Do Athiests have morals?

[Cephus]

"Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest." Wikipedia

And when we started living in communities a person who acted to further the interests of others also automatically furthered his own self interest. So this behavior evolved and was selected for.

Enlightened self-interest is the understanding that we would like to be treated a certain way, therefore we treat others that way in hopes that they will reciprocate. It is the basis of all morality. People have wrapped all kinds of religious mumbo-jumbo around it but at it's core, that's really why we do what we do. It has virtually nothing to do with biological evolution, it's a social tool and is largely learned behavior.

 

[McBell]

Objective morality has no natural source so it must have a supernatural source.

you have not shown that any objective morality exists outside the individual.

 

[ArtieE]

Enlightened self-interest is the understanding that we would like to be treated a certain way, therefore we treat others that way in hopes that they will reciprocate. It is the basis of all morality. People have wrapped all kinds of religious mumbo-jumbo around it but at it's core, that's really why we do what we do. It has virtually nothing to do with biological evolution, it's a social tool and is largely learned behavior.

"Social evolution is a subdiscipline of evolutionary biology that is concerned with social behaviors that have fitness consequences for individuals other than the actor. Social behaviors can be categorized according to the fitness consequences they entail for the actor and recipient." Social evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social evolution goes under evolutionary biology.

 

[morphesium]

Quick definitions for the unlearned:

Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Immoral: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

Before answering to your post let me talk about morale, religion and atheist first. This should help me in answering to your post later.

The good thing about morale ( the sense of being/doing right) is that it is always one step ahead of us. So, “listening” to your morale always makes you better. In effect, it will polish oneself. Individually, each and every one of us needs security, justice etc that is why society forms and works. As ones morale polishes oneself, so is social justice; it gets polished, so is society; it gets polished, so is social laws; it gets polished.

I still remember reading about a law that existed in a society in which slavery was accepted and legal.

If one rich man who owns a few slaves is found guilty of some crime, the justice would have ordered something like this “either you or your slave should get 10 lashes”. Hopefully, our morale has progressed and our society has progressed from these stages.

-------- ----------------------- ---------


An Atheist is one who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. But is there anyone who actually knows anything about God? NO. One may say he is supreme, He created water, light, life, and the universe and so on; but who/what exactly is God? Nobody knows. If he created everything, why did he create pain and sufferings and other evils that are often unjustifiable? Again nobody knows.

Ask a religious person about God; and he will talk about God according to his religion. (These things never make sense except for the believer – for whom it is based on faith rather than reason).

Now, most religion is often credited to an exceptional Person. They take people or society from dark ages and enlighten them. Unfortunately just like ordinary people these great ones also die. So laws that were made are kept as such. Not (never) to be changed at all. Often a “God part or holiness” is amended to it over time for a much greater voice. Then existing scientific proofs are added to give it more credibility. Money, power and politics take their share on it. Rituals and practices make it imprinted on those who practice it. This is how a typical religion is formed.

The problem with religion is that it resists change – not only because it is habitualzed, but also out of fear; fear of the religious heads, society and fear of the God itself. This is where the problem is. The society around them progresses. But what about the religious sect – it is tied back to their old ages. Even if their morale is asking for a change, they won’t change out of fear; out of the feeling that their holy books can never go wrong – after all it is god sent. How can it be wrong and they reasons accordingly and opt not to change.

(For this I am taking the example of the case with halal meat. Modern science has methods to kill an animal in the most humane way of killing the brain -making the animal unconscious with a shock and then butchering it. What about the animal that has to undergo halal butchering – it has to suffer much more pain. Back in those old days, it was the best possible method; drain as much blood as possible which ensures that the animal has been killed before it is butchered. But how can one accept it as the best method available now. Even though we have better methods, these religious people still prefer the halal method and are tied back to those historic times because of their religion) Similar is the case with slavery, child marriages. These are all things people still do in some part of the world because of their religion. The curse of religion is so high that it won’t let people to progress morally.

Similarly Christianity has taken its toll on humanity in the past. It has burnt people alive at stake just because they supported Heliocentric theory. Just imagine a present day average Christian who believes in modern genetics or evolution or heliocentric theory or has some basic knowledge about human anatomy steps into a church filled with those kind of Christians that existed 250 years back – under such situation the church will most probably order; “Burn him- He is talking against the Holy Bible”. Hopefully, the situation has changed. Even the church has changed. Even it accepted Heliocentric theory.

In the same way, most of the religions have done much harm to the society. Humanity has suffered a lot because of these religions. Think about those ISIS militants and their atrocities – where are their morale?

Now coming back to the question “does atheist have morale?” ; Do you think all the morale that a person has is linked to some kind of religion. Actually no. In fact only a little (if any) of our morale comes from religion. We have progressed both scientifically and morally than those times when the religion was first created. We have Abraham Lincoln who stopped slavery. We have Mahatma Gandhi who stood against violence and choose “ahimsa” way. It wasn’t Jesus or Mohammed who stopped Slavery or child marriages. Mohammed’s fourth wife Aisha was only 9 when she got pregnant.

In fact what I have to say here is if one is a hard core religious person and lives strictly according to these religious books (especially Quran), the chances are he is one with a lesser morale.

When someone claims that he/she is irreligious, does it give them justifications to negate teachings of religious communities. For example, thou not steal. Does it give someone who claims to be irreligious the right to steal?

NO.

Also, which of the above words excellently describes the life of an Athiest?

Moral. They probably keeps a higher moral than the average society .

Best regards.

 

[1robin]

In order to make a meaningful argument, you have to define what objective morality is. In other words, what constitutes its objectivity?

If you do not define that, you can replace "objective" with "jgvdchg" obtaining, thereby, the same meaningful results.

Ciao

- viole

Oh, I thought that was understood.

In this context objective morality would be moral duties free from the opinions of it's subjects.

However I already know what the usual argument is from non-theists and while your not typical let me head them off if coming.

Objective can change with time. I am not saying God's moral nature changes with time but even if it did it would remain objective. Also Euthyphro's dilemma I simply wrong. God neither declared morality into existence nor select it from outside himself. God is morality. He is the moral locus of the universe. His commands merely reflect his nature.

God's moral nature does not change but his commands involve two parties and one of those parties does change so the application of his commands may change but not the timeless nature they are derived from.

So God's morals are objective because those who must obey them did not use opinion to create them.
And God's morals would be objective in another sense since they are free of all opinion but are founded on an changeless and timeless nature which has always been true.

 

[1robin]

Nonsense. The objective process of evolution and natural selection evolved a survival instinct so we see survival as right and death as wrong. Just ask anybody who has taken instinctive action to avoid getting killed. Murder causes death and is therefore objectively wrong.With evolution and natural selection things are right or wrong. But since many people don't seem to be able to understand this, we attribute evolved morals to God and if we can get these people to believe in that God and obey the God's commands problem solved.

Nothing evolves an objective moral fact. It may evolve a behavior, a tendency to act a certain way, we may even base laws on those tendencies but none of that makes them objectively true. You might as well say right-handedness is a moral or not staring at the sun is a moral truth. Morals without God don't even exist. Only ethics remains and ethics are not objective truths, they are conventions. I will do more than ask somebody, I will supply what one the most brilliant non-theists said. The philosopher of science (Ruse) said that without God morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes. Without God you can't show that murder is wrong nor anything else. You can only say you, a minority, or a majority do not prefer murder. That is not morality, that is societal fashion.

 

[1robin]

Didn't you propose a method for determining morality from a secular viewpoint? That cost-benefit thing?

Good point. I did use morality to explain that cost benefit thing but if being semantically consistent I should not have. I should have used "unethical" or "unjustifiable". I was not trying to be semantically perfect and just used the common language use. It is hard for me to stay in a secular box after all these years. I commonly use sin and morality in places they may not be justified but that is just the language I think in.

There is actually more to this and I am being a little self critical. Morality was used by the Greeks and Romans in ways that were not objective. They separated morality into two classes. Things against social convention, and things against natural fact. However what Ruse was implying was that morality without God is not objective or related to TRUTH. It is just an illusory byproduct of evolution.

 

[ArtieE]

morality without God is not objective or related to TRUTH. It is just an illusory byproduct of evolution.

Yes, actually morality is a byproduct of evolution but there's nothing illusory about it. If you need to believe that your "objective morality" comes from a god that's fine but we understand that it came from evolution. If believing that morality comes from a god makes you more likely to behave morally then go for it. That is what religion is for. But if you are interested in knowing more about where morality actually came from you might read for example The Evolution of Morality

 

[ArtieE]

Without God you can't show that murder is wrong nor anything else. You can only say you, a minority, or a majority do not prefer murder. That is not morality, that is societal fashion.

I see your point. Most of the world don't believe in your God and his "objective morality" so most of the people in the world are immoral or amoral? and the only thing preventing them from murdering other people is that murdering people isn't fashionable in their society.

 

[Cephus]

Without God you can't show that murder is wrong nor anything else. You can only say you, a minority, or a majority do not prefer murder. That is not morality, that is societal fashion.

You certainly can't do it with God either. The OT is filled of God running around murdering people and ordering his "chosen people" to commit genocide. History is full of case after case of Christians murdering because they thought God told them to. Hitler was absolutely convinced that God ordered the Holocaust. Yeah, real moral there.

 

[Harikrish]

Based on the prison population atheists are more morally inclined. Note the nasty Christians Catholics and Protestants lead the statistics with atheists and Hindus at the bottom.


The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category: Response Number % ---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009% ---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Morals without God don't even exist. Only ethics remains and ethics are not objective truths, they are conventions.

"Moral" and "ethical" are basically synonyms.

 

[Harikrish]

Oh, I thought that was understood.

In this context objective morality would be moral duties free from the opinions of it's subjects.

However I already know what the usual argument is from non-theists and while your not typical let me head them off if coming.

Objective can change with time. I am not saying God's moral nature changes with time but even if it did it would remain objective. Also Euthyphro's dilemma I simply wrong. God neither declared morality into existence nor select it from outside himself. God is morality. He is the moral locus of the universe. His commands merely reflect his nature.

God's moral nature does not change but his commands involve two parties and one of those parties does change so the application of his commands may change but not the timeless nature they are derived from.

So God's morals are objective because those who must obey them did not use opinion to create them.
And God's morals would be objective in another sense since they are free of all opinion but are founded on an changeless and timeless nature which has always been true.

God is not morality nor is his morality objective. We should know because we are all created in his image.

Genesis 1:26.
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

The objective morality appears to be mans domination of all creation which has been the common theme since the creation of the universe.
In fact God has tried to intervene by trying to impose on man his subjective reactions to our actions.

Genesis 11:6
"Look!" he said. "The people are united, and they all speak the same language. After this, nothing they set out to do will be impossible for them!

Genesis 11:7
Come, let's go down and confuse the people with different languages. Then they won't be able to understand each other."

So God's morality is subjective. He makes the rules as he goes along. God did not adequately protect the tree of knowledge from Adam. He is now concerned man has grown independent and exercising his free will and domination on the world around him. But that was how and why we were created....to rule over the fish, birds and the universe.

 

[sun rise]

Yes, actually morality is a byproduct of evolution but there's nothing illusory about it. If you need to believe that your "objective morality" comes from a god that's fine but we understand that it came from evolution. If believing that morality comes from a god makes you more likely to behave morally then go for it. That is what religion is for. But if you are interested in knowing more about where morality actually came from you might read for example The Evolution of Morality

Murder and war are part of the animal kingdom - Chimps murder and wage war. Evolutionary biology has strained a bit to try to explain alrtuistic behavior.

 

[Nakosis]

"Moral" and "ethical" are basically synonyms.

Can be but morals are usually what you personally feel is right and wrong. Ethics is usually ideas about right and wrong which are externally imposed on you like laws. Where you get punished somehow for disobedience.

But people do use them interchangeably. Makes discussions like this confusing. Sometime I just use personal morals and group morals.

I think the discussion here is about a universal or objective group morals which I don't believe exists.

Do Atheist have a universal group morality? Probably not, why would they want such a thing? They have personal morals and they maybe accept the morals of a particular group. What I'd call ethics.

What is the necessity of objective morality? I don't really see a need.

 

[Nakosis]

Murder and war are part of the animal kingdom - Chimps murder and wage war. Evolutionary biology has strained a bit to try to explain alrtuistic behavior.

I think the words of Jesus and other religious leaders has been the cause. Whether those words came from God or their own ideas about God.

 

[Nakosis]

God is not morality nor is his morality objective. We should know because we are all created in his image.
.

Interesting view of the Bible. However the stories of Genesis are just religious stories religious folks long ago came up with to explain their world.

Personally I expect God to be amoral. If all powerful then concepts of right and wrong are meaningless to such a being. God could create, destroy then recreate at will. Why would such a being have any concept of evil.

Men judge right and wrong and what is evil. What happens, happens. If God is in control then it's God will for it to occur. When we, man, doesn't like it, we call it evil. Why would God care about our ideals for morality?

 

[McBell]

Based on the prison population atheists are more morally inclined. Note the nasty Christians Catholics and Protestants lead the statistics with atheists and Hindus at the bottom.


The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category: Response Number % ---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009% ---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)

Completely useless without the accompanying data.

Based upon the logic you presented red vehicles are the most dangerous to drive because they are in the most accidents.
But wait!
Once you learn that there are more red vehicles than there are of the other colours....

 

[ArtieE]

Murder and war are part of the animal kingdom - Chimps murder and wage war. Evolutionary biology has strained a bit to try to explain alrtuistic behavior.

An interesting link concerning this. The Evolutionary Biology of Altruism | Psychology Today

 

[viole]

Oh, I thought that was understood.

In this context objective morality would be moral duties free from the opinions of it's subjects.

However I already know what the usual argument is from non-theists and while your not typical let me head them off if coming.

Objective can change with time. I am not saying God's moral nature changes with time but even if it did it would remain objective. Also Euthyphro's dilemma I simply wrong. God neither declared morality into existence nor select it from outside himself. God is morality. He is the moral locus of the universe. His commands merely reflect his nature.

God's moral nature does not change but his commands involve two parties and one of those parties does change so the application of his commands may change but not the timeless nature they are derived from.

So God's morals are objective because those who must obey them did not use opinion to create them.
And God's morals would be objective in another sense since they are free of all opinion but are founded on an changeless and timeless nature which has always been true.

Yes, but that was not my question. i agree that if your God existed, then it could be the surce of objectivity. I also agree that divine command theory is the one with more phylosophical consistency under the premise of theism. But this explains objectivity only under the premise that such God exists.

My question concerns the reverse proposition: how do you define the objectivity of a certain, possibly controversial, moral predicate P (e.g. Death penalty for murderers is OK), in the absence of any other assumption or premise?

More specifically, is it possible to define such an objectivity we can tap on without appealing to any God?

Ciao

- viole