Why 'should' atheists be moral?

[Mudhammam]

The best motive should be belief in the value of fellow human beings. My personal belief is increased with the pantheist notion that everything is made up of God who is the ultimate value or the comprehensive station of value, the all-value, but I don't see why Atheists can't believe in value of humans. If you believe you should value yourself, you should value human beings as well. Although I don't think value of living beings can exist without supernatural as a basis, I don't see why Atheists who believe value of themselves can exist without God don't need to believe in the value of others.

Is the "all-value" conferred by you or is it instrinsic to the "supernatural" in a mysterious manner that common sense just doesn't allow us to meaningfully define?

[Mystic]

The best motive should be belief in the value of fellow human beings. My personal belief is increased with the pantheist notion that everything is made up of God who is the ultimate value or the comprehensive station of value, the all-value, but I don't see why Atheists can't believe in value of humans. If you believe you should value yourself, you should value human beings as well. Although I don't think value of living beings can exist without supernatural as a basis, I don't see why Atheists who believe value of themselves can exist without God don't need to believe in the value of others.

Is the "all-value" conferred by you or is it instrinsic to the "supernatural" in a mysterious manner that common sense just doesn't allow us to meaningfully define?

Explain what you mean by "conferred by you".

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, in short, "should" implies that such and such an action entails good or desirable outcomes, depending on what it is you value. In other words, it's a question of "what does it mean to be good?" to which an answer is found in one's sense and education.

Right, I would add that while people naturally pursue what they perceive to be good, they "should" pursue what is actually good, as opposed to what is only apparently so.

[Mudhammam]

Is the "all-value" conferred by you or is it instrinsic to the "supernatural" in a mysterious manner that common sense just doesn't allow us to meaningfully define?

Explain what you mean by "conferred by you".

In other words, an all-encompassing sense that originates in and by your conceptions of life and purpose.

---

Well, in short, "should" implies that such and such an action entails good or desirable outcomes, depending on what it is you value. In other words, it's a question of "what does it mean to be good?" to which an answer is found in one's sense and education.

Right, I would add that while people naturally pursue what they perceive to be good, they "should" pursue what is actually good, as opposed to what is only apparently so.

By what methods do you propose such distinction ought to be made?

[The Valkyrie]

We're a social species and evolved our morals.

Harming a member of a small family group hurt the group. As we formed larger communities the same rules fit well so we continued to use them.

Beccs rule of douchebaggery: Don't be a douchebag to others if you don't want them to be a douchebag to you.

[abaris]

Harming a member of a small family group hurt the group. As we formed larger communities the same rules fit well so we continued to use them.

Also, as I keep repeating over and over, great apes and dogs also have some kind of moral codes and empathy. Recent experiments have shown that much. It probably goes with being a social species and has more to do with evolution than any kind of learned codes of behaviour.

[Mystic]

In other words, an all-encompassing sense that originates in and by your conceptions of life and purpose.

I'm still not sure what you mean, but I'm going to say we have a sense that ultimate value exists without fully perceiving the full extent of that being as it is beyond us. The all-value is belief that all value has a basis in the divine. When we value something it's usually indirectly valuing life or a state of being, and this life and state of being has it's essence being passed on from the Divine. The creator being thte source and basis to value can be see as one of the divine names or instance of the name of God. God is outward and the inward. The outward is descent of his essence to the world of creation and the inward is the origin and the manifested by the outward. He is inward in his outward and outward in his inward.

We don't need to have a full comprehension of God to have some idea of God. God is unknown and unseen but at the same time is manifest and close.

[GrandizerII]

Well, in short, "should" implies that such and such an action entails good or desirable outcomes, depending on what it is you value. In other words, it's a question of "what does it mean to be good?" to which an answer is found in one's sense and education.

Right, I would add that while people naturally pursue what they perceive to be good, they "should" pursue what is actually good, as opposed to what is only apparently so.

Good according to which consensus?

I'd rather decide my own morals for myself.

---

Harming a member of a small family group hurt the group. As we formed larger communities the same rules fit well so we continued to use them.

Also, as I keep repeating over and over, great apes and dogs also have some kind of moral codes and empathy. Recent experiments have shown that much. It probably goes with being a social species and has more to do with evolution than any kind of learned codes of behaviour.

Your answer is for why we have morals, and it's an adequate answer (by the way). What I think the OP is wondering about is why, in the absence of social conditioning and God and the law and such, we should do moral stuff knowing that we won't be held accountable for what we do.

My answer is that there is no need for a "should". If we are hardwired to do it anyway, there is no need for a "should".

And if we don't need society to survive, then we don't have to do anything good for others (but that's not reality now, is it?).

[Mudhammam]

I'm still not sure what you mean, but I'm going to say we have a sense that ultimate value exists without fully perceiving the full extent of that being as it is beyond us. The all-value is belief that all value has a basis in the divine. When we value something it's usually indirectly valuing life or a state of being, and this life and state of being has it's essence being passed on from the Divine.

Interchange "divine" with "subject" or "ego" and I'm on board. But as it stands, in however you use word the divine, I don't quite grasp how value is to be derived... simply because it's valuable? Seems redundant.

The creator being thte source and basis to value can be see as one of the divine names or instance of the name of God. God is outward and the inward. The outward is descent of his essence to the world of creation and the inward is the origin and the manifested by the outward. He is inward in his outward and outward in his inward.

We don't need to have a full comprehension of God to have some idea of God. God is unknown and unseen but at the same time is manifest and close.

No idea what to make of this without some working idea of what you mean by God. If you mean a celestial being that floats around and in all objects, I'm going to have to demand some evidence for that. But again, totally redundant with regards to the question of moral value.

[simplemoss]

I did not spend my life not raping and killing people to not go up in the sky and have cake

SKY CAKE!