Do Athiests have morals?

[LuisDantas]

So who then does not have any morals?

Psychopaths and sociopaths, mostly. People who lack either the knowledge and interest in learning and following moral codes or the talent to develop them intuitively.

I contend that there is not a single person alive, who has ever lived, or will ever live who has no morals.
Everyone has morals.

I suspect you are adopting a more ample understanding of the word than I usually use.

Disagreement with someone elses morals does not mean the one with the morals disagreed with does not have morals.

Indeed. But I do not call that immorality.

 

[Scott C.]

Some people do not require the threat of punishment or the hope of reward to be good.
Your claim implies otherwise.

You misunderstood me. God gives us a conscience to know right from wrong, which encourages us to do right, for right's sake, and out of love. This has nothing to do with punishment and reward.

 

[Quintessence]

Psychopaths and sociopaths, mostly. People who lack either the knowledge and interest in learning and following moral codes or the talent to develop them intuitively.

Ironically, the sociopath I knew was what I would describe as one of the most moral-driven people I'd met in the sense of following a moral code. Knowing this guy was an interesting experience, to say the least. They had a highly developed and thought out moral code that guided their behavior. Frankly, I think it's what they used to rationalize their behavior. Which, when I think about it, really is not different from how everyone uses moral codes: to rationalize their behavior, or limits they place upon it.

 

[JerryL]

Ironically, the sociopath I knew was what I would describe as one of the most moral-driven people I'd met in the sense of following a moral code. Knowing this guy was an interesting experience, to say the least. They had a highly developed and thought out moral code that guided their behavior. Frankly, I think it's what they used to rationalize their behavior. Which, when I think about it, really is not different from how everyone uses moral codes: to rationalize their behavior, or limits they place upon it.

A sociopath is not defined by a lack of morality, but by a lack of empathy. They are commonly narcissistic ; and codes of conduct become part of their self-view and so can be rabidly adhered to (fueling the narcissists feeling of importance and superiority).

Indeed: one trait likely to differentiate a sociopath from a non-sociopath is that the latter is likely to behaving against moral code because "it's better". Stealing to feed someone, for example.

 

[allfoak]

Do Atheists have morals?

To be customary in your behavior is to be moral.
Ask royalty and heads of state what it means to be moral and they will reply:
When in Rome...Do as the Romans Do..

We are our own guidance system.
There is no moral, government or religion that can usurp the guidance that comes from within.

We must follow our passion, our bliss, our happiness, our dreams, we all know the drill.
We have all been told.
Do what makes you happy.

 

[Draka]

I have to agree with Mestemia on this one. Morals are simply a persons internal classification of rights and wrongs. Everyone has them. Everyone. Now, not everyone is going to agree with or approve of everyone else's morals and to others some may appear so different that they are declared "immoral" or even "amoral". Truth of the matter is, there is no "immoral" nor "amoral", simply a vast disagreement in what, exactly, is "moral". That is, what is "right" and what is "wrong". Since those are subjective anyway then it makes sense that people would disagree upon such things and make such determinations about others based on those disagreements.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ironically, the sociopath I knew was what I would describe as one of the most moral-driven people I'd met in the sense of following a moral code. Knowing this guy was an interesting experience, to say the least. They had a highly developed and thought out moral code that guided their behavior. Frankly, I think it's what they used to rationalize their behavior. Which, when I think about it, really is not different from how everyone uses moral codes: to rationalize their behavior, or limits they place upon it.

I am kicking myself for not mentioning that possibility previously, Quintessence. Sociopaths and psychopaths may and do follow moral codes, mainly because that is so useful in facilitating their continued acceptance by wider society.

Whether they are themselves moral or immoral people is a largely unrelated matter, at least by my understanding of morality. So-called moral codes have their uses, but usually have little to do with morality.

 

[steeltoes]

This atheist doesn't need no stinkin' morals to know that stealing is wrong. On the other hand there are some grey areas, such as if a mother has to steal some bread to feed her children, in such a case I would cut her some slack, in fact I might even find it admirable of her.

 

[JerryL]

I am kicking myself for not mentioning that possibility previously, Quintessence. Sociopaths and psychopaths may and do follow moral codes, mainly because that is so useful in facilitating their continued acceptance by wider society.

Whether they are themselves moral or immoral people is a largely unrelated matter, at least by my understanding of morality. So-called moral codes have their uses, but usually have little to do with morality.

Is it just me, or does it seem that the author of certain religious books is a sociopath?

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it just me, or does it seem that the author of certain religious books is a sociopath?

Just one author? I think it is more common than that.

 

[LuisDantas]

This atheist doesn't need no stinkin' morals to know that stealing is wrong. On the other hand there are some grey areas, such as if a mother has to steal some bread to feed her children, in such a case I would cut her some slack, in fact I might even find it admirable of her.

Knowing that something is wrong is claiming to have morals, isn't it?

 

[icehorse]

I have to agree with Mestemia on this one. Morals are simply a persons internal classification of rights and wrongs. Everyone has them. Everyone. Now, not everyone is going to agree with or approve of everyone else's morals and to others some may appear so different that they are declared "immoral" or even "amoral". Truth of the matter is, there is no "immoral" nor "amoral", simply a vast disagreement in what, exactly, is "moral". That is, what is "right" and what is "wrong". Since those are subjective anyway then it makes sense that people would disagree upon such things and make such determinations about others based on those disagreements.

But societies and cultures codify morals as well, and citizens are more or less bound to follow them, or jail time can ensue. And (to reflect a parallel thread), I'm not alone in thinking that we can take logical and reasoned approach to codifying universal morals. For example, way back in the 1940s the UN tried to establish a universal human rights declaration. We shouldn't give up on that.

 

[JerryL]

But societies and cultures codify morals as well, and citizens are more or less bound to follow them, or jail time can ensue. And (to reflect a parallel thread), I'm not alone in thinking that we can take logical and reasoned approach to codifying universal morals. For example, way back in the 1940s the UN tried to establish a universal human rights declaration. We shouldn't give up on that.

You appear to be equivocating.

 

[icehorse]

You appear to be equivocating.

I'm not sure how to parse that, can you say more?

 

[Father Heathen]

Morals come from our innate empathy coupled with our ability to reason, something all psychologically sound people possess, regardless of whether or not they believe in god.
You're not a moral person if you're only "good" out of hope for reward and out of fear of punishment.

 

[LuisDantas]

But societies and cultures codify morals as well, and citizens are more or less bound to follow them, or jail time can ensue.

I wonder why people keep saying that when we know that it is not the truth. Jail time comes from not following the laws and customs. Morals and laws are fairly different things, although there are many who attempt to meld the two for reasons that have so far somewhat eluded me.

And (to reflect a parallel thread), I'm not alone in thinking that we can take logical and reasoned approach to codifying universal morals. For example, way back in the 1940s the UN tried to establish a universal human rights declaration. We shouldn't give up on that.

Indeed we shouldn't, but we must accept that such an effort is doomed until and unless proper sustaining efforts are realized. And as the 1980s and more recent times have made abundantly clear, we overestimated ourselves when we believed the time for writing such statements had come. There is no point in making universal rights declarations if we are not even trying to reach universal common understandings.

 

[LuisDantas]

Morals come from our innate empathy coupled with our ability to reason, something all psychologically sound people possess, regardless of whether or not they believe on god.
You're not a moral person if you're only "good" out of hope for reward and out of fear of punishment.

That is just exactly right, IMO.

 

[bobhikes]

A sociopath is not defined by a lack of morality, but by a lack of empathy. They are commonly narcissistic ; and codes of conduct become part of their self-view and so can be rabidly adhered to (fueling the narcissists feeling of importance and superiority).

Indeed: one trait likely to differentiate a sociopath from a non-sociopath is that the latter is likely to behaving against moral code because "it's better". Stealing to feed someone, for example.

Interesting, Does this mean that empathy is more important than morals and is empathy common to all non-sociopath persons.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interesting, Does this mean that empathy is more important than morals and is empathy common to all non-sociopath persons.

My reading of it is that there are two, often conflicting, views of what morals are. The poorest variety is the codified one that psychopaths usually learn to master because they can't afford to have none. But actual living, thriving morals can only develop in people that are both rational and empathic.

 

[bobhikes]

My reading of it is that there are two, often conflicting, views of what morals are. The poorest variety is the codified one that psychopaths usually learn to master because they can't afford to have none. But actual living, thriving morals can only develop in people that are both rational and empathic.

I like the ability to reason and empathic but its only a minor difference. I also see this as active reasoning it can't be set in stone. That's a problem with morals there is always an exception to the rule.