Atheist Ethics and Morality

[Matthew78]

This whole mass murder argument is so misunderstood. First, Hitler was not an atheist, as much as religious people would like to claim he was, he just wasn't. But to me it doesn't matter whether he was or wasn't, no matter what his personal beliefs were, he did attrocious things that have nothing to do with atheism. He had a fervent ideology that was dogmatic and not atheistic. And even if he was an atheist, which he wasn't, you can't get from atheism to any action good or bad.

I have seen a few Christians use this to argue that atheism is inherently immoral and Christianity (by contrast) is good. The conclusion? You should convert Christianity.

I have seen quotes attributed to Hitler used to argue both points of view. I have seen quotes attributed to him to make the case that he was a Christian following the commandments of God and quotes to make the case that he was a godless heathen. I'm not sure what he was.

Stalin happened to be an atheist, however, it wasn't his atheism that drove him to do the attrocious things he did. It was his perverse views on marxism, which is very much like a religion, it's dogmatic and non-questioning. Again you cannot get from, "I don't believe x, therefor I'm going to do Y." The logic doesn't follow.

Stalin and people like him are the only real cases of atheism that can be used to cast atheism in a bad light. Christians will argue that even if it wasn't his atheism, per se, that led him to moral anarchy, and, consequently, to mass murder, they will argue that atheism was Stalin's justification. Some Christians will use a quote that is sometimes attributed to Dostoevsky, "If there is no God, then everything is permitted". Stalin wasn't answerable to a higher moral authority and, he, himself, decided what was right and wrong in his own eyes.

When I was a Secular Humanist, I had no answer for this. If people asked me, "If you're an atheist, how can you condemn the crimes of people like Stalin. After all, 'If there is no God, then everything is permitted' then why aren't the murders of Stalin and people like him permitted?" I would be left with no answer. I wouldn't know where to even begin trying to come up with one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have seen quotes attributed to Hitler used to argue both points of view. I have seen quotes attributed to him to make the case that he was a Christian following the commandments of God and quotes to make the case that he was a godless heathen. I'm not sure what he was.

From what I gather, he was a baptized and confirmed Roman Catholic who was never excommunicated, though he did end up with a penchant for the occult in his adult life.

Hardly someone who'd fit in at your local freethinker group. Or your local church, for that matter.

 

[Splarnst]

A difference might be that with a divine being, existence and life exist for a purpose, and that there is a purpose for existence.

I don't think that's a difference. A creature can assign his own life meaning just as well as a creator can. If I choose promoting peace and justice among humanity as my purpose, then it's just as valid as if my hypothetical creator had created me for that purpose.

We could choose to assign a purpose for our own lives but if the existence of the universe and life is incidential and never existed for a purpose in the first place, I couldn't see much point, if any, to assigning purpose or meaning.

First, I don't think it would be incidental. You now have a purpose. I don't think it matters in the least that you didn't always have that purpose. Second, if you see no point in assigning your life any purpose, then you must also see no point in a deity assigning your life purpose. Deities don't get to escape nihilistic conclusions by waving a magic wand of divinity.

No purpose or meaning to our cosmos or existence. Just a series of incidental events that has led to the present moment.

But at some level of creator/creature, the very first level faces the exact same existential problem you face. The original deity must have existed forever or arisen by chance. If you have no meaning or purpose, neither does this being. And if this being can give you meaning without having meaning themselves, so can your parents. But do you think your life would be meaningful if your parents conceived you on purpose, but not if you picked one for yourself? It seems unlikely.

I still wouldn't see any point to existence or any point to morality or meaning, though.

I myself follow rule utilitarianism, which is built up from the axiom that pleasure is good and pain is bad. That and the golden rule (or better, some advanced variation thereof) is all I really need for that.

Why be moral? Because you want other people to be moral in return. Why do you want other people to be moral and treat you well? I don't think that question deserves an answer, to be honest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When I was a Secular Humanist, I had no answer for this. If people asked me, "If you're an atheist, how can you condemn the crimes of people like Stalin. After all, 'If there is no God, then everything is permitted' then why aren't the murders of Stalin and people like him permitted?" I would be left with no answer. I wouldn't know where to even begin trying to come up with one.

Really? Then I have to say that you probably haven't thought about the issue that much.

I've heard two good analogies: one from Sam Harris, and the other from Matt Dillahunty (which he explains in the video I linked to earlier in the thread - if you didn't check it out before, I really suggest you do).

Sam Harris' analogy is that morality is like health: while knowledgeable people can have legitimate debates about the finer details, we have a good handle on the major points: even if we can't conclusively say exactly how much sodium per day is optimally healthy, we can all agree that drinking battery acid is unhealthy.

Matt's analogy is chess: it is sometimes difficult to say what the best move in any particular situation is. It could even be the case that there are multiple "best moves". However, the mere fact that we can't identify the single "best move" doesn't mean that all moves are equally good. You can still validly say that some possible moves are just stupid, given the parameters of the game.

Morality works in a similar way: even if we can't get a firm answer on every nuance of every question, we can still recognize that some moral choices, such as genocide of the people you govern, are wrong.

 

[tumbleweed41]

[/b]I did not ask for secular charities, I asked for atheist ones, and I asked for a list of tons of materials donated by them.

here is a quick list of charities that were started by atheists:
Atheist Charities
I can't find info on here of how many tons/year though?

example: from one very small denomination of one Christian church (only ~13 million people, a good chunk of which are not active) here are the stats of only one of their charity organizations:

LDS Church News - 'Helping hand' should reach out
'Helping hand' should reach out
“the Church has donated 1.1 billion dollars in humanitarian relief in 167 countries (1985 -2010)
61,308 tons of food,
12,829 tons of medical supplies and
84,681 tons of clothing

some example projects:

In 1988, for example, the Church teamed with Rotary International to eliminate polio. "As a young man in high school I witnessed firsthand the start of the polio epidemic in Salt Lake City," President Monson recalled. "Every day it seemed that someone at school came down with polio." The Church purchased sufficient polio serum to immunize hundreds of thousands of children against polio and donated refrigerators to keep vaccines viable until they were administered. Today 210 countries in the world are polio free. "One never goes wrong by helping a child," President Monson said.



Mobility Airmen assist with 18-ton humanitarian delivery
Mobility Airmen assist with 18-ton humanitarian delivery

Helping Hands, prosthetics delivered around the world - Odyssey Blog
Helping Hands, prosthetics delivered around the world
In one month: Nepal: 20; India: 300; Equador: 200; Dominican Republic: 80; Total: 600

Mail carriers collect two tons of food for Helping Hands | www.kilgorenewsherald.com | Kilgore News Herald
Mail carriers collect two tons of food for Helping Hands (in Kilgore, in one day)
“For more than 15 years, postal employees notified Kilgore residents of the effort through the mail and residents responded by placing boxes, bags, and even postal bins full of canned goods and dry food products by their mail boxes…."There was a fella out there on Peterson Road the other day that when the carrier pulled up, she thought it was his trash out by the road with all the bags. She said she filled up five of those tubs with all of his food." …McCann said occasionally the drivers had to make more than one trip to the same house to gather all the food. …Helping Hands (in Kilgore – just one little town) serves an average of 300 families per month through out the year.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I do hate talking about the #'s of it all



but it is a good way to compare who is doing what.


we can look at how many tons are donated / population - we know approximately what percentage of the world population is Christian etc. etc. and what percentage is atheist (including all the atheist countries)... yes, obviously smaller populations support smaller charities, but we can look at the ratios: tons donated / population


for us: 1.1billion$ / 13 million members (obviously many of these members are inactive, more than half live outside the US, many in impoverished developing countries etc. etc.)

61,308 tons of food,
12,829 tons of medical supplies and
84,681 tons of clothing
= 158,818 tons / 13 million members

Like I said...

Once the religious start actually giving to charity out of humane reasons rather than religious obligation - only then will I consider their claims of being moral...

But if you want to count morality by the total amount of money...

And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on."

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

When I was a Secular Humanist, I had no answer for this. If people asked me, "If you're an atheist, how can you condemn the crimes of people like Stalin. After all, 'If there is no God, then everything is permitted' then why aren't the murders of Stalin and people like him permitted?" I would be left with no answer. I wouldn't know where to even begin trying to come up with one.

We condemn any behavior that goes against the core tenets of our moral code. Morality doesn't have to be absolute or universal for us to believe certain behavior should be avoided.

People use the term "moral absolute" to mean morality that's God-given and immutable, but that's not what the term means in ethics. Technically, anything we consider an end in itself (life, pleasure, freedom, the absence of suffering, etc.) is an absolute. We decide which of our chosen absolutes are relevant in the context of any ethical problem.

-Nato

 

[Matthew78]

I don't think that's a difference. A creature can assign his own life meaning just as well as a creator can. If I choose promoting peace and justice among humanity as my purpose, then it's just as valid as if my hypothetical creator had created me for that purpose.

If I played devil's advoate and asked that you could indeed choose promoting peace and justice as your purpose, but, asked you, why would you even bother? How would you respond? I'm just curious.

First, I don't think it would be incidental. You now have a purpose. I don't think it matters in the least that you didn't always have that purpose.

When I speak of life being incidental or that the sequence of events leading up to this moment being incidental, I have in mind, more or less, the history of the cosmos and the history of evolutionary changes which have resulted in our species. Perhaps I should've stated this. Just to make myself clear, this is what I had in mind.

Second, if you see no point in assigning your life any purpose, then you must also see no point in a deity assigning your life purpose. Deities don't get to escape nihilistic conclusions by waving a magic wand of divinity.

I'm not suren how this follows. Would you mind clarifying?

But at some level of creator/creature, the very first level faces the exact same existential problem you face. The original deity must have existed forever or arisen by chance. If you have no meaning or purpose, neither does this being. And if this being can give you meaning without having meaning themselves, so can your parents. But do you think your life would be meaningful if your parents conceived you on purpose, but not if you picked one for yourself? It seems unlikely.

Playing devil's advocate, I'm not sure how any divine creator's purpose would be relevant. I don't see how it follows that if we have no meaning or purpose, then neither would this being. It could be that this creator is eternal, may have arisen by chance, or may evolve in a similar way that we do, and since this creator cannot self-destruct or destroy itself in some an act of suicide, this creator might have decided to give itself a purpose, perhaps out of a need to avoid insanity resulting fom eternal boredom.

I myself follow rule utilitarianism, which is built up from the axiom that pleasure is good and pain is bad. That and the golden rule (or better, some advanced variation thereof) is all I really need for that.

Does "rule utilitarianism" have any major philosophers who advocate it? I know mostly of classical utilitarianism and a modern form of utilitarianism such as "desire utilitarianism".

Why be moral? Because you want other people to be moral in return. Why do you want other people to be moral and treat you well? I don't think that question deserves an answer, to be honest.

So, what it boils down to is that we make our own purpose, a purpose that gives us pleasure, and we do what we can, in the form of rules, to maximize our pleasure and avoid pain. So we are moral to others so that they will treat us with mutual respect, with the goal being that all of us will live in harmony, with all of us maximizing our pleasure.

 

[Matthew78]

Really? Then I have to say that you probably haven't thought about the issue that much.

On the contrary, I have thought about this issue deeply. For several years to be exact.

I've heard two good analogies: one from Sam Harris, and the other from Matt Dillahunty (which he explains in the video I linked to earlier in the thread - if you didn't check it out before, I really suggest you do).

I might have to wait a bit to check it out.

Sam Harris' analogy is that morality is like health: while knowledgeable people can have legitimate debates about the finer details, we have a good handle on the major points: even if we can't conclusively say exactly how much sodium per day is optimally healthy, we can all agree that drinking battery acid is unhealthy.

A critic might argue that Harris is guilty of question-begging. Sure we can't conclusively say what amount of sodium is optimally healthy, but, that begs the question of why should we even bother to consume sodium for health's sake in the first place? I see the point in Harris' analogy but a critic might argue that even Harris cannot get around the problem of question-begging.

Matt's analogy is chess: it is sometimes difficult to say what the best move in any particular situation is. It could even be the case that there are multiple "best moves". However, the mere fact that we can't identify the single "best move" doesn't mean that all moves are equally good. You can still validly say that some possible moves are just stupid, given the parameters of the game.

A critic might just ask why even play a game of chess? If life is like playing a game of chess, why live? There are good moves and bad moves, with some moves being better than others, but why care about even playing the "chess game" of life? What does it matter if one move is better than another? What difference does it make?

Morality works in a similar way: even if we can't get a firm answer on every nuance of every question, we can still recognize that some moral choices, such as genocide of the people you govern, are wrong.

How would you answer a hypothetical critic who would argue that you guilty of question-begging here? The question being begged here is why would it be wrong?

I think what these and many of the other answers in this thread boil down to is whether you want to live or not. If you want to live and for a specific purpose or so, then there are some rules you ought to live by, rules which create a general harmony. What is right is what is conductive to harmony, and, what is wrong being destructive to harmony. The result is that everyone maximizes his own pleasure, realizes her own purpose, in an orchestrated harmony with others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A critic might argue that Harris is guilty of question-begging. Sure we can't conclusively say what amount of sodium is optimally healthy, but, that begs the question of why should we even bother to consume sodium for health's sake in the first place? I see the point in Harris' analogy but a critic might argue that even Harris cannot get around the problem of question-begging.

I don't see how it's question-begging.

The question of whether to consume sodium for health's sake comes from a reasonable definition of "health" and a knowledge of nutrition and its relationship to health.

A critic might just ask why even play a game of chess? If life is like playing a game of chess, why live? There are good moves and bad moves, with some moves being better than others, but why care about even playing the "chess game" of life? What does it matter if one move is better than another? What difference does it make?

What does it matter what difference it makes? You're in the game no matter what, and if you have any objectives at all, then you'll have to take the rules into account if you want to acheive them.

How would you answer a hypothetical critic who would argue that you guilty of question-begging here? The question being begged here is why would it be wrong?

I don't see how that question is being "begged". And your usage of the term implies to me that you don't really know what "question-begging" means.

However, maybe I'm mistaken. It might help if you explain your argument here in a bit more detail.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How would you answer a hypothetical critic who would argue that you guilty of question-begging here? The question being begged here is why would it be wrong?

Tell you what: I'll try to tackle this.

Let's start off with a question: do you want to continue living?

And keep in mind that I'm not asking whether you think you have a good reason to continue living; all I care about is whether you actually want to or not. So... would you mind if someone killed you? Yes or no.

 

[Matthew78]

Tell you what: I'll try to tackle this.

Let's start off with a question: do you want to continue living?

Only if I was meant to exist for a purpose. If not, then no.

And keep in mind that I'm not asking whether you think you have a good reason to continue living; all I care about is whether you actually want to or not. So... would you mind if someone killed you? Yes or no.

If I was an atheist (philosophical naturalist): no. I wouldn't mind if someone killed me. I would die anyways, one of these days, so what would it matter if someone killed me? If I was meant to exist for a purpose, yes, because if I was killed, I might not be able to live for the purpose I was meant to exist for.

 

[idea]

Okay, mind if I ask what you are?

I'm Mormon (a convert to this church, I've met with many different religious groups, but have only officially joined the one)

I would but I suspect that I know the point that they want to make. Atheism leads to moral nihilism and moral anarchy, and so it makes murderers out of people. Christianity posits an objective morality and makes people into saints so people should become Christians. (No thanks; I abhor Christianity as much as I abhor anything)

If I came to agree with you, that atheism is what led to moral nihilism (i.e. "everything is permissible") and to people murdering, then, I would most likely become a deist. I would become a deist and a religious Humanist like a number of our founding Fathers, unless I decided to become a pagan, a Wiccan, or something like that.

I'm not atheist, but there is a "survival of the fittest" type mentality. I think you can recognize the benefits of preserving the herd etc. etc. although I'm not sure how helping elderly/handicapped/mentally ill would help with herd survival? I mean we can look at animals and what they do - without religion - in order to preserve their herd

see: Altruism in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but then we can also look at animals and see the other bloody things they do... I'd like to think that people don't need to be forced to be good? Democrat vs. Republicans - Democrats believe that you have to forcefully take taxes from people to feed the poor, vs. Republicans who believe that you can take care of one another voluntarily without the gov forcing you to...(God forcing you to, vs. no God forcing you to)

you can go back and forth justifying why people behave the way they do, rationalize why someone would be a murderer, vs. why someone would be charitable - you can rationalize each side, so to really know the truth, you have to look at what people are actually doing, how people are actually behaving...

Stalin was an atheist...Mao Zedong...Karl Marx... Pol Pot... [FONT=&quot]The First and Second World Wars, Communist China and the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Soviet Union[/FONT][FONT=&quot] account for about 75% of all deaths by atrocity in the 20th Century - when you see what many atheists do when they are given control of a nation, it is pretty scary. [/FONT]

some quotes:
AYN RAND (Atheist philosopher) - “ To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.”

ALBERT CAMUS (French atheist writer) was “a man in love with the tangible pleasures of this earth rather than the ethereal blessings of Heaven.”

d'Holbach "It would be useless and almost unjust to insist upon a man's being virtuous if he cannot be so without being unhappy. So long as vice renders him happy, he should love vice."

Dawkins “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." (???? it's not a hard question, Hitler was very immoral...)

Vladimir Lenin said "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

look at the stuff North Korea and China are doing to try to eradicate religion from their countries...
http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/china-christians-tortured-while-under-arrest/
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/korean-reds-targeting-christians/23082/
etc. etc. etc.

The Right Cares - Interview - National Review Online

"My book explores four areas of our culture that lead people to give, or not: religious faith, attitudes about the government’s role in our lives, the source of one’s income, and family. These are the big drivers of giving in America today, and the biggest is religion. Religious folks give far more than secularists in every way I’ve been able to measure."

even without considering church donations - "Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics."

per capita atheists and agnostics in America give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.

Religious faith and charitable giving | Policy Review | Find Articles at BNET
the fact that there are no churches for Atheists has nothing to do with it. Theists win, even when their church donations are not counted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Donations are correlated to morality. Morality deals with the code of conduct in which we treat one another. It is moral to help those around you who need it.

Charitable donation issues are the tip of the iceberg, and point to much graver issues such as the mass murders by atheist communists of the past, and present.

philosophy aside, the most good in the world - the homeless shelters, and soup kitchens - the majority of it seems to come from religious organizations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only if I was meant to exist for a purpose. If not, then no.

I'm not asking hypotheticals. Search your heart: presumably, right now, you either want to die, want to live, or don't care either way. Which is it?

If I was an atheist (philosophical naturalist): no. I wouldn't mind if someone killed me. I would die anyways, one of these days, so what would it matter if someone killed me?

That's all fine, but are you an atheist?

If I was meant to exist for a purpose, yes, because if I was killed, I might not be able to live for the purpose I was meant to exist for.

Again: fine. But is this what you believe?

So... again: this very moment, taking into account everything you believe or don't believe, and everything you're certain and uncertain of, would you rather your life to continue or not?

I'm not asking you whether you should want to live or not. I'm asking you whether you do want to live or not.

 

[Alceste]

I can't say that I did. I was dishonest a few times, which I sorely regret, and I vowed that I would never be dishonest again unless it was absolutely necessary.



People who I now share an objective morality with? It was Murray Bookchin (an avowed atheist) who convinced me that objective morality was possible in the first place! Richard Carrier also argues that morality is objective. That is what his "Goal Theory" is about. It's an objective theory of ethics. He believes that moral facts exist and science can discover them. These atheists (and more) believe that objective morality is real and Secular Humanists should subscribe to them.



It ultimately makes no difference to human behavior? Playing devil's advocate, I would say that it does. Why? Because if there is no objective morality and people decide their own morality, then we cannot, in good conscience, condemn Hitler for his anti-Semitic crimes against humanity. Why did Jeffrey Dahmer commit his immoral acts? Because he believed that there was no objective morality, IIRC.

OK, I see where you're coming from. At the most fundamental level, I'm ethical because it makes me feel good about myself. Who wants to feel like an *******? It also makes me happy to see that others are happy. Research shows this is innate - generous people are happier than misers. Who wants to be unhappy?

 

[Matthew78]

I'm not asking hypotheticals. Search your heart: presumably, right now, you either want to die, want to live, or don't care either way. Which is it?

At this point, I want to live.

That's all fine, but are you an atheist?

No. If I was, I wouldn't be alive to tell you.

Again: fine. But is this what you believe?

I only believe that it's possible that I am meant to exist for a purpose.

So... again: this very moment, taking into account everything you believe or don't believe, and everything you're certain and uncertain of, would you rather your life to continue or not?

I would continue my life.

I'm not asking you whether you should want to live or not. I'm asking you whether you do want to live or not.

I want to live to see if I am meant to exist for a purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At this point, I want to live.

Okay... so by extension, if someone is thinking of killing you, you would prefer that they didn't do it, right?

 

[Matthew78]

Okay... so by extension, if someone is thinking of killing you, you would prefer that they didn't do it, right?

Of course

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course

Good.

Now... let's think of a random person out there somewhere: John Smith in Anytown, USA, who we'll assume also doesn't want to die. What substantive difference do you think there is that would warrant a different treatment of him versus you?

Edit: or is there a substantive difference at all?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Simply put I do everything because I want to. There can be no other reason and no other reason is important.

I am moral because I want to be.
I live because I want to.

I do not need to be told what morals are or how I am supposed to use them. I do not need anyone to give a purpose to my life it is my life and my choice. I am who I am and like the person I am.

Agreed.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I wasn't more inclined to commit these wrongs as a Secular Humanist. In fact, when I was a Secular Humanist, I felt more inclned to be honest, loving, and compassionate. My reasoning, at the time, was that this was the only life that we would get so it's best to make best with the only life that we are at least certain that we have.

I'm confused, you were more inclined to be honest, loving, and compassionate as a secular humanist yet this wasn't enough? Why?

You seem to be preoccupied with the whys of moral behavior to the point that moral behavior in and of itself no longer matters.

This is true. Besides, those who I now share a belief in objective morality would hate me or worse for being a Secular Humanist, yes, but I'm not sure why this would matter.

It matters because believing morality to be objective makes no difference to anything so I don't understand why it is important to believe it is.

I think it does make a difference in terms of moral behavior. It surprises me that Secular Humanists who believe that morality is relative or subjective behave in morally good ways. I'm happy that they do but I'm puzzled by their behavior.

Again I'm confused. You say it makes a difference but at the same time you're puzzled that moral relativists behave in morally good ways. If moral relativists behave morally then, again, why is it so important that it be objective?

I think it's more accurate to say that the terrorists believed not so much in objective morality but in moral absolutism. I regard this as being different from objective morality. Absolutist morailty is what has caused some terrorism in the past and it will continue to do so.

My understanding of the term "objective morality" is that moral values are objective, not subjective, and are according to a moral code or imperative that exists outside of ourselves. In other words, absolute. In that, homosexuality is wrong or it is not. Bribing a police officer is wrong or it is not.

If by "moral absolutism" you mean that they absolutely abided by their moral code that calls for killing infidels, yes, they were. But the fact remains that, like you, they believed morality is objective.