Does Atheism Have a Compatibility Problem With Morality?

[Paradox22]

Atheism is commonly criticized as utterly lacking the basis for a moral theory. Critics sometimes argue that without religion there can be no objective morality. The most misguided or deceitful of these critics suggest that atheists are therefore amoral. Critics of the theory of evolution assert that a materialistic world view can at best explain how events happen(ed), but neither Evolution nor atheism can support a moral theory.

I think critics are right that neither atheism nor a theory of evolution can be the basis of an objective moral theory. As Hume pointed out, one cannot infer “ought” from ”is”(or was). But this does not mean that there is no theory of morality compatible with a naturalistic/materialistic philosophy. Certainly there are many subjective or relative moral theories that are independent of the existence of a deity.

I think all or the overwhelming majority of the atheists and agnostics reading these forums consider themselves to be moral agents. I imagine that many atheists subscribe to a form of cultural relativism rather than an objective moral theory. If you an atheist or agnostic, I would be interested in hearing from you.

(1) Do you think that an objective moral theory has an advantage over moral relativism and/or subjectivism?

(2) Is atheism compatible with an objective moral theory that you agree with?

(3) If not, do you, as an atheist or agnostic, subscribe to a subjective or relativistic normative moral theory?

(4) If you agree that morality is independent of religion it must have predated religion. How do you think it came about? This question probably should be its own topic. I'll discuss my own view this later question at another time.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Man what is with the whole "Atheists Have No Morals" threads lately.

There are two ways morality can come from gods.

Either you have to believe to have morals, in which case you will have to explain how atheists could possibly show moral behaviour.

Or

A god imprinted morality in humans, in which case believing in a god is unnecessary.

Either way your argument fails.

That being said, i personally believe that morals come from our desire to live in social groups. Immoral behaviour is punished, therefore to be accepted as part of a group you have to act in a moral manner.

This theory explains how different societies have different morals.

 

[Valjean]

Morality has nothing to do with either God or Evolution. (what would the Theory of evolution have to do with ,moral theory, anyway?)
Are you saying atheistic Buddhists or secular humanists are less moral than Christians?

1) How is an "objective moral theory" a theory?
2) Sure it's compatible, though not necessarily related. Metallurgy and needlepoint are compatible, as well.
3) I subscribe to certain moral principles. If you wish to characterize this as a 'theory,' feel free.
4) It came about because, as social animals, co-operation is selectively advantageous.

 

[Ouroboros]

Atheism is commonly criticized as utterly lacking the basis for a moral theory. Critics sometimes argue that without religion there can be no objective morality. The most misguided or deceitful of these critics suggest that atheists are therefore amoral. Critics of the theory of evolution assert that a materialistic world view can at best explain how events happen(ed), but neither Evolution nor atheism can support a moral theory.

Just to point out here, what you're saying at the end there is basically what the term "a-moral" means. Yet you argue just before that that critics wrongly use the term amoral about atheists. Atheism is amoral, I don't think I have a problem with that. However, I suspect that you really meant to say "immoral", which is a bit different.

Amoral and immoral have two slightly different meanings. Immoral, means that someone is a deviant, against the moral norm, etc. Someone bad, in other words. Amoral means someone or something that doesn't take a stand on morality at all, but is open for either or.

Amoral, in dictionary: "lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something." A synonym is "without standards."
vs
Immoral: "not conforming to accepted standards of morality." A synonym is "unethical."

The way I see it, atheism doesn't suggest what morality is supposed to be. Humanism, and other forms of atheistic or non-theistic philosophies can however be a guide for moral code.

 

[Bunyip]

Only theists criticise atheism for lacking a moral theory, and it is only out of ignorance sadly.

Long before Christianity even existed, Socrates taught us that morals and ethics can be drawn from knowledge and reason alone.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Man what is with the whole "Atheists Have No Morals" threads lately.

There are two ways morality can come from gods.

Either you have to believe to have morals, in which case you will have to explain how atheists could possibly show moral behaviour.

Or

A god imprinted morality in humans, in which case believing in a god is unnecessary.

Either way your argument fails.

That being said, i personally believe that morals come from our desire to live in social groups. Immoral behaviour is punished, therefore to be accepted as part of a group you have to act in a moral manner.

This theory explains how different societies have different morals.

Actually, I'm wondering if the OP is making a point about atheism, rather than atheists, Quax.
I think the premise is that morals don't come from atheism, and to this I would agree. Let's see...

1) I don't believe in objective morality (truly objective morality) so from my point of view the question comes off a little hard to answer. It's like saying 'Wouldn't flying have been a more effective mode of transport for cavemen'. Whether it would or not is not what's important. What's important is whether it exists.

2) Not by my definition of 'objective', since this would probably be the same as a monotheistic view of objective morality. I've seen some atheists (and others) define objective morality as being 'commonly agreed morality to the point of universalism'. By such a definition, it's possible, I guess.

3) Well...I don't generally get into the labelling, too much. But I don't believe in a normative moral relativism, as described my Wikipedia. Maybe meta-ethical moral relativism.

4) It seems universal, and religion seems ALMOST universal. I'd offer that as evidence it predates and is independent of religion. But yeah, probably a separate topic.

Happy to explore any of this further, just thought I'd post some basic thoughts to start with.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see any evidence for objective morality, whether one believes or disbelieves. But I & other heathens do employ our own individual subjective ones. They're all quite compatible with atheism. I suppose I fit the description of a moral relativist.

 

[Paradox22]

1) I don't believe in objective morality (truly objective morality) so from my point of view the question comes off a little hard to answer. It's like saying 'Wouldn't flying have been a more effective mode of transport for cavemen'. Whether it would or not is not what's important. What's important is whether it exists.

Very good point! It seems absurd to discuss whether an objective moral theory is more advantageous than some other moral theory, especially when I did not offer two specific theories for comparison. That said, one could consider the merits of different general categories of moral theories. For example, a problem with cultural relativism is that it seems to present difficulties in evaluating practices in some societies to be 'bad.' We are tempted to say that the practice of non-consentual female genital mutilation is bad, but cultural relativism might make this impossible. On the other hand, an objective, universal theory of morality would serve as a way to make that judgment.

(Looking back, perhaps I should have referred to objective moral theories as "Universal" moral theories or principles. )

Just to point out here, what you're saying at the end there is basically what the term "a-moral" means. Yet you argue just before that that critics wrongly use the term amoral about atheists. Atheism is amoral, I don't think I have a problem with that. However, I suspect that you really meant to say "immoral", which is a bit different.

I would like to clarify that I am not suggesting that to be an atheist is to be amoral. An atheist is only amoral if (s)he lacks any sense of morality. Since morality is independent of religion, atheists can have a normative moral theory and principles. I tried to explain that some religious writers unfairly criticize atheists as being amoral on the basis that we do not have "God's Word" as a moral imperative. The idea is that if there is not a universal theory of morality, or set of universal moral principles, then the alternatives, subjectivism and relativism, pale in comparison.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't see any evidence for objective morality, whether one believes or disbelieves. But I & other heathens do employ our own individual subjective ones. They're all quite compatible with atheism. I suppose I fit the description of a moral relativist.

Agree with this. There are different flavours of moral relativism, and the impact of which of these you agree with is pretty informative though. A moral relativist is not a moral relativist. Or, all moral relativists are not the same. Or something.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Very good point! It seems absurd to discuss whether an objective moral theory is more advantageous than some other moral theory, especially when I did not offer two specific theories for comparison. That said, one could consider the merits of different general categories of moral theories. For example, a problem with cultural relativism is that it seems to present difficulties in evaluating practices in some societies to be 'bad.' We are tempted to say that the practice of non-consentual female genital mutilation is bad, but cultural relativism might make this impossible. On the other hand, an objective, universal theory of morality would serve as a way to make that judgment.

True, but not all morale relativists would argue that all morals are due to cultural norms, and should therefore be excused, or seen as equally valid.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or something.

Agree completely!

 

[LuisDantas]

I think critics are right that neither atheism nor a theory of evolution can be the basis of an objective moral theory.

I'm not so sure on that matter. Atheism is if nothing else less of a hindrance in the search for an objective morality. And the Theory of Evolution has been occasionally used to at least explain several human tendencies, mostly of a social nature, that have moral significance.

As Hume pointed out, one cannot infer “ought” from ”is”(or was). But this does not mean that there is no theory of morality compatible with a naturalistic/materialistic philosophy. Certainly there are many subjective or relative moral theories that are independent of the existence of a deity.

Definitely.

I think all or the overwhelming majority of the atheists and agnostics reading these forums consider themselves to be moral agents. I imagine that many atheists subscribe to a form of cultural relativism rather than an objective moral theory. If you an atheist or agnostic, I would be interested in hearing from you.

For what it is worth, I don't consider myself a cultural relativist.

(1) Do you think that an objective moral theory has an advantage over moral relativism and/or subjectivism?

Yes, I do. In fact, I think it is altogether necessary.

(2) Is atheism compatible with an objective moral theory that you agree with?

Definitely.


(3) If not, do you, as an atheist or agnostic, subscribe to a subjective or relativistic normative moral theory?[/quote]

Not as I understand those expressions' meanings.

(4) If you agree that morality is independent of religion it must have predated religion. How do you think it came about? This question probably should be its own topic. I'll discuss my own view this later question at another time.

Not independent as such; attaining moral results is one of the main purposes of legitimate religion. But it is true that morality transcends and predates religion. Religion at its best is a moral tool, but it is not the origin of morality as such.

IMO, morality is an unavoidable and necessary result of the interactions of social and rational agents who have the power to interfere on the environment and on each other's confort, safety and well-being.

That some people associate morality with supernaturalism is always a bit surprising to me.

 

[DayRaven]

That some people associate morality with supernaturalism is always a bit surprising to me.

Would you not contend that if morality truly was free of human agency then it would have to be willed by something else?

For me I can only envisage a truly objective morality, if there is such a thing, as derived from an external will.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, DayRaven, I don't think an externally-imposed model of Morality is viable, much less necessary. Morality must be cerebral. It can't be received.

 

[Ouroboros]

I would like to clarify that I am not suggesting that to be an atheist is to be amoral. An atheist is only amoral if (s)he lacks any sense of morality. Since morality is independent of religion, atheists can have a normative moral theory and principles. I tried to explain that some religious writers unfairly criticize atheists as being amoral on the basis that we do not have "God's Word" as a moral imperative. The idea is that if there is not a universal theory of morality, or set of universal moral principles, then the alternatives, subjectivism and relativism, pale in comparison.

Thanks for your clarification. It makes more sense now.

 

[Paradox22]

The way I see it, atheism doesn't suggest what morality is supposed to be. Humanism, and other forms of atheistic or non-theistic philosophies can however be a guide for moral code.

Very well put.

 

[Cephus]

(1) Do you think that an objective moral theory has an advantage over moral relativism and/or subjectivism?

There's no such thing as an objective moral theory because morality isn't objective. There isn't a single moral precept that has been universally followed by all people in all times and all places. Therefore the entire question is moot because objective morality is a myth.

(2) Is atheism compatible with an objective moral theory that you agree with?

I don't buy into any objective moral theories.

(3) If not, do you, as an atheist or agnostic, subscribe to a subjective or relativistic normative moral theory?

Morality is determined by a specific society or group of people for normative behavior standards within the group. That's all it is and it changes over time and across space.

(4) If you agree that morality is independent of religion it must have predated religion. How do you think it came about? This question probably should be its own topic. I'll discuss my own view this later question at another time.

Humans have basic needs and desires, based on being human. As a social species, we use enlightened self-interest to decide that if we don't want to be treated a certain way, we ought not treat others that way in hopes that they will reciprocate. That's the basis for all morality. Humans have been doing it since there were humans. Religion was largely invented as a means for enforcing moral views via a supernatural punishment.

 

[DayRaven]

There isn't a single moral precept that has been universally followed by all people in all times and all places.

There is no way to ascertain this either way (not for prehistoric societies anyway) but, as far as I am aware, there are the three basic prohibitions (murder,rape, theft) that all settled societies (and maybe itinerant ones) have always practised. Of course these are usually in-group and not applied to aliens.

Whether or not you subscribe to an objective moral imperative it would seem that humans, as we have formed more complex societies, have undergone selective pressure to favour these behaviours.

 

[Morfinyon]

1. No, I think that moral relativism/subjectivism has an advantage over "objective morality" which does not exist.

2. No, it's not.

3. I subscribe to my own morality which is very complex in its' nature

4. It came about through evolution. I think that religion is a harmful by-product of a certain (the collective) aspect if morality

 

[Cephus]

There is no way to ascertain this either way (not for prehistoric societies anyway) but, as far as I am aware, there are the three basic prohibitions (murder,rape, theft) that all settled societies (and maybe itinerant ones) have always practised. Of course these are usually in-group and not applied to aliens.

Whether or not you subscribe to an objective moral imperative it would seem that humans, as we have formed more complex societies, have undergone selective pressure to favour these behaviours.

Nope. Look at the Middle East right now, Muslims are practicing ritual rape today. Look at the Aztecs and other similar groups who routinely practiced ritual murder, both against outsiders and against their own people. I'm sure we could likewise find examples where theft was an accepted part of societies throughout history. Now certainly there are common moral elements, just because humans want many of the same things and thus, create moral systems that cater to those needs and desires, but these are subjective systems, created by humans, not objective systems, handed down from on high. As societies have gotten more advanced, we've gotten more moral, not less moral. Anyone who would read a lot of the things in the Old Testament and think they are moral would get no respect from me.