Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[polymath257]

---

Your question seems strange and ill-posed to me. You ask for a subject or person that is the basis of morality. The closest I can answer this strange question is that morality is the common feeling we have because we are a social species saying that certain behaviors are to be done or not to be done. It is common because of our ancestry. In that sense, it is part of being human.

But I don't think there is anything *objective* about the structure of the universe that makes certain behaviors wrong or right.  It isn't a matter of the structure of the universe, but the structure of humans and what it takes to make human societies. An act isn't immoral only if it is not caught (although there may not be consequences if it isn't). It is immoral because of the way behaviors need to be for societies of humans to function towards human (the relevant species) well being.

A different species would have different moral rules. In that sense, morality is NOT objective. But, since this is a human society and because humans are the way they are, there are certain types of behavior that promote well being and certain types that do not. This includes both physical and mental well being (both of which are objective). 

I don't think that morality in general is objective. In fact, I think it is quite society dependent. There is no objective reason to consider shaking hands to be polite. Yet that is one of the common behavioral rules for our society. On the other hand, it is universal that killing another without proper cause is condemned. Again, I think the reason, from a survival viewpoint, is clear. Pretty universally, beating one's wife until she dies has been condemned (although way too much violence has been approved).

I also think that we are getting better at morality. The basic principles of fairness and compassion are more widely applied, no longer to just a tribe, but to all people. Because we have moved away from religious superstitions, we are far more likely to condemn the sorts of torture that were common only 500 years ago. We have grown to see religious differences with compassion instead of hatred. We no longer support slavery, another form of stifling human well being that was common not so long ago and accepted by almost all religious scholars as normal. But compassion and a sense of fairness have shown such behaviors to be wrong.

For me, morality is axiomatic: it is defined by fairness and compassion (and also consideration--thought is crucial also). It consists of rules of behavior that produce societies that are more fulfilling of their members and survive.

---

I don't think that refusing to shake hands with someone is akin to beating ones wife to death.  And it is wrong and should be condemned; even if the structure of the society allows it.  And by generalizing moral obligations into a category of compassion (which I don't necessarily disagree with; we ought to be compassionate) your not solving the problem, but just pushing it back a little farther.

So you ignore the rest of what I wrote? About the basic moral rules being good for survival? And that is the 'objective' quality that distinguishes them *for humans*? That religion has absolutely no lock on morality; if anything it is *less* moral because it tends to denigrate compassion when it is towards unbelievers? That morality isn't part of the structure of the universe, but 'merely' part of how humans are?