Atheist moral code

[AFTT47]

Desire Utilitarianism makes sense to me.

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009...ctive.html

[CapnAwesome]

OK, let's try another approach to the morality question...

Is there any action that all Atheists could agree on being moral or immoral? Like for instance torture, rape, charity, democracy.

Well all is a pretty big word, but I would say that most Atheists and indeed people agree on a key set of issues. However I don't think that it's the people agreeing on something that makes it moral. Rape is immoral because it brings so much pain to someone, not because people say that it's moral or immoral.

[Void]

Well, I don't know about this, but it does seem like most (maybe not all) atheists base their beliefs on reason. And rape being immoral is something that we also can conclude from good reason. Could reason be a source that atheists extract moral norms from?

[Esquilax]

Well, I don't know about this, but it does seem like most (maybe not all) atheists base their beliefs on reason. And rape being immoral is something that we also can conclude from good reason. Could reason be a source that atheists extract moral norms from?

Sure. I can't think of a better thing to base any belief on than reason and evidence. We often get theists coming in here to assert that this somehow isn't good enough, but it's about as objective as we can demonstrate to exist, and I feel bad for them that a reasonable answer isn't good enough.

[Void]

Awesome! I think I deserve some kudos for just solving the code. ^^ At least if it proves to be valid.

[I Am Not A Human Being]

It's possible to have purely secular morality that is not relative.

If it's situational, it's relative. Relative to the situation regarding what is right or wrong.

We all live in the same physical universe, subject to the same physical laws, with more or less the same brains and bodies.

The chances that what I want/need to survive, thrive, be healthy and happy are pretty much what the vast majority of humanity also wants/needs. Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, freedom is preferable to slavery, etc.

But then something quite common occurs: interests clash. One man's death is another man's bread, as the saying goes.

From the above, I can evaluate every situation that requires a moral action to try to get the best overall outcome for the most people, and to minimize the worst outcome for the most people.

So basically it's a dictatorship of the majority. The minority or an individual will have to give up their happiness for the cause of other people who only happen to be more numerous.

For example, slavery is always wrong, and it always has been. You know how you can tell? Ask the slaves how they feel about it

But just now you advocated "the best overall outcome for the most people" (in 1800's America it would've been white people) whose interests would override the black slaves'. All in the good name of utilitarianism.

The most atheistic countries in the world (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland) are considered the best places to live. They have lower crime rates, lower poverty, better health care, better education rates, lower infant mortality, lower political corruption, than most of religious countries, including the US.

There's a correlation but no proven causation. Therefore we don't know if this is because of these countries' majority-atheist population.