Thanks for everyone's responses so far.
One thing I would like to say is that I don't think this debate should go into how to turn round the question onto theists which it seems to be starting to (which is probably my fault since I used the word atheists in the title). I think it is not a deluded or stupid question and an atheist should be able to answer it properly. I think maybe it is better looking at the question as being from one atheist to another atheist which is still very interesting.
We have talked a lot about the feeling of empathy and of guilt as being the main reason why people may be moral. This is however the answer to the question 'why' people are moral, not why they 'should' be moral. I don't think we need to look into the definition of 'should' which people have mentioned. It is a word we use all the time and I don't think any slight differences in the way it is defined will really make a difference here.
It has been said that as an atheist the meaning of your life is basically to maximise the amount of pleasure and minimise the amount of pain in it. Can the answer to this question be then there is no reason why someone should be moral if it will benefit your life? Yes like it has been said a lot of times, the reason for most morals is it helps society as a whole, but if not following one of these rules would help someone, and they are living life by the rule maximise pleasure, why should they not break the rule?
One thing I would like to say is that I don't think this debate should go into how to turn round the question onto theists which it seems to be starting to (which is probably my fault since I used the word atheists in the title). I think it is not a deluded or stupid question and an atheist should be able to answer it properly. I think maybe it is better looking at the question as being from one atheist to another atheist which is still very interesting.
We have talked a lot about the feeling of empathy and of guilt as being the main reason why people may be moral. This is however the answer to the question 'why' people are moral, not why they 'should' be moral. I don't think we need to look into the definition of 'should' which people have mentioned. It is a word we use all the time and I don't think any slight differences in the way it is defined will really make a difference here.
It has been said that as an atheist the meaning of your life is basically to maximise the amount of pleasure and minimise the amount of pain in it. Can the answer to this question be then there is no reason why someone should be moral if it will benefit your life? Yes like it has been said a lot of times, the reason for most morals is it helps society as a whole, but if not following one of these rules would help someone, and they are living life by the rule maximise pleasure, why should they not break the rule?
