Where do atheists/seculars get their morals from?

[St Giordano Bruno]

We get it from the secular legal justice system. The Bible does not tell us for example the driving under in influence of alcohol is bad it took laws in our secular justice system to hand down laws against that. Also the rights and wrongs of intentially spreading HIV was also a law passed by by a secular justice system.

 

[waitasec]

we get it from our shared common decency, we're not aliens you know...

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Slavery is one thing secularists and atheists find pretty repugnant but that has been often quoted as being acceptable in the Bible. In fact some of the great religious schisms over the centuries are over differing views on it.

 

[dust1n]

I make them?

 

[Oneatatime]

Do atheists all around the world share the same set of morals?

If not, what is the source of morality then?


In case you are wondering why i'm asking this question, i'm currently reading a book called "Applying Moral Theories". In case you have not read that book, i'll tell you more about it when i get some feedback from you all.


Thank you.

Atheist have a wide range of morals and viewpoints which is to be expected because we come from a variety of backgrounds. The source of our morality is not massively different to the source of morals held by agnostics and theists with the obvious exception of religiously derived or reinforced morals. The sources of all our morals include but are not limited to self-reflection, society, peer-pressure, parental influence, the influence of those we admire and personal experience.

Religion clearly isn't the source of morality for several reasons. Firstly if religion was the source of morality then this fails to explain those morals which can't be accounted for through religious scripture or beliefs which have been passed down the generations verbally. Secondly the morals held by religious people of the same belief system varies between different culture or geographical origin indicating a certain amount of indpedence from religious moral doctrine which takes us back to the first point I made that there are morals which are not accounted for by religion.

This is not to say that religion shouldn't be used as a source of moral guidance because there are some morals promoted by religion which are commendable. I think that many religious people recognise this either conciously or uncounciously because they do not adhere to those beliefs which by societies standards are considered immoral. There are unfortunatly some individuals who hold religious views which are considered immoral such as homophobia but who unfortunately grew up in a homophobic environment and had this religious view reinforced. There are also those who are raised in a community where complete adherence to scripture is promoted which results in a particular set of morals becomingly deeply fixed bcause the source of moral guidence and prevailing morals of the society reinforce one another.

My personal view is that morals are learned behaviours which govern interactions between individuals both within and between species. The variation in morals around the world reflects our species flexibility in adapting to situations and finding a set or behaviours which best promotes survival and reproductive sucesss in that environment. This flexibility is not unconstrained otherwise behaviours which enhance an individuals chances of survival and reproduction would be lost. Instead an alternative behaviour must confer sufficient enough benefit in terms of survival and reproductive success before it will be adopted. Presumably as our brains become less neurologically flexible while we grow it becomes more difficult for them to be rewired and adopt new ideas which may explain why older people are considered to be more entrenched in their views compared to younger folk.

I think much of the inter-cultural conflict arises from this but aslong as open discussion is allowed to take place and we're willing to consider different moral viewpoints then it should resolve itself. Unfortunately many people are entrenched in their moral viewpoint and especially so when its been reinforced by religion or any other idealogy.

 

[waitasec]

Where do atheists/seculars get their morals from?

personally i consult my magic 8 ball...

 

[Straw Dog]

Do atheists all around the world share the same set of morals?

If not, what is the source of morality then?

In case you are wondering why i'm asking this question, i'm currently reading a book called "Applying Moral Theories". In case you have not read that book, i'll tell you more about it when i get some feedback from you all.

Thank you.

Hey!

Obviously atheists/agnostics/whatever don't share the same ethical code anymore than Christians share one. The source of all morality seems to lay in the individual. Some Christians favor the passive ethics of the NT while others focus on the "eye for an eye" of the OT. Some atheists prefer humanistic thought while other reject any notion of an objective morality (nihilism). I'm of the nihilist breed, although my position would more accurately be called neo-nihilism. I don't believe in objective morality at all. Of course, I value things and even behave often in a manner that others would call "moral". I'm amoral, though. I don't think in terms of ethical codes and arbitrary morality. My "correct" behavior is driven by my sense of integrity. Some of us are more evolutionarily predisposed to be compassionate while others are pushed to be more combative. I think humanity has a high variability in our adaption methods so it's impossible for any one universal ethical code to apply to all persons in all possible situations. What's my source of morality? Well, why should I follow any set morality to begin with?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think humanity has a high variability in our adaption methods so it's impossible for any one universal ethical code to apply to all persons in all possible situations. What's my source of morality? Well, why should I follow any set morality to begin with?

Hey kosherzombie,

I'm more of the humanist "type" that you described in your well-reasoned post. I'm kind of curious to hear more of your view because I'm not sure where we differ (if at all). For example, I agree with you that no single, universal ethical code can apply to all people, in all situations. However, I think there are some good ethical "rules of thumb". For example, one might argue that "Never tell a lie" is too restrictive, because we can easily imagine special situations where it would be good to lie. But as a general guideline, "Don't lie" is still a good guideline, or sentiment, to have in one's mind. So, in that sense, there is a middle ground between strict, immovable ethical codes on the one hand, and complete "anything goes" nihilism on the other hand.

So when you say you are "amoral" are you saying that you fall on one extreme end of the spectrum, i.e. where you literally do not / cannot consider anything to be "right" or "wrong"? Or, are you somewhere in the middle of the spectrum yourself, but you are emphasizing your rejection of the other extreme end of the spectrum, i.e. you are simply emphasizing that you do not accept any one rigid, immovable, inflexible moral code?

 

[Penumbra]

Do atheists all around the world share the same set of morals?

No.

If not, what is the source of morality then?

Reason and empathy, in addition to psychology developed from evolution.

Culture also plays a big part too, but culture is basically just a long-term filter of those previous things.

In case you are wondering why i'm asking this question, i'm currently reading a book called "Applying Moral Theories". In case you have not read that book, i'll tell you more about it when i get some feedback from you all.

Do you see morality more as a relative or objective? Because if it was relative, then all of what you have mentioned can be used to justify things which you might strongly disapprove sometimes, and if you see it more as objective, then it might be closer to those who believe in the divine commands.

Morality in its most fundamental form is subjective. It's what we make of it.

But when a goal is decided upon, such as developing a happy and flourishing society, there are objectively better or worse ways to do it. In that sense, morality becomes objective in relation to an agreed upon goal. Most rational goals promote flourishing of life, since there aren't many other things to rationally base goals around.

 

[PhAA]

I think it is from what the society consider as moral. Atheists just disregard the religious parts. I think morals started long ago when humans were starting to become more civilized. It is based on needs, survival, and for them to be able to stay and aid for people to assist each other for a better chance of... survival. Respecting each other, their family, their property. Other morals were added as they deemed necessary . I think the commandment on the scriptures are not to the people back then, there were just some who go against those morals.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

People who think their moral values rained down from the sky from some supernatural agent or delivered to them by Yahweh with ten rules chiselled out on stone tablets are just deluding themselves. Morals are instead born out of a social dynamic and has nothing to do with any invisible man operating a surveillance camera in the sky. It is born out of how we feel and judge aggression, especially in relation to homicide, injury and stealing each other’s possessions such stealing another’s recent kill he expended a lot of energy and time during his lass hunting expedition. A moral code in one form or another existed long before humanity invented religion.

 

[gnomon]

We just make it up like everyone else.

Honestly, most people get their morals from the ethnic group from which they derive which amounts to "Out ethnic group is right and theirs are wrong!". Intelligent, isn't it.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

Atheists get their morals from themselves and from their experiences with others. You don't need religion to be moral, in fact, religion makes nobody moral in my opinion.

 

[Otherright]

Well, we Buddhists get our morals from the teachings of our elders, just like you did. That's where we all get our morals. You did NOT get your morals from God or the Bible.

God didn't speak to you personally and give you the rules, nor did you sit down one day with a book and read it and instantly know what was right and wrong. You were taught, over the years by parents, teachers, grandparents, friends, trial & error and the like.

 

[waitasec]

Well, we Buddhists get our morals from the teachings of our elders, just like you did. That's where we all get our morals. You did NOT get your morals from God or the Bible.

God didn't speak to you personally and give you the rules, nor did you sit down one day with a book and read it and instantly know what was right and wrong. You were taught, over the years by parents, teachers, grandparents, friends, trial & error and the like.

naw...really...?
that just makes too much sense

 

[Matthew78]

In reply to TashaN:

I have read a few secular books and essays on morality. I have a good idea about where some people think we get our morals from. Morality evolved, it aided human societies, and it provides a means for achieving goals such as happiness. However, when I read about metaethical questions like "Why bother to be moral?" or "What does it ultimately matter if we're moral or not?", I'm at a loss for words. I don't know why. I remember reading Richard Carrier's book Sense and Goodness Without God and Michael Martin's book Atheism, Morality, and Meaning for their take on why we should bother to be moral. Neither author satisfied my curiosity.

I'm more and more inclined to believe that there is no real reason to be moral in a secular viewpoint. If it is a means to achieve happiness, the metaethical questions become "Why bother to be happy?" and "What does it ultimately matter if we're happy or not?" I see no answer to these. As I see it, we're nothing more than the sum of our cells and what our cells accomplish by themselves and together in the form of organs, bones, blood, and other systems of the body. Why be happy? I don't know. I like being happy but if we are just the sum of our cells-I don't know why we should be bother.

Perhaps some will argue that the goal of morality is reproduction. Being honest, fair, kind, and other moral behaviors gets you laid and your genes get passed on. As much as I love sex and love the thought of sex with a very beautiful, sweet-natured, woman, I can't see reproduction as answering the metaethical questions. Why bother to reproduce? What does it matter if I pass on my genes or not? I'm just cells and whatever emerges from the cells working both individually and collectively. So what?

I can't answer the metaethical questions. If there are no real answers, I'm not sure I see much further point in living. This is why I find Secular Humanism so unsatisfying. I haven't seen it answer these questions and I have lost confidence that, as a secular philosophy, it can.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Great post, Matthew78. I largely agree with you but I'd like to respond to this:

However, when I read about metaethical questions like "Why bother to be moral?" or "What does it ultimately matter if we're moral or not?", I'm at a loss for words. I don't know why.
...
I'm more and more inclined to believe that there is no real reason to be moral in a secular viewpoint. If it is a means to achieve happiness, the metaethical questions become "Why bother to be happy?" and "What does it ultimately matter if we're happy or not?" I see no answer to these. As I see it, we're nothing more than the sum of our cells and what our cells accomplish by themselves and together in the form of organs, bones, blood, and other systems of the body. Why be happy? I don't know. I like being happy but if we are just the sum of our cells-I don't know why we should be bother.

I can't answer the metaethical questions. If there are no real answers, I'm not sure I see much further point in living.

[Emphasis added] The bold part is where I think you've gone wrong.

First, remember that for every question like "Why should I be happy?" there is another question that is equally valid: "Why should I be unhappy?" Both questions should be held up to the same level of scrutiny. It should not be assumed by default that if we can't think of a reason we should be happy, then there must be a reason we should be miserable. I agree with you that there is ultimately no cosmic reason we should want to be happy. But there is also no reason we should want to be unhappy, and no reason we should be apathetic, either.

So, what should we do? Should we bother being happy? Should we bother being unhappy? Should we not bother with anything? I would argue that these are the key questions at the basis of secular ethics. They are questions about what we should do. Ethics is all about what we should (and should not) do. To answer these questions, we must ask another question: "Do I want to be happy?" Clearly, if I want to be happy, then it follows that I should bother being happy. Leading an ethical life might be a good way to accomplish this.

Now, notice that this question, "Do I want to be happy?" is a question of fact. The answer can be discovered by looking. And what we find when we look will not be determined in any way by what "should" or "ought" to be true. By analogy, if you want to find out if your car has gas in it, you look. It's either full or it's empty. This is a fact independent of whether it ought to be full or empty.

When we look, we find that people do want to be happy (perhaps with rare exceptions). The fact that people want to be happy is as valid, and important, and unchangeable, as the fact that people are made of cells. So now we can answer the question: "Should I bother being happy and moral?" If you look inside and discover that you do indeed want to be happy and moral, then logically, you should bother being happy and moral.

This is the basis of ethics in secular humanism, as I see it, and I cannot see a problem with it. What do you think?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm more and more inclined to believe that there is no real reason to be moral in a secular viewpoint. If it is a means to achieve happiness, the metaethical questions become "Why bother to be happy?" and "What does it ultimately matter if we're happy or not?" I see no answer to these.

I wonder what do you see as being the difference between a secular viewpoint and a religious viewpoint.

The way I see it, there is absolutely no difference in the answers to those questions due to being secular or religious. And the answers are, well, rather self-evident: happyness is both pleasant and conductive to harmony.

As I see it, we're nothing more than the sum of our cells and what our cells accomplish by themselves and together in the form of organs, bones, blood, and other systems of the body. Why be happy? I don't know. I like being happy but if we are just the sum of our cells-I don't know why we should be bother.

Because the alternative is being unhappy or at least apathic. Isn't that plenty reason enough?

Perhaps some will argue that the goal of morality is reproduction.

I don't see it that way. Reproduction is an important tool for attaining happiness, not the other way around. It is _also_ very useful for the survival of the species, of course.

Being honest, fair, kind, and other moral behaviors gets you laid and your genes get passed on. As much as I love sex and love the thought of sex with a very beautiful, sweet-natured, woman, I can't see reproduction as answering the metaethical questions.

Neither do I.

Why bother to reproduce? What does it matter if I pass on my genes or not? I'm just cells and whatever emerges from the cells working both individually and collectively. So what?

On one level, reproduction is an absolute need for biological species to survive along time. On another, it is also a source of motivation and joy (at least under the right circunstances).

That said, not everyone should reproduce. It is not always healthy to try to.

I can't answer the metaethical questions. If there are no real answers, I'm not sure I see much further point in living. This is why I find Secular Humanism so unsatisfying. I haven't seen it answer these questions and I have lost confidence that, as a secular philosophy, it can.

I guess I can only hope you realize the answers. It is not really hard.

 

[Matthew78]

Great post, Matthew78. I largely agree with you but I'd like to respond to this:
[Emphasis added] The bold part is where I think you've gone wrong.

Mr. Spinkles,

Thanks for responding. This was not an easy post for me to write so I appreciate your thoughtful and considerate response. I included my own responses spaced between your comments.

First, remember that for every question like "Why should I be happy?" there is another question that is equally valid: "Why should I be unhappy?" Both questions should be held up to the same level of scrutiny. It should not be assumed by default that if we can't think of a reason we should be happy, then there must be a reason we should be miserable.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Feelings of misery, depression, or dispair are not the only alternatives to feeling happy. One can feel apathy or some other feeling that has not been mentioned.

I agree with you that there is ultimately no cosmic reason we should want to be happy. But there is also no reason we should want to be unhappy, and no reason we should be apathetic, either.

Here is where I see some room for disagreement. This is a question that I have been pondering over for years now. I have been so troubled by it that I even contacted David Eller (author of Natural Atheism) and he was very kind enough to send me a chapter file of a book that he was writing. I still wasn't satisifed. I'm grateful that Dr. Eller was gracious and thoughtful enough to want to help a fellow atheist (or anyone for that matter) but it did me little good.

The room for disagreement would be the alternatives to being happy. I can't see any alternatives other than apathy or depression. Is there another option or more that I'm missing for some reason?

So, what should we do? Should we bother being happy? Should we bother being unhappy? Should we not bother with anything? I would argue that these are the key questions at the basis of secular ethics. They are questions about what we should do. Ethics is all about what we should (and should not) do. To answer these questions, we must ask another question: "Do I want to be happy?" Clearly, if I want to be happy, then it follows that I should bother being happy. Leading an ethical life might be a good way to accomplish this.

Exactly! We must satisfy the metaethical questions before going onto the ethical questions. Before we ask what is right and why we must ask oureslves why morality has any meaning and why. We must even ask if there is really any such thing as morality or moral values.

Now, notice that this question, "Do I want to be happy?" is a question of fact. The answer can be discovered by looking. And what we find when we look will not be determined in any way by what "should" or "ought" to be true. By analogy, if you want to find out if your car has gas in it, you look. It's either full or it's empty. This is a fact independent of whether it ought to be full or empty.

Excellent observation! You notice that there are two separate questions being asked: do we want to be happy? and why should we be happy or want to be happy? I think you correctly realize that this is part of the famous is vs ought distinction. The question Do I want to be happy is of the first category while the second is of the ought category.

When we look, we find that people do want to be happy (perhaps with rare exceptions). The fact that people want to be happy is as valid, and important, and unchangeable, as the fact that people are made of cells. So now we can answer the question: "Should I bother being happy and moral?" If you look inside and discover that you do indeed want to be happy and moral, then logically, you should bother being happy and moral.

I would answer: yes, I want to be happy. But I don't see how answering the question of fact (the is question) allows us to answer the ought question. I want to be happy but I don't know why I should want to or why I should bother. I really don't know what difference it would make. Right now, pretty much the only thing that is keeping me alive is my family. Otherwise, I see no point to life, no point to success or love.

This is the basis of ethics in secular humanism, as I see it, and I cannot see a problem with it. What do you think?

I appreciate your response but I still don't see how someone like me can go from merely recognizing that I want to live to thinking that I ought to live.

 

[Matthew78]

I wonder what do you see as being the difference between a secular viewpoint and a religious viewpoint.

LuisDantas, thanks for responding. My answer to this would be that it would depend on the secular viewpoint being considered or the religious viewpoint being considered. Some religious viewpoints believe that there is a meaning or purpose to our lives and life in general. Revealed religions, particularly Abrahamic religions, teach that we exist for the purpose of being part of some divine plan. A secular viewpoint would hold that our existence is merely incidental and that there is no purpose or meaning apart from whatever we, as individuals, attach to it.

The way I see it, there is absolutely no difference in the answers to those questions due to being secular or religious. And the answers are, well, rather self-evident: happyness is both pleasant and conductive to harmony.

If someone granted the fact that happiness is pleasant and conductive to harmony, but asked you why would you care if it's pleasant or not and what would it matter if it was conductive to harmony or not, how would you answer? I have no clue. If someone asked me why harmony was imporant or why should we bother to care about harmony, I would be completely lost for words. I have no idea, truth-be-told.

Because the alternative is being unhappy or at least apathic. Isn't that plenty reason enough?

Plenty of reason enough for who? For you, perhaps. For me, not at all. I mean, why should I bother being happy? What does it matter if I'm happy, unhappy, apathetic, or nonexistent. If you're satisifed with just being happy and knowing, rationally speaking, what best gets you there in ways that are in harmony with the rights and happiness of others, that's fine with me. Seriously. I just don't know why I should personally bother.

On one level, reproduction is an absolute need for biological species to survive along time. On another, it is also a source of motivation and joy (at least under the right circunstances).

If someone asked you why should any species survive and what difference would it make if any species survived, how would you answer? I don't see why it matters personally. I don't see why it should matter if our species survived or not. Don't get me wrong; I'm not in favor of hurting people, destroying life, or causing destruction or violence to innocent people. I don't see why it matters or why I should care and this actually depresses me.

I guess I can only hope you realize the answers. It is not really hard.

I appreciate your input.