Atheists and believers surprisingly share moral values, except for these 2 key differences

[PureX]

For me, ill-intent is simply being able to anticipate the consequences of your actions and doing them in spite of the likelihood of harming others.

In my personal beliefs, there are two basic moral values: think and care. We need to *think* about our actions and the likely consequences and *care* about how those consequences affect others.

Because of this, intent is very important. What a person *intends* says why they did the action they took and how they were thinking about it. Whether they did the action without *caring* for the consequences and whether they *thought* about those consequences before the action is at the heart of morality, as I see it.

But, even with intent as an important factor, the expected consequences are crucial for determining morality, NOT what some 'authority' made up.

I think intent is important for another reason, and it's that a person's nature is cumulative. Every time we are willing to cheat someone else to gain something for ourselves, it becomes a little easier to do the next time, until it eventually becomes automatic. And if we are not mindful of this, we can become someone we never wanted to become without even realizing that we have do so. We lose ourselves by our own ignorance and neglect.

Say what you will about religion, but they do tend to help people stay focused on the ethical morality of their own behavior. While atheism encourages ignorance in that regard.

 

[Polymath257]

Thus, we presume to stand in judgment of everyone we encounter.

No. We stand in judgement of those who want authority.

So are judges, including you and I when we stand in judgment of others.

Yes, those who want authority.

There are two methods of obtaining authority. One is to have it confered upon us, by others, and the other is for it to be pushed on others, by us. The former deserves everyone's respect, while that latter deserves no ones respect.

Agreed. And that is because of the consequences of respecting authority derived in that way. We judge the authority and decide they are worthy of that authority by conferring it upon them. It is ultimately the choice of the people involved as to whether or not a person deserves and gets the authority.

To have authority pushed is to encourage instability in the society because it promotes disaffection to the rules of that society. That tends to lead to more overall unhappiness.

Always the lone judge, and never a supporting member of society, right?

Wrong. The cohesiveness of the society is a value: it has consequences for the people in that society. And those consequences need to be considered and we have to care about them.

Atheist tend to be just as full of and biased by their own BS as anyone else is. And just as blind to it, too.

And they sure do like to stand in judgment of everything and everyone.

No, that tends to be what theists do. Atheists are much more likely to allow people to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others.

I have witnessed that they only thing atheists doubt is the judgement of others. Never their own.

Not even close. Because there is no deity, we have to continually question ourselves and our beliefs. As I see it, we have an obligation to think and care. And we judge ourselves by that standard, often more so than others.

 

[Polymath257]

I think intent is important for another reason, and it's that a person's nature is cumulative. Every time we are willing to cheat someone else to gain something for ourselves, it becomes a little easier to do the next time, until it eventually becomes automatic. And if we are not mindful of this, we can become someone we never wanted to become without even realizing that we have do so. We lose ourselves by our own ignorance and neglect.

Say what you will about religion, but they do tend to help people stay focused on the ethical morality of their own behavior. While atheism encourages ignorance in that regard.

In other words, the habit of self-regulation is important. I agree. We need to encourage the habit of thinking and caring about the consequences of our actions.

But, once again, it is the *consequences* that are the reason why this is a good thing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

By analyzing the beliefs of nearly 5,000 people in the United States and Sweden, he found that atheists and theists share a number of moral values:

Yes, but talk costs nothing. I may think myself to be moral, but when it comes down to the moment isn't it often a question of convenience?

Suppose I could walk through walls. Don't you think I'd be more tempted to steal than other people would be tempted to steal? But if you gave me a survey about what I thought was right or wrong my answers might be indistinguishable.

(Sorry. I know we aren't supposed to begin English sentences with conjunctions like 'But', but for some reason its very useful. Why is it against the rules?)

 

[PureX]

In other words, the habit of self-regulation is important. I agree. We need to encourage the habit of thinking and caring about the consequences of our actions.

But, once again, it is the *consequences* that are the reason why this is a good thing.

If we were only thinking about the consequences, then so long as we could get away with harming others for our own advantage, we would. And there are many of us that do. But most of us don't want to harm anyone else because that's not who we want to be, regardless of the consequences.

 

[Valjean]

Whether you personally agree with it is subjective, but if you compiled a list of the most common human values across cultures and time, then respect for authority would certainly be one of the most common ethical principles.

And a potentially dangerous one, as this generates social hierarchies, acceptance of inequality, nationalism, and support for authoritarian leaders.

 

[Valjean]

My query was the reverence term though. Respect, we can all understand.

Respect should be reserved for moral or ethical principles, not for individuals, groups or countries except inasmuch as they reflect said principles.

 

[Valjean]

Also, the group often wants everyone else to join them, so they don't attack them.

More often they stifle dissent and force The Other to conform/join or die.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, but talk costs nothing. I may think myself to be moral, but when it comes down to the moment isn't it often a question of convenience?

Suppose I could walk through walls. Don't you think I'd be more tempted to steal than other people would be tempted to steal? But if you gave me a survey about what I thought was right or wrong my answers might be indistinguishable.

(Sorry. I know we aren't supposed to begin English sentences with conjunctions like 'But', but for some reason its very useful. Why is it against the rules?)

It's not. It's just stylistically unusual, in many cases..

 

[Valjean]

If we were only thinking about the consequences, then so long as we could get away with harming others for our own advantage, we would. And there are many of us that do. But most of us don't want to harm anyone else because that's not who we want to be, regardless of the consequences.

I don't follow.
Self benefit is not one of the desired 'moral' consequences; not harming others is.
The consequences motivating atheists are "don't cause harm," and "cause benefit." Compare to the Christian values of love thy neighbor and do unto others....

It looks like atheists hold more Christian values than the obedience-over-consequence believers.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Respect should be reserved for moral or ethical principles, not for individuals, groups or countries except inasmuch as they reflect said principles.

As I think I pointed out, reverence might be the thing that enables abuse of power, whereas respect can be applied across the board in most cases and still allow for criticism where appropriate.

 

[PureX]

I don't follow.
Self benefit is not one of the desired 'moral' consequences; not harming others is.
The consequences motivating atheists are "don't cause harm," and "cause benefit." Compare to the Christian values of love thy neighbor and do unto others....

It looks like atheists hold more Christian values than the obedience-over-consequence believers.

Biased eyes will do that to you.

It makes no difference atheist or theist. Most people don't want to cause others to suffer because they feel it's wrong for them to want to do that, or to do it even if they wanted to. Others, however, only care about the consequences to themselves when choosing their actions. They would avoid harming others only to ensure that those others will not harm them in return.

 

[Polymath257]

If we were only thinking about the consequences, then so long as we could get away with harming others for our own advantage, we would. And there are many of us that do. But most of us don't want to harm anyone else because that's not who we want to be, regardless of the consequences.

Once again, think and care. We also have to care about the consequences of our actions in others.

Why is this so difficult?

 

[PureX]

No. We stand in judgement of those who want authority.

Yes, those who want authority.

Agreed. And that is because of the consequences of respecting authority derived in that way. We judge the authority and decide they are worthy of that authority by conferring it upon them. It is ultimately the choice of the people involved as to whether or not a person deserves and gets the authority.

To have authority pushed is to encourage instability in the society because it promotes disaffection to the rules of that society. That tends to lead to more overall unhappiness.

Wrong. The cohesiveness of the society is a value: it has consequences for the people in that society. And those consequences need to be considered and we have to care about them.

No, that tends to be what theists do. Atheists are much more likely to allow people to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Not even close. Because there is no deity, we have to continually question ourselves and our beliefs. As I see it, we have an obligation to think and care. And we judge ourselves by that standard, often more so than others.

This is a very confused mishmash.

Wanting authority over others does not mean one will abuse it if it's given. Nor does not wanting it mean one will not abuse it if it's conferred upon them. However, as a general rule, those who are likely to abuse authority will be those that want it the most. Usually so much so that they will try to force it on everyone around them whether it's agreed to or not. All we can do is maintain our right to rescind authority that's being abused, and do so when it happens.

This is not the same thing as respecting our fellow humans as our equals because they are human beings regardless of who they are or how they behave. We have to determine (judge) how we will respond to them, but we do not have to judge their validity or value as human beings. Nor should we presume unto ourselves that right.

Playing the judge of all we encounter (like we're god) is an easy and addicting fantasy to fall into. As it keeps our focus off ourselves and on everyone else. But it's a very bad habit to fall into because it blinds us to our own fallability and bias, and causes us to wrongly condemn others.

 

[PureX]

Once again, think and care. We also have to care about the consequences of our actions in others.

Why is this so difficult?

You seem to want to ignore that it's not about the consequences for most people. It's about right and wrong, good and evil, for their own sake.

 

[Kfox]

Atheists, it turns out, are a rather morally driven bunch. This is news to many, including Tomas Ståhl, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who this week published a fascinating study in Plos One comparing the deepest beliefs of theists and atheists.

By analyzing the beliefs of nearly 5,000 people in the United States and Sweden, he found that atheists and theists share a number of moral values: Both groups fervently believe in fairness, liberty (including freedom of belief), and the importance of protecting the vulnerable, and both groups hold surprisingly strong bents toward rationality and evidence-based knowledge.

Where they differ is revealing:

• Theists are likely to support morals such as reverence for authority, loyalty, and sanctity, which all fuel group cohesion (versus individuality).
• Atheists tend to decide whether or not something is moral by the consequences of a behavior, rather than the morality of the action that caused it (for instance, the common atheist bent that sex acts are fine as long as they’re consensual and no one gets hurt).
  
  Atheists and believers surprisingly share moral values, except for these 2 key differences

When it comes to morality, I believe good men will do good, bad men will do bad regardless of religion. The difference is the religious man will use his God to justify his deeds whether they be good or bad; whereas the atheist will use another reason for justification.

 

[Augustus]

And a potentially dangerous one, as this generates social hierarchies, acceptance of inequality, nationalism, and support for authoritarian leaders.

Social hierarchies are effective for survival in many situations.

Acceptance of inequality can be good as inequality will always exist,

Nationalism can lead to a sense of group identity that encourages pro-social behaviour within the group.

Authoritarian leaders are more effective in certain situations.

Whether these things are positive or negative depend on a variety of contingent factors and subjective judgements.

They can certainly be problematic, but they are not intrinsically problematic. They are not necessarily maladaptive characteristics, they may be adaptive.

 

[Polymath257]

You seem to want to ignore that it's not about the consequences for most people. It's about right and wrong, good and evil, for their own sake.

But right and wrong are ultimately determined by consequences.

 

[PureX]

But right and wrong are ultimately determined by consequences.

No, they aren't. But as a materialist, you can't see that.

 

[Polymath257]

No, they aren't. But as a materialist, you can't see that.

As I see it, you can't see that morality is ultimately about consequences. That is shown even in the examples you have given.