Where do atheists/seculars get their morals from?

[Warren Clark]

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.

No body has the same moral conscience as another.
One might not feel guilty for stealing, but I do.
One might not feel guilty lying, but I do.
One might not feel guilty killing or hurting someone, but I do.

One problem with "morality" is that some gain an irrational fear of some subjects because they feel uncomfortable about something and they mistake it for guilt.

Such has homosexuality.
I am gay.
I have never felt guilty about it except when I was Baptist and was trying to conform to the church.
Because they felt uncomfortable about two people of the same sex getting intimate they caused their irrational fear to instill guilt in me by saying it is wrong.

We inherently know right from wrong.
Its a chemical reaction in our brain.
Now we are taught these feelings by experience, but just like anything else it can be taught by word.
When a child goes to the stove while the mother is cooking she will tell the child, no thats hot it will hurt you. The child will then learn that doing that it is wrong to go near the stove.
Just as with stealing. The mother will say no, that is bad.
You then have instilled guilt and you learn that it is wrong.

That is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy a system that is often used by parents.

Now there are a few people that have disorders often related to psychopathy where they feel no human attatchment or guilt to any given situation.

Someone that is atheist isn't more likely have this disorder and are just as well to learn from experience or by being taught what is right and wrong.

Morals are really relative to the person though.
I might think lying is worse than the blunt truth even if it hurts someone.
But someone else might think that the blunt truth can hurt some people and a "white lie" is proper at times.

The way our society conducts its morals within the judicial system is that they set a standard for the intensity of the crime.
This is measured by a contract, whether it has been breached or not.
Or it is measured by malice, intent to cause bodily harm.

The Bill of Rights constitutes as a contract of personal rights to all US citizens.

 

[rockstarwife628]

I personally believe morality stems from our higher consciousness (our self-consciousness, you could say, our awareness of more than just instinct, if that makes sense), our ability to be "higher species", to be humane. This is something that applies to all people, regardless of religious affiliation (religion certainly does not have a monopoly on morality, and, as we're all aware, the misapplication of religion is more than capable of inspiring less than moral behavior). Each individual has an innate conscious and morality, and society as a whole has been cultivating what it means to be human/humane and moral for probably as long as we've been human. Thus I believe it is something that is innate in each of us and enforced/cultivated/complimented through being engaged in society/community.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

I wonder how many people feel, like I do, that ultimately it matters not. I really see no difference, because in either case it is still up to each and every individual to recognize his or her own moral responsibility, including learning to anticipate the consequences of one's specific actions instead of relying on general rules.

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.

I guess I would scratch my head, at least for a moment. The question seems to answer itself. How can anyone not care?

If someone asked me why harmony was important or why should we bother to care about harmony, I would be completely lost for words. I have no idea, truth-be-told.

Harmony is a needed element for pleasant and constructive situations. It may be a challenge to define those situations precisely, but that is a minor point IMO.

Plenty of reason enough for who? For you, perhaps. For me, not at all. I mean, why should I bother being happy?

It is SO much better than the alternatives... :yes:

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.

It is the only sensible thing to do. AND it is also the most pleasant of all possible courses of action. So what doubt remains?

If someone asked you why should any species survive and what difference would it make if any species survived, how would you answer?

There is no a priori reason why they must. But there is plenty of good reasons to care about how communities develop and which goals and habits they nurture.

I'm not sure why you mention biological species. They are not a significant concept when it comes to morals in this context, unless I am missing something.

I don't see why it matters personally. I don't see why it should matter if our species survived or not.

It matters in the smaller scale, of course. On the larger one, it may easily be the case that some species should be let destroy itself. But that is rarely a practical issue.

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 appreciate your input.

I have a feeling that we may be entering in perhaps too personal a matter to easily fit in a thread like this. Even then, I must say that it seems to me that you are describing a situation of unusually strong apathy.

 

[linwood]

I noticed that the "don't harm others" argument is almost the only thing which most Westerners agree upon, but what does harm mean? is it the physical harm, the psychological and sociological harm, or both?

I would phrase my morality as based upon "Don`t violate others" or "Minimize your violation of others as much as humanly possible."

The word violate (instead of harm) would cover "physical harm, the psychological and sociological harm," and just about any other "relative" situation you would find yourself in..ever.

 

[Matthew78]

I wonder how many people feel, like I do, that ultimately it matters not. I really see no difference, because in either case it is still up to each and every individual to recognize his or her own moral responsibility, including learning to anticipate the consequences of one's specific actions instead of relying on general rules.

If we started a similar thread in the debate section, we might ask people to weigh in and see how many people share your feelings on the matter. I do see a difference. The difference seems to be whether life exists for a purpose and meaning or not. If life doesn't exist for a purpose and there is no meaning to life, I really don't see any point in adding purpose or meaning to life. If we're just the sum of our cells, to heck with it- I see no point in even trying to live.

I guess I would scratch my head, at least for a moment. The question seems to answer itself. How can anyone not care?

I wouldn't see any point in caring. I don't know how the question answers itself. Am I just missing something here?

Harmony is a needed element for pleasant and constructive situations. It may be a challenge to define those situations precisely, but that is a minor point IMO.

If someone asked you why does it matter if there are pleasant and constructive situations or not, how would you respond? I wouldn't know how to. If someone asked me: why should we bother to care about pleasant and constructive situations or not? I wouldn't know how to answer. I really wouldn't. I just don't see the point to it. I see very little point to anything in life anymore.

It is SO much better than the alternatives... :yes:

This doesn't answer the question of why I should bother to care about which alternative is better than other alternatives. To say being happy is better than being miserable or apathetic doesn't answer the question of why I should bother to care about what is better and why. I still don't see the point. I really see no point as to why I should bother to even desire happiness.

It is the only sensible thing to do. AND it is also the most pleasant of all possible courses of action. So what doubt remains?

But I don't know why I should care about what is sensible and what is not. Really, what does it matter? If you care about what is sensible and not, good for you. Seriously. I don't know why I should bother. I really can't see any point to it.

There is no a priori reason why they must. But there is plenty of good reasons to care about how communities develop and which goals and habits they nurture.

What are they?

I'm not sure why you mention biological species. They are not a significant concept when it comes to morals in this context, unless I am missing something.

We often desire to protect life that is different from ourselves. Humans often oppose cruelty to dogs, cats, mice, and other animals. Humans often want to save life and extend human rights to animals. But what would it matter if we did so or not?

It matters in the smaller scale, of course.

Why, though? Maybe you can answer why it matters to you but I don't see why it ought to matter to me.

I have a feeling that we may be entering in perhaps too personal a matter to easily fit in a thread like this.

Do you get the impression that I"m easily bothered by this or that this subject is too sensitive for me? You needn't get any such impression, really. I don't care really because I see no reason to care.

Even then, I must say that it seems to me that you are describing a situation of unusually strong apathy.

At the risk of bringing us back to "square one"-what would it matter if I was apathetic or not? I am apathetic. For the most part, I see no point to life. I see no point to morality, to meaning, to hope, or to happiness. I stopped caring. I see no reason to care. Really, what's the point? Suppose I came to conclude that life was completely pointless and I decided not to exist anymore. What would my death matter? Why would I bother to care whether or not I existed or not?

It's not that I like apathy. I can't help it. If there's no reason or meaning to life, then, I say: to heck with it! If there's no ultimate point to life, the fact is, I just won't bother to live anymore. I wouldn't and couldn't see any point to it. But I haven't given up hope yet. I'm on a quest for answers. If there are none that satisfy me, then my existence is futile and I just won't live anymore. It just doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

I do hope there is ultimate meaning to life. I want to be happy but there's only one thing that can possibly make me happy. The only way I can be happy is to have hope in something that I have no evidence for: reincarnation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Funny... I despise the very idea of reincarnation with a passion, myself. Mainly because I have seen it used and abused in a major, shameful way by spiritists here in Brazil. People use it to completely deny their most basic moral responsibilities.

Are you willing to open a thread in one of the debate areas?

 

[Matthew78]

Funny... I despise the very idea of reincarnation with a passion, myself. Mainly because I have seen it used and abused in a major, shameful way by spiritists here in Brazil. People use it to completely deny their most basic moral responsibilities.

I understand. I think I have a different attraction to reincarnation for reasons that have nothing to do with spiritists or spiritualists. So I think I understand your contempt for it.

Are you willing to open a thread in one of the debate areas?

Sure! Would this be with regards to secular morality and purpose?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. I encourage you to choose your own wording.

 

[rocketboy]

I get my morality from what I was taught in kindergarden.
No hitting!
No namecalling!
Share the blocks with the others!
Clean up the blocks when you're done!
... etc.
I think these simple, matter of fact rules that everyone gets told, are far more reliable than more complicated definitions of good and evil.

 

[jelly]

long story short...from apes...

 

[waitasec]

I would phrase my morality as based upon "Don`t violate others" or "Minimize your violation of others as much as humanly possible."

The word violate (instead of harm) would cover "physical harm, the psychological and sociological harm," and just about any other "relative" situation you would find yourself in..ever.

long story short...from apes...

yup...
morality..evolves.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Morality has no constant even between people who follow the same book, the idea that we all have moral values that mesh due to divine input has no basis, morals stem from nurture and the evolutionary instinct to preserve ones body, the social aspects of the Ape family lend themselves to moral actions but what others call moral can disgust others, for instance the mutilation of childrens genitalia I find to be disgusting yet other find to be moral, morality has no constant.

 

[ReligionBro]

I believe humans are naturally both good and bad. Most will follow a path of good, but some may be bad due to their environment or something else.

Religion was not the origin of morals.