Why 'should' atheists be moral?

[Thumpalumpacus]

It has been said that as an atheist the meaning of your life is basically to maximise the amount of pleasure and minimise the amount of pain in it.

This is a caricature of most atheists I know, and it is shopped around by theists wishing to portray atheists as thoughtless hedonists who are inherently selfish.

---

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.

Very similar to my answer when asked if I believe in karma: yes, in a mechanical sense. In three words, assholes make enemies.

[Mystic]

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.

It's like droplets from an infinite ocean or rays from infinitely bright light, the droplets or rays in this case get their nature from the origin, but they aren't exactly the origin either. It's a descent from the absolute high (absolute) to a finite existence and division.

[Mudhammam]

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.

It's like droplets from an infinite ocean or rays from infinitely bright light, the droplets or rays in this case get their nature from the origin, but they aren't exactly the origin either. It's a descent from the absolute high (absolute) to a finite existence and division.

It's like that? You know this how? You think this why?

[Mystic]

It's like droplets from an infinite ocean or rays from infinitely bright light, the droplets or rays in this case get their nature from the origin, but they aren't exactly the origin either. It's a descent from the absolute high (absolute) to a finite existence and division.

It's like that? You know this how? You think this why?

It's my vision of praise and glory is not separate from the divine, but that I see them as related. It's an insight I have through spiritual reflection. The relation between God and his creation can be witnessed through reflection. For example mystical reflection of love or goodness or beauty or greatness, can allow one to see it's not separate from him but rather it's the case that his station while one and with no divisions, includes every praise and greatness.

[Mudhammam]

It's like that? You know this how? You think this why?

It's my vision of praise and glory is not separate from the divine, but that I see them as related. It's an insight I have through spiritual reflection. The relation between God and his creation can be witnessed through reflection. For example mystical reflection of love or goodness or beauty or greatness, can allow one to see it's not separate from him but rather it's the case that his station while one and with no divisions, includes every praise and greatness.

Everything that I observe upon reflection of this universe and our advances in understanding it involve births of entirely new constituents of matter from dissimilar forms. Human beings, hence human values, were introduced at a definite point in the history of time. There's nothing intrinsically human in an electron though electrons are intrinsic to human beings. Why should we think it any different with value and matter?

[Mystic]

Everything that I observe upon reflection of this universe and our advances in understanding it involve births of entirely new constituents of matter from dissimilar forms. Human beings, hence human values, were introduced at a definite point in the history of time. There's nothing intrinsically human in an electron though electrons are intrinsic to human beings. Why should we think it any different with value and matter?

Because of it's metaphysical nature and it's link to the origin.

[mralstoner]

It has been said that as an atheist the meaning of your life is basically to maximise the amount of pleasure and minimise the amount of pain in it.

This is a caricature of most atheists I know, and it is shopped around by theists wishing to portray atheists as thoughtless hedonists who are inherently selfish.

A foundation of emotional values does not necessarily equate with "hedonism". All humans are motivated by emotional fulfillment, it's an inescapable biological fact that all human action is motivated (in terms of end goals) by emotional rewards. We just do it in different ways, whether atheist or religious, liberal or conservative, stoic or impulsive, etc.

All humans work to "maximise pleasure and minimise pain", but we don't all have the same beliefs about how to go about that.

[Mister Agenda]

The idea of 'should' only makes sense in reference to values and goals, with can only come from two sources: outside the moral agent (objectively) or from within to the moral agent (subjective). Without values and goals that transcend the individual, like the Good or the True, the moral agent must look to their own desires and needs as the source. Now to transcend the individual one need only go up one level to the community. That move doesn't say from where a community gets its values. Appealing to evolution doesn't solve the problem, since it only applies to survival. You need to be able to show that survival is the ultimate source of value to get near anything objective.

You seem to mean 'universal' when you say 'objective'.

adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

---

This is a similar argument to the above post I just replied to. I agree with you completely it makes life better for everyone but why should someone who is intelligent enough to take advantage of everyone else being moral to each while being immoral himself not do it.

Also your arguments such as not getting thrown in prison are reasons which I noted which we shouldn't take into account as it's exactly moral if this is the only reason you are killing someone.

You mean like God saying it isn't moral or not doing it out of fear of hell aren't valid reasons to be moral?

[Mudhammam]

Everything that I observe upon reflection of this universe and our advances in understanding it involve births of entirely new constituents of matter from dissimilar forms. Human beings, hence human values, were introduced at a definite point in the history of time. There's nothing intrinsically human in an electron though electrons are intrinsic to human beings. Why should we think it any different with value and matter?

Because of it's metaphysical nature and it's link to the origin.

What link?

[Mister Agenda]

I agree we are the way we are because we evolved as social creatures but now we are intelligent enough to realise that why do we not go back to every man himself.

Because that would be stupid, as you've conceded elsewhere when you acknowledged that a society where we don't do that is better than one where we do. Broken individuals may not have sufficiently developed moral sentiments of fairness and reciprocity, senses of guilt and shame, or sufficient empathy to refrain from preying on their fellow humans; but the majority do.

'Can we avoid being moral as individuals'. Yes is the answer. I know it is wrong and immoral to steal. However, I can make my life better if I do it. The question is why 'should' I not steal it?

It isn't possible to prey on others without bad consequences. The most you can do is prey on others without getting caught. Not getting caught doesn't protect you from the knowledge that you are behaving as a parasite, a drain on society that the rest of humanity would be better off without. If you are unencumbered by conscience, empathy, and guilt you'll find a way to combine enriching yourself and hurting people no matter how intelligent you are. Our inherent moral predispositions are necessary in order to WANT to be moral. If your brain is mis-wired so you don't have them, having morality explained to you is like a blind person having color explained to them...there's only so much of it they can understand without direct experience.

"Can a murderous psychopath make a conscience decision to be moral?" I think this is irrelevant to the debate. Like I said I'm assuming everyone agrees on what is moral and people 'purposely' going out of their way to do something immoral for the benefit of themselves.

A murderous psychopath can 'learn the rules' but can't stick to them pretty much by definition. Most people who are serious criminals (murderers, rapists, career criminals) who aren't driven by desperation (like an addict's need to finance a 'fix' or a hit-and-run driver's fear of going to jail) are sociopaths, they have a personality disorder. Most people don't do bad things because they know they will 'feel bad' if they do. If you won't 'feel bad', you're likely to do something immoral to benefit yourself.

---

This is exactly what I'm asking, why should someone not let themselves be the exception? Yes, it would ruin society if everyone said this but if you know everybody else isn't going to say this, which is how it is in out society, you can benefit from being the exception. Religious people would say they wouldn't do this because of God, what is the reason an atheist can give for not doing it.

What makes 'because of God' a better answer than the ones we've given you?