I ask this question because i want to know how atheists in this board perceive morals. Do you believe that all morals are relative or should they be the same for all cultures and religions. How can code of morality be decided and what would it include? what is right and what is wrong. Does stealing food to feed your starving children constitute a bad action if there is no way to earn money for your family? how do you meassure what is right and wrong?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I believe morals should be conected and related to how much we hurt others by our actions and how far we have to go to defend our loved ones. Having to kill another person is not a bad thing if we are in serious danger or someone in our family is being attacked. It becomes your only choice to defend yourself and your loved ones. Because the option of allowing them to get hurt and maybe even killed, would mentally destroy anyone who loves the person that suffered the violence. I would definitely steal food to feed my family if i was ever put in a position in which i cant work to earn that food. I would not think twice to steal for family if i had to.
Atheists have morals the same way theists have morals. C.S. Lewis' Objective Moral value either doesn't exist or is irrelevant. We all learn from other humans through discussing ideas and formulating our personal moral oughts. A governing body then organizes personal moral ought into law in an attempt to appease the majority opinion on moral oughts.
Let's always keep in mind there is no morality to "atheism," it is merely an expression of doubt. However, as a humanist I seek what is best for our species.
Morality is a giant grey scale with no black or white choices, as most religions would have you believe. Ten clear cut commandments, or even the other 603, can give a clear understanding of morality. Morality evolves over time as we understand more about each other and our environment. There was a time in recent history when we thought slavery was a moral practice, well obviously not all of us, and this was strongly defended by the religious. We have, fortunately evolved from such times and generally encompass all of humanity in our morality. This societal moral shift was an extremely tough change and is still being fought to this day as we continue to deal with racism.
Society pressures each of us to behave in a certain way, this can be as inane as using "Mam" and "Sir" or can be difficult as pro-birth or pro-choice. Obviously, these debates are still going on and many are highly contentious, but the important thing to note is that morality is changing constantly, moral relativism, and completely negates C.S. Lewis's Objective Morality.
The problem with Objective Morality is an epistemological one. To demonstrate let us say, hypothetically, that there is an objective moral code, for the sake of argument let's take the 613 commandments in the bible and attribute them to a benevolent and alien entity in origin. We still must interpret this code. Even though we have an objective moral code we must still discuss and debate the interpretation of this code among a body of free thinkers, all of which have differing opinions on what the law intends. This is still moral relativism and we can see this today with over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone. I would further purport that each individual Christian would have, at the least, minor differing opinions from those in his/her denomination and even from his/her teacher/leader.
Thus, each and every person, theist and atheist alike, gets their moral values from their surroundings, not just one source. We pick up new codes or nuances, even within our lifetimes, as we learn more and more. When we hear something we like we incorporate that into our views, many times regardless of veracity, and sometimes this makes us change other ideals we may have held.
I agree that society has a great influence on how we express our morality. But don't you think the source of it, which is our altruistic desires, is rooted in our biology? I also don't believe in objective morality but I think that whatever moral code one chooses to believe in, would not have existed without a sense of sympathy. This source is what moral codes share, even though they might get expressed in different ways. And sometimes they get hijacked and changed for non- altruistic objectives. Altruism is nature's way of solving the Prisoner's Dilemma. In some species, cooperation ended up being an advantage, and that's why we as humans care about each other's wellbeing.
You are absolutely correct. Richard Dawkins says that evolution is a poor source for morals, however, he is referring to the process of natural selection and not eusociality which can be witnessed in many other species. Hymonoptera, ie wasps, bees and ants, are perfect examples of eusociality. Humans exhibit some of the same behavior, though I will note we are far from the society first mentality, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
My point was more towards the logic, reasoning, and communication of morality, more so than the innate volition to help your fellow man. But, I should have added that aspect in, so thanks for catching my lapse.
there are perfectly good nontheistic grounds for being moral: reason and logic, the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice do not come from god, they come from us as empathic beings.
This is so true in so many levels.
After 12 years in Catholic schools, quitting required a lot of reading. Learning that most world religions have a version of the golden rule made quitting easier. An interest in science, a college major in mathematics and minor in physics repair the thinking skills Catholicism had damaged.
Here's one result of the reading: pragmatism needs principle to make it moral, and principle needs pragmatism to make it humane.
I guess that makes me a relativist.
We measure morality more clearly than believers do, because we don't have the Bible, one of the most immoral books ever written, clouding the issue.
Well said Henry!
True, we do what we do because we see it as the correct way to live; not because we fear punishment after death.