It is this that informs my judgement on the morality of a situation, not some prescribed code of conduct.

Almost any action (even saving someone's life) will produce unacceptable and/or undesirable outcomes for someone involved (such as reducing business for the undertaker which may mean his children have less to eat). I believe that moral actions are those that seek to minimise the direct and indirect negative outcomes, while maximising the positive outcomes - yet not where the distribution of those outcomes is inequitable (e.g. sacrificing one baby to ensure that every person on earth is free from asthma would likely have larger positives than negatives but would be grossly inequitable) or could otherwise be avoided (even if at a lesser benefit). Moreover I believe that if for whatever reason a moral person where to make an immoral choice then they should act to offset those negative outcomes for those specific people to the best of their capacity (make restitution).

That is my moral perspective - it is completely separate from any sort of theological position, it is a wholly secular position... I don't even throw stones at people.

 

[9Westy9]

Is there more than one way to read that?

If he merely created morals as the biblical guidelines then Christians will be immune to your objection (If I'm following correctly). If he 'built' morals into us then yes, the Christian is in a spot of trouble.

 

[Photonic]

If he merely created morals as the biblical guidelines then Christians will be immune to your objection (If I'm following correctly). If he 'built' morals into us then yes, the Christian is in a spot of trouble.

They took an arrow to the knee, it isn't their fault.

 

[Dan4reason]

I'm not questioning whether you have morals or not, to avoid any misunderstanding. What I'm asking is, is there any universal standard for morals, in your opinion? And if there isn't, what grounds are your morals based upon?

I don't see any evidence of that. However we still have very good reason both to be more, to blame others when they are immoral, and to punish criminals. I can show this using logic and arguments from pursuit of happiness.

Where does your standard of morality come from?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

If he merely created morals as the biblical guidelines then Christians will be immune to your objection (If I'm following correctly). If he 'built' morals into us then yes, the Christian is in a spot of trouble.

Agreed.

But if morals are nothing more than biblical guidelines then my disbelief in no way means i cannot be moral.

I can still follow the biblical guidelines without believing in the creator of them.

Either way the view of some theists that i cannot be moral if i don't believe in their god is complete unfounded, ignorant, arrogant faecal matter of a bull.

 

[Bismillah]

Superrational game theory. The game is social interaction, the goal is to survive, and so the answer is to cooperate.

If the ultimate premise of life is to survive and morals are derivations of this premise then would it be moral to inflict harm on others to elevate one's own status?

 

[PolyHedral]

If the ultimate premise of life is to survive and morals are derivations of this premise then would it be moral to inflict harm on others to elevate one's own status?
[/I]

No; that would be asymmetric. Harming others to elevate one's status gives everyone else justification to do the same, and one can't guarantee that they can't do it better.

 

[waitasec]

No; that would be asymmetric. Harming others to elevate one's status gives everyone else justification to do the same, and one can't guarantee that they can't do it better.

this is frubal material
:yes:

 

[Bismillah]

No; that would be asymmetric. Harming others to elevate one's status gives everyone else justification to do the same, and one can't guarantee that they can't do it better.

And yet isn't life based on the premise of elevating the self at the expense of others? It is self-evident in our own society as well as the basic animal kingdom "the toughest survive".

After all those that fall where others succeed do not reproduce and thus it is nature's own way of providing the most resilient and toughest progeny.

Thus because our environment is a competitive one my question still stands I believe "If the ultimate premise of life is to survive and morals are derivations of this premise then would it be moral to inflict harm on others to elevate one's own status?"

 

[PolyHedral]

And yet isn't life based on the premise of elevating the self at the expense of others?

No, it's based on the premise of getting as much as possible. This isn't necessarily at others' expense.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And yet isn't life based on the premise of elevating the self at the expense of others? It is self-evident in our own society as well as the basic animal kingdom "the toughest survive".

After all those that fall where others succeed do not reproduce and thus it is nature's own way of providing the most resilient and toughest progeny.

Thus because our environment is a competitive one my question still stands I believe "If the ultimate premise of life is to survive and morals are derivations of this premise then would it be moral to inflict harm on others to elevate one's own status?"

That depends on what "elevated status" means to the individual and whether or not he/she thinks it's necessary to inflict harm on others to achieve it. I personally don't think it is and in any case and for whatever reason, I'm just not inclined to do so. I'm comfortable with where my status is and even if I wanted to elevate it, I'm intelligent enough to know I don't have to do harm to get it.

 

[Bismillah]

No, it's based on the premise of getting as much as possible. This isn't necessarily at others' expense.

But we live in a competitive society, ergo there is a limited set of resources. Thus there has to be a victor and a loser. Let me frame it in a more modern perspective, we can examine an integral natural resource; water.

If country X builds a dam over a natural river securing itself water at the expense of famine and drought in country Y is it morally ok?

This is equivalent to the saying to the victors belong the spoils.

I personally don't think it is and in any case and for whatever reason, I'm just not inclined to do so. I'm comfortable with where my status is and even if I wanted to elevate it, I'm intelligent enough to know I don't have to do harm to get it.

Sure, but we live in a competitive society. Where you succeed others fail, at their own detriment. This may be miniscule and negligible but it still exists. Thus this policy dictates ensuring one's own interests, even though they many not necessarily even be essential, over those of others.

 

[waitasec]

And yet isn't life based on the premise of elevating the self at the expense of others?

as a standard? no. it is understood that this is a faulty trait.

It is self-evident in our own society as well as the basic animal kingdom "the toughest survive".

no. the fittest do... inflicting harm has nothing to do with being fit to survive...
it's being fit to be cruel however.

After all those that fall where others succeed do not reproduce and thus it is nature's own way of providing the most resilient and toughest progeny.

Thus because our environment is a competitive one my question still stands I believe "If the ultimate premise of life is to survive and morals are derivations of this premise then would it be moral to inflict harm on others to elevate one's own status?"

it is evident that this premise of yours is self defeating...

 

[PolyHedral]

But we live in a competitive society, ergo there is a limited set of resources.

You've got cause and effect the wrong way around there.

If country X builds a dam over a natural river securing itself water at the expense of famine and drought in country Y is it morally ok?

Depends how the people are arranged. Countries are not moral agents in themselves, only people are.

 

[Bismillah]

You've got cause and effect the wrong way around there

Sure, but the fact is that we live in a world with limited resources be they natural or referring to mates, jobs, internships etc.

Thus if I murder you for your oil, then technically what I did was correct from the POV of game theory whereas objectively we know that such things are reprehensible.

The modern world is a zero sum game where the amount one wins is directly the amount another person loses and your theory would encourage one to maximize their wins and minimize their losses regardless of others. This in itself is immoral.