Why be good?

[Salacious B. Crumb]

He might be. Morality is up to the individual person whether a god exists or not. Just because Randy thinks a god exists, doesn't mean that there is an absolute morality.

I think god would have let us each know the code of morality he wants us to follow if he existed, but of course all we have is speculation over one made-up fairy tale vs. another.

[Ravenshire]

Your ignorance is showing.

Meh. His ignorance has been on proud display for quite some time now.

---

38 responses overnight. Thank you.

I won't be able to respond to all of them before heading off to work, but let me says this:

I'm not asking whether atheists can be good people or whether they are good people. Despite much of the rudeness and foul language directed at me (and others) in this forum, it should be obvious that atheists may strive to be kind, tolerant, generous and respectful toward others. And they do this because they recognize that "right" and "wrong" behavior is real and not theoretical.

What I am asking is: what is the BASIS for objective moral behavior? Where does it come from?

If some feel that they have already answered, my apologies; however, I re-phrased my OP based on a quick scan of a few responses.

I will try to get through all of the posts as quickly as time permits. Sorry for the delay.

You need to define what moral behavior is specifically.
Everyone seem to default to murder, but guess what? there is a law against murder and that's an effective deterrent for the majority of people.

There's at least one honest atheist here...
http://atheistforums.org/thread-32313-po...#pid906588

And yeah, I don't commit murder because I AM afraid of the death penalty. That and I obey the laws because Prison Orange isn't my color. I have a list of five people who I would happily off right now if I knew that I could get away with it. So your argument is invalid.

I think we can all agree that lying and adultery are also immoral, there just (generally) aren't any laws against them. How many are guilty of those?

I'll argue that lying and adultery are only immoral when they cause harm. To briefly give examples, open marriages and answering "I'm fine" even though I've had a shitty day. Neither the "adultery" in an open marriage or the "I'm Fine" social convention does any harm.

Huggies, I've got to ask, do you collect and hoard potentially embarrassing quotes just in the hope of being able to use them at a later date? You certainly seem to.

[Simon Moon]

You have a point.

Terms such as "good" and "evil" would be essentially meaningless in any absolute sense because, if God does not exist and there is no transcendent moral law revealed by God which prescribes how we should act, one cannot say that a given action is good or evil. It just is what it is.

One may not like or approve of a particular action, such as murder or theft, but it would be impossible to deem it "evil" in any sense beyond one’s own subjective, personal preferences.

I disagree. 

Reality (the physical laws that effect all humanity in an extremely similar manner) is a pretty good basis for determining whether something is good or evil.

Murder is an evil act because it ends the life of another human, who has the desire to continue living.

Ask yourself if you would consider it evil for another person to murder, enslave, torture, steal from you? If so, how hard is it to put yourself in another persons place to determine that it would be an evil act for you to do the same?

If you are unable to put yourself in another persons place, you may not have a well developed sense of empathy. 

---

[/quote]

[Randy Carson]

But why? If God does not exist, why be good?

Please circle which of these two human cultural sets you would wish to live in:

A: Modern society.

B: Mad Max world.

Being good nets you option A. Not being good nets you option B. That's just logically true: human society has been built, from the ground up, by our cooperation and the establishment of our social contract. Literally every single thing that you enjoy in your life stems from those two things, including actually your life too, in all probability, given that the medical science that extends human life is also a result of cooperation. It's so very strange to me, how many theists ask this question, as though they assume human society requires no upkeep or buy-in from actual humans.

It's interesting that you should mention a Mad Max world. The polar opposites are well-chosen.

You've identified cooperation and the social contract and the reasons for being good. However, as important as these things are for peaceful and harmonious human interaction, they are still utterly inconsistent with the a worldview that only natural, material things exist. To be consistent with this claim, we'd be forced to admit that "being good" is really just a matter of personal conviction or group consensus, not an ideal that God desires for all of us to strive for.

Can atheists justify, according to atheist principles, why they believe it is "wrong" to pollute oceans, cut down rain forests, or hack into someone’s bank account and steal their life savings? If the stronger members of the human species engage in such behaviors in their pursuit of dominating the weaker members, and if there is no God and therefore no transcendent, prescriptive moral law given by God to guide us into knowing what is right and what is wrong, then on what grounds can atheists legitimately oppose such behaviors?

Doing so would be intolerant and would have the net result of the atheist forcing his morality on others -- the very thing atheists object to in the first place.

[Simon Moon]

There's at least one honest atheist here...
https://atheistforums.org/thread-32313-p...#pid906588

So Huggy, am I being dishonest when I say that I don't murder because I don't want to?
Or is the only honest atheist position is that the only reason not to murder is because of fear of the legal consequences?
As Penn Gillette has said, "I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero".

[Thumpalumpacus]

Terms such as "good" and "evil" would be essentially meaningless in any absolute sense because, if God does not exist and there is no transcendent moral law revealed by God which prescribes how we should act, one cannot say that a given action is good or evil. It just is what it is.

One may not like or approve of a particular action, such as murder or theft, but it would be impossible to deem it "evil" in any sense beyond one’s own subjective, personal preferences.

All morality is subjective, yours included.

[Randy Carson]

Good question.  Why not just be authentic and trust that your essential nature will allow you to find your way?  "Being good" has the feel of evaluating experience according to preset, external criteria and then doing your best to act accordingly. 

Hmmm.

Are you suggesting that your "essential nature" has been hardwired with a set of criteria for knowing right from wrong? Is this an internal thing at work in you? Would you call it "conscience"?

And if it feels good to behave according to preset, external criteria, how does that relate with the internal thing or conscience just mentioned?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Can atheists justify, according to atheist principles, why they believe it is "wrong" to pollute oceans, cut down rain forests, or hack into someone’s bank account and steal their life savings?

Beyond not having faith in god(s), there are no "atheist principles".

However, if you mean to ask how can you justify these things through moral relativity?, then we might have a conversation.

I'd advise you to look into the effects those actions have on others outside of the actor. You will find the answer there.

Please ask if you need help. I'll happily provide you some guidance.

Doing so would be intolerant and would have the net result of the atheist forcing his morality on others -- the very thing atheists object to in the first place.

Why are you assuming that tolerance is an absolute good? And why do you then ascribe your fatuous assumption to atheists who clearly have varying views on the idea of social tolerance?

This is a transparent strawman, and too stupid to dignify with any further response. Please tell me this is not your strongest point. Surely you've got better points to make than this, right?

Right?

[Randy Carson]

Good question.  Why not just be authentic and trust that your essential nature will allow you to find your way?  "Being good" has the feel of evaluating experience according to preset, external criteria and then doing your best to act accordingly. 

Hmmm.

Are you suggesting that your "essential nature" has been hardwired with a set of criteria for knowing right from wrong? Is this internal thing at work your "conscience"?

And if it feels good to behave according to preset, external criteria, where do these external criteria come from?

[Simon Moon]

Hmmm.

Are you suggesting that your "essential nature" has been hardwired with a set of criteria for knowing right from wrong? Is this internal thing at work your "conscience"?

And if it feels good to behave according to preset, external criteria, where do these external criteria come from?

They come from evolution. 

Humans evolved in small groups (50-150) as a social species. Our survival mechanisms are things like: Altruism, cooperation, reciprocity, kin selection. Not being the meanest bastard in the group.

Bad behavior in the group, such as murder, rape, theft, would get an individual ejected from the group to an almost certain death. 

Much of the same behavior can be seen in bonobo chimps. They do things like: share food even when in short supply, protect weaker members of the group even at risk to the individual, adopt offspring of dead parents, eject members that rape and murder, show sadness when a group member dies, and other behavior that sure looks a lot like morality.