Where do atheists get their morality from?

[greneknight]

At any rate, my morals are based on God’s revelation in Scripture. I have good reason to believe that Scripture is a revelation from God, that God’s commands to us supply our moral duties. Moral duties are rooted in the divine commands; values are rooted in God’s nature, therefore objective because they are rooted in God’s commands and nature.

That's rubbish! If you got your morals from Scriptures, you'd behind bars now. I don't believe you are that wicked and evil.

[genkaus]

That would be an attribute of the prescriber, the moral value in and of itself has no awareness of purpose.

Having no awareness of purpose is different from having a purpose. Awareness is unnecessary for actually having a purpose.

They are dependent upon that entity yes, but that entity is independent of me, therefore is by definition objective.

No. Objective doesn't mean independent of some entities, it means independent of all entities. My morality doesn't become objective solely by the virtue of being independent of you and the same applies to your god.

[LastPoet]

That's rubbish! If you got your morals from Scriptures, you'd behind bars now. I don't believe you are that wicked and evil.

Seriously now, do you want to leave some of the work for us atheists?

[greneknight]

That's rubbish! If you got your morals from Scriptures, you'd behind bars now. I don't believe you are that wicked and evil.

Seriously now, do you want to leave some of the work for us atheists?

My morals which thank God don't come from Scriptures are outraged by the audacity some Christians have. The very title of this thread is highly offensive to me. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's as if these people haven't read their Bible. Bible believers are the ones who should hang their heads in shame whenever anyone mentions morality. They should always say, "Although I'm a Bible believer, I swear I'm not as evil as the Bible".

[Whateverist]

First, our wills are not radically free. What we as an evolved biological organism are capable of willing, what we find hard to will and what is easy, is defined as an artifact of our evolutionary history. Our wills have been refined over time to serve the needs of our selfish genes. And something peculiar about that will, is that it deviates significantly from rational models. ... Moreover, a large chunk of our will involves cooperative ventures like families, tribes, and societies, ventures in which our evolved psychology allows us to leverage language, culture and reason into assemblages which include things like agreeing to be punished if we break rules, and so forth, which result in a sophisticated will which takes many things beyond visceral desire into account.

Second is that our wills are what I call "cognitively opaque". We can inspect the results, for example by apprehending a feeling of wrongness when we contemplate some act, but the reasons for that judgement aren't accessible to our introspection — the reason we came to that apprehension is computed somewhere below consciousness.

I completely agree with all of this and I like the way you put it together. Morality is best understood biologically/psychologically/culturally. It isn't as though, in the absence of consciously deciding on a moral code we will be without one. Unless we're raised in a closet with minimal contact we will most likely already have a moral sense -unchosen- to be discovered, not decided upon.

There is something about consciously assenting to what we deem moral which is necessary to convey the sense of what we want the word to mean. But it may be that sense of the word carries a naive, mistaken view of human nature.

[DeistPaladin]

Do you think there is any possibility an answer may come along that isnt arbitrary? Do you think one exists now? (Genuine questions, not meant to be rhetorical)

Can you help me understand what you mean by "arbitrary"? Do you mean to say "subjective"?

If so, to answer that question, I first need to understand what is meant by its alternative, "objective morality". To me, "objective" means measurable in ways not subject to personal tastes, values or opinions. How would one measure moral values without invoking values? It seems to me that, by definition, "objective morality", or "objective values", is an oxy-moron.

By "objective morality" can one plug numbers into a spreadsheet and calculate the correct moral course of action? Is there any way one could come up with units of measure for moral worth?

The closest I've ever seen to an answer for these questions came from Jeremy Bentham and his utilitarian principle. He posited that there was a sum total of pleasure and pain in the universe and that which increased the sum total of pleasure or reduced the sum total of pain was morally correct. This would involve the hypothetical units of measure by which morality could be objectively evaluated. There are, of course, problems with Bentham's model. To use a movie as a hypothetical example: If Sarah Conner murdered Miles Dyson, an innocent scientist who would unwittingly create killer robots that would later cause a nuclear war, one murder would potentially save 3 billion lives. This might seem a bargain mathematically but could it really justify an act of murder? Overall, I liked Bentham's ideas but, as with other moral philosophies I've read about, it doesn't cover all the bases.

Additionally, the very use of words we employ in our discussion of morality reveal that, on some level, we all realize that morality is a subjective matter. For example, we speak of "moral judgment". If morality were objective, it would require no judgment. It could be measured and understood in empirical terms. Subjectivity involves personal "judgment" by definition.

Invoking a god does nothing to make morality any more objective. Your god makes the rules, does he? What makes his judgment the right one?

The fact that he's big and powerful? Does might make right?

The fact that he's wise and understand all things? If morality exists outside of God to be evaluated and potentially understood by God's wisdom, can it not be discovered without God's wisdom? And if morality exists independent of God, than that which is good would still be good even if God went away or turned out never to have existed.

Or do you mean that goodness is "grounded into his very nature" (whatever that means)? How is this not circular reasoning, that you've defined "good" as "consistent with God's will" and so we say "God is good" meaning "God wills what God wills" and we know "God's will is good because good is what God wills"?

This is why GodWillsit is no more satisfying to our understanding of morality than GodDidIt is satisfying to our understanding of science.

Many atheists when they discuss this issue, even notables like Sam Harris, fall into the trap of Christian "either-or" thinking. Either morality is objective or "anything goes". This is one of many examples where Christians are seemingly programmed to look at reality in stark black-and-white where there are more options than their false dichotomies allow.

Secularists recognize that morality is a function of how we treat our fellow beings. It is our sense of empathy for the pain others feel as well as for our sense of connection with one another in a community that should guide or moral compass. I say "should" because religion by its nature tends to muddy the waters by prioritizing admonishments against victimless crimes like blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy over more legitimate concerns.

Morality is, as far as I can tell (and I'm open to arguments on this point), subjective. I do not take this to mean "anything goes" but rather that it can be a complex matter that requires our empathy, sense of compassion and other forms of judgment. Religion is neither necessary nor helpful in forming good moral judgment.

[stephenmills1000]

Having no awareness of purpose is different from having a purpose. Awareness is unnecessary for actually having a purpose.

This does not make any sense to me, for a moral value serves the purpose of the prescriber of said moral value. How would that value have any purpose independently of its prescriber? Is it to say these ideas, like 'good,' just exists on its own?

They are dependent upon that entity yes, but that entity is independent of me, therefore is by definition objective.

No. Objective doesn't mean independent of some entities, it means independent of all entities. My morality doesn't become objective solely by the virtue of being independent of you and the same applies to your god.

Correct, as it does apply to God, for he is in fact independent of all entities, thus would be objective as you define.

[SleepingDemon]

Morality is a bi-product of civilization. There are certain rules we must abide by to live in proximity to one another. Combine this with our propensity to desire the survival of our offspring, and you have morality.

[DeistPaladin]

Correct, as it does apply to God, for he is in fact independent of all entities, thus would be objective as you define.

As I discuss moral philosophy with Christians and they seek to defend how religious-based morality is superior, we almost inevitably stray into the territory of seemingly improvised "new rules" contrived for the purpose of the argument along with borderline nonsensical philoso-babble.

Specifically with this post, how do you know "God is independent of all entities"? Did you just make that up or did you hear that somewhere? If the latter, where and what is it based on?

Also, what does "independent of all entities" mean exactly? And how does this independence work to magically transform his judgment from subjective to objective, especially since the very definition of "objective" is independent of personal judgment?

[stephenmills1000]

Very good questions and concerns, Deist. I will work on addressing them (as in type when time permits) and get back to you. Thanks for the engaging discussion at any rate!