Atheists; what do you base your morals on?

[Darkstar]

There is people who don't have empathy (due to mental illness) but chose to act morally and believe in morals. How do you account for that?

Yes they are more dangerous then others, but at the same time, they can chose to act morally still.

I'm not sure. Perhaps some of it is due to the nature of the person. Someone could start out with empathy, but still commit a murder. With each murder, they would lose a bit more empathy and killing would be easier and easier until they felt no guilt whatsoever.

By that same token, someone could act morally despite a lack of empathy, I suppose. I am not 100% certain how to account for it, but I think that if you encountered someone with no empathy who acted badly, you could not convince them to be moral for morality's sake.

I am thinking my answer to this question is incomplete. Perhaps it would help if we could define the precise difference (if there is one)between having empathy, and having a conscience. I am not sure if a "conscience" is a valid construct to this discussion, or if it is actually just an oversimplification of a person's general moral compass. Would a conscience simply tell you the difference betwen right and wrong, or would it also require you to act on this knowlegde. Does not having a conscience simply mean not knowing what is right or wrong, rather than knowing, but choosing an immoral action anyway? Are any of these questions even relevant?

(Sorry for all the questions with little of an answer. If the questions are irrelevant, you don't need to answer them).

---

I'd say a set of by-the-numbers morals is good enough for someone who is so impaired that they'd otherwise be a danger to themselves or others. If the humanity which would thus be diminished is intact and flourishing then the price would be far too great and completely unnecessary.

Good point. That actually makes a lot of sense; I don't know why I didn't think of it.