Where do atheists/seculars get their morals from?

[TashaN]

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.

 

[Father Heathen]

From rational deduction and innate compassion.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Not at all. Some gravitate around Marxist morals, others towards Utilitarism, others are indeed selfish, and there are many other possibilities. I hear some fancy themselves Buddhists even, would'ya believe.

If not, what is the source of morality then?

I personally believe that it is essentialy the same as for anyone else, although we don't associate the idea of a God to it. My personal observation suggests that belief in God is largely unrelated to morals, because we tend to project our own likes and dislikes to God to a great degree.

As for what that source is, it is a combination (doubtless variable from a person to another) of the capabilities for inspiration, empathy, acknowledgement of relationships of cause and effect, abstract thinking and forward planning. It doesn't really work much differently for Theists, although some might find good use for the idea of God in some of those components, particularly inspiration and perhaps empathy.

 

[TashaN]

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.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Excellent question.

Morality is relative, but not completely so. The ultimate goals are basically fixed, but the actual everyday decisions depend on many factors, both personal and environmental.

I personally don't believe that divine-inspired morality is quite supposed to be different from atheist morality. Our moral reality is defined by the discernible qualities of existence, and that does not change whether God exists or not, or whether we believe in His existence or not.

I'm well aware that there are those who believe that the ultimate moral guide is what would happen in the afterlife, but I find such criteria wrong even for those who truly belief in God and in an Afterlife. An afterlife does not make this existence any less real, or meaningful.

So, morality is indeed relative, but it is not "freestyle". It must be tailored to our internal and external environment, beginning with our psychological capability (e.g. there is no point in insisting in behaving as if we forgave someone when we really did not) and going all the way to the greater political, social and economical considerations (e.g. it is indeed in part my responsibility if there are still people dying of hunger). A specific challenge that the Religions of the Book have had trouble meeting is that morality varies a great deal according to the degree of social stability and scientific knowledge of a society, making moral codes quite difficult to maintain valid and relevant along the centuries.

 

[Reptillian]

I think Socrates put it best when he asked the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" I tend to take the first view, that things like truth and justice are not defined by the gods (or God), but rather they exist independently. In other words, I figure that morality isn't arbitrarily decided upon and enforced by gods, but instead that there is a greater truth and criteria that even the gods must look to when deciding whether an action is "good or evil". I figure that either God arbitrarily defines truth, or else truth must exist independently and above God. Even the gods are bound by truth. There still is the question of whether truth (moral truth) is relative or absolute...most modern people (religious or otherwise) tend to take the relative stance, but I tend to think of truth as something objective that exists independently. I figure that if truth exists beyond me and rules my physical nature, then why can't there be independent moral truths that rule my ethical nature? I've always viewed the human sense of ethics in the same way that I view our sense of vision. Our sense of ethics evolved in response to moral truth in the same way that our eyes evolved in response to the sun's light.

 

[Caladan]

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,

Different societies have different moral and social standards. for example some cultures believe in covering the human physique, or as their moral definition works, dressing modestly, and other cultures believe in showing skin, or rather do not have an issue with 'showing' skin.

and if you see it more as objective, then it might be closer to those who believe in the divine commands.

I dont see it close to divine commands, I see universal morality if there is one, as biologically rooted, the commands are a by-product. religious morality may be an extension of human evolution. we moved from the morality of hunter-gatherers who lived in small groups, to the morality which characterized the new realities of the Neolithic transition, and then to urbanization and central power, with it also came new religious structures, and morality was also framed into these structures.

 

[Panda]

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

No of course not I don't think any two people have the exact same morals everyone's morals will be slightly different

If not, what is the source of morality then?

I would say they come from your culture, upbringing and your general perspective of life.

 

[Amill]

I examine each situation individually and determine whether or not I feel certain actions are right or wrong. Those feelings of right and wrong are based on the experiences in my life up until that point. I don't find it possible for immoral actions to be listed like the 10 commandments, because for most of the so called "wrongs" I can find instances where I'd consider it alright.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

The answer is different for each Atheist. I will sum up my approach with 3 short quotations:

The purpose of our lives is to be happy.
--Dalai Lama

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.
--Dalai Lama

When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
--Abraham Lincoln

Another way to look at this is Aristotle's, which is that virtue is the science of happiness.

I will also give you this to ponder:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.--Steven Weinberg

 

[Smoke]

From Bertrand Russell:

"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."

"The superfluity of theoretical ethics is obvious in simple cases. Suppose, for instance, your child is ill. Love makes you wish to cure it, and science tells you how to do so. There is not an intermediate stage of ethical theory, where it is demonstrated that your child had better be cured. Your act springs directly from desire for an end, together with knowledge of means."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As a naturally moral person, I never have to think about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 deals with the relationships between people in given circumstances. It is, by definition, relative to those relationships and circumstances.

Did you mean subjective?

 

[LuisDantas]

As a naturally moral person, I never have to think about it.

There is something to that. I believe that most people are indeed moral, until and unless they suffer too much pressure or are much too ignorant of the actual consequences of their acts.

 

[Autodidact]

A good place to start your inquiry, Tasha, is to ask whether atheists, humanists and secularists are generally more or less moral than religionists.

If you define morality as wearing certain clothes or not eating certain foods, then the adherents of that religion are probably more moral. If you use more generally accepted standards, such as not harming others, then atheists on average are more moral than religionists. So you may want to inquire as to what about not being a religionist tends to contribute to more moral behavior.

 

[TashaN]

I personally don't believe that divine-inspired morality is quite supposed to be different from atheist morality. Our moral reality is defined by the discernible qualities of existence, and that does not change whether God exists or not, or whether we believe in His existence or not.

Well, as a Muslim, my morality is mainly derived from Islamic teachings. Islam defines what is moral and what is not to me, but when the case is open to interpretation, i try to figure it out by myself.

But when it comes to Atheists, although they somehow to a great extent share with me morals, but their version of morality is more flexible than mine, because i think Atheists change their beliefs as their society change or their great thinkers change.

I really don't know, because this whole thing is new to me. I really didn't have to think about morality alot in the past because i thought about it as something innate, but when i find myself disagreeing with Atheists about what is moral and what is not, i find myself forced to find out if there was some sort of moral code that can bind us all. Just like the moral or cultural code in companies which binds all of them to it.

 

[TashaN]

I think Socrates put it best when he asked the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" I tend to take the first view, that things like truth and justice are not defined by the gods (or God), but rather they exist independently. In other words, I figure that morality isn't arbitrarily decided upon and enforced by gods, but instead that there is a greater truth and criteria that even the gods must look to when deciding whether an action is "good or evil". I figure that either God arbitrarily defines truth, or else truth must exist independently and above God. Even the gods are bound by truth.

The author of the book i'm currently reading mentioned the same thing, that the problem with God defining morality is that we can't check where does God get his morals from, just like when we can check where does some philosophers got their moral theories from when we study their full analysis. That somehow was one of the reasons why i came here to ask about this, because i thought what that writer said was interesting.

Another interesting thing he said was "Subservience to divine commands require replacing autonomy with mere obedience, which is morally wrong". I thought there was something wrong with this statement because the author was still going through the various moral theories, and all of the sudden he declare divine commands morality to be morally wrong? Is it based on his own morality or based on what exactly? that was really puzzling to me.

 

[TashaN]

Different societies have different moral and social standards. for example some cultures believe in covering the human physique, or as their moral definition works, dressing modestly, and other cultures believe in showing skin, or rather do not have an issue with 'showing' skin.

That's a good thing to say, but what would you do when you are faced with a more challenging issues where some moral codes might strongly conflict with yours and might even drive you to oppose it for being disturbing or something. Would you just say they have different code of morals and walk away or you would point out for them how "morally wrong" that was based on your "own morality"?

I dont see it close to divine commands, I see universal morality if there is one, as biologically rooted, the commands are a by-product. religious morality may be an extension of human evolution. we moved from the morality of hunter-gatherers who lived in small groups, to the morality which characterized the new realities of the Neolithic transition, and then to urbanization and central power, with it also came new religious structures, and morality was also framed into these structures.

If it was biologically rooted, we wouldn't have different set of morals, don't you think so?

No of course not I don't think any two people have the exact same morals everyone's morals will be slightly different

I would say they come from your culture, upbringing and your general perspective of life.

Slightly different? Well, not all the time. Can one culture set of morals be more valid than the other?

I examine each situation individually and determine whether or not I feel certain actions are right or wrong. Those feelings of right and wrong are based on the experiences in my life up until that point. I don't find it possible for immoral actions to be listed like the 10 commandments, because for most of the so called "wrongs" I can find instances where I'd consider it alright.

But these feelings are the product of your upbringing like what Panda has said, and if you were born and raised in a totally different country/culture, you would have different type of feelings toward various moral issues. Would you feel your morality would be any less valid than now, if let's say, you been born and raised in a totally different place like Asia or Africa?

From Bertrand Russell:

"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."

"The superfluity of theoretical ethics is obvious in simple cases. Suppose, for instance, your child is ill. Love makes you wish to cure it, and science tells you how to do so. There is not an intermediate stage of ethical theory, where it is demonstrated that your child had better be cured. Your act springs directly from desire for an end, together with knowledge of means."

Forgive me for bringing up this example. Let's say a Christian has made the same statement about homosexuality in your country. If he thought of homosexuality as illness (of course assuming it's illness, i'm not saying it's illness) and just for the sake of the argument, let's say he said the following:

"Suppose, for instance, your child is ill (of homosexuality). Love makes you wish to cure it, and science tells you how to do so. There is not an intermediate stage of ethical theory, where it is demonstrated that your child had better be cured. Your act springs directly from desire for an end, together with knowledge of means."

What do you think of such a statement? Would you see it differently or less valid now?

Morality deals with the relationships between people in given circumstances. It is, by definition, relative to those relationships and circumstances.

Did you mean subjective?

Well , chapter two in my book is entitled "Morality: Relative or Objective?".

I already mentioned the name of the book in my OP. It's "Applying Moral Theories" by C.E. Harris, JR.

 

[TashaN]

There is something to that. I believe that most people are indeed moral, until and unless they suffer too much pressure or are much too ignorant of the actual consequences of their acts.

I totally agree with you. A good example would be how America, the country of freedom and liberty failed to stick to its values when it was under attack numerous times. The first time when they dropped two nuclear bombs in Japan, and the second was when they have invaded Iraq and have used unspeakable ways to extract information and confessions in their prisons like Abu Gharib and the rest of the black prisons around the world.

 

[TashaN]

The answer is different for each Atheist. I will sum up my approach with 3 short quotations:

The purpose of our lives is to be happy.
--Dalai Lama

If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.
--Dalai Lama

When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
--Abraham Lincoln

Another way to look at this is Aristotle's, which is that virtue is the science of happiness.

I will also give you this to ponder:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.--Steven Weinberg

I like all those quotations, especially the last one. Thank you.

A good place to start your inquiry, Tasha, is to ask whether atheists, humanists and secularists are generally more or less moral than religionists.

If you define morality as wearing certain clothes or not eating certain foods, then the adherents of that religion are probably more moral. If you use more generally accepted standards, such as not harming others, then atheists on average are more moral than religionists. So you may want to inquire as to what about not being a religionist tends to contribute to more moral behavior.

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?