Where do atheists get their morality from?

[genkaus]

Second is that our wills are what I call "cognitively opaque". We can inspect the results, for example by apprehending a feeling of wrongness when we contemplate some act, but the reasons for that judgement aren't accessible to our introspection — the reason we came to that apprehension is computed somewhere below consciousness. It's like math. If someone asks you, "What is 8 times 7?" the answer 56 quickly pops into mind, but there's no knowledge of how your mind determined it was 56, nor why it was able to accurately select the answer. Morality is the same way. We know that we feel murder is wrong, but not why we feel that way. And certainly there have been plenty of attempts to explain why the things we consider moral are moral, but these are all post hoc; they are attempting to explain the feeling, not attempts to suggest what moral feelings we should have. (e.g. if an ethicist attempted to argue that we should think of examples of the color orange next to the color blue as immoral; we would consider the arguments ludicrous, not on the basis of the argument he makes, but because it so clearly contradicts our intuitive moral judgement on the matter. Ethics justifies intuition, not the reverse.)

I'd disagree both with regards to mathematics and morality. I don't think that either the feeling of moral wrongness or the determination of mathematical answer could be achieved without the concepts being taught at some point in life. A person who has never attended a math class wouldn't know that 8x7= 56. Similarly, you wouldn't think that murder is wrong unless you have been explicitly or implicitly exposed to the idea of valuing human life while growing up. It is when we accept and internalize those concepts - whatever the reason for that acceptance may be - that we can experience those moral feelings seemingly intuitively. For example, if a person is taught from the beginning that the only morally correct sexual relations are between a man and a woman and he accepts it because either it comes from an authority he trusts or because it seems rational in his worldview where purpose of sex is to produce children or because of his own single-target sexual preference or simply because it doesn't contradict anything in his worldview - then, upon encountering the idea of homosexual relations, he genuinely would feel the "moral wrongness" of it.

The job of an ethicist would then be much more nuanced. He would be required to provide a template against which our automatic intuitions can be measured and corrected. He'd be required to not only explain why we feel what we feel, but also if we should feel that way. He'd be required to tell where moral judgment is inapplicable. For example, based on a personal preference of finding raw meat to be icky, I can easily use post-hoc justifications to translate it into a moral principle and declare sushi fans to be immoral. However, an ethicist would point put that since it is a matter of personal preference, moral judgment is inapplicable here. Further, based on Christian morals pounded into me since childhood, I may genuinely consider homosexual relations as immoral - even though my own personal preference may lie that way. Again, I'd require an ethicist to tell me that the basis, i.e. the learned concept, is wrong and therefore, my intuition in this case is unjustified.

[Creed of Heresy]

How do atheists know what is morally right or morally wrong? Is morality cultural, gut feel, are there any basic principled you can use? Opinions?

I don't think it's at all a mystery where atheists get their morality from. What's truly surprising is where do we Christians get our morality from? It's easier for atheists because they just do the right thing. For some of us, we have to distinguish the immorality taught in the Bible in order to do the right thing. So it's less spontaneous for us because we must get round the hideous immorality that the Bible teaches.

...Holy shit I never thought I would see this day. A Christian who admits the immoralities of the bible and the conundrums Christians must face in the realms of morality.

My mind. You just exploded it. And my day just got a little brighter. ...Though that might be the residual effects of the cranial detonation...

[Angrboda]

You missed Socrates, the Eloquent Peasant, and the Code of Ur-Nammu.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure research could find more. (While the Jain's reverence for the principle of no harm is certainly exaggerated, it has its roots in recognition of the effect of the Jain's action on others as analogized to harm of self.) Moreover your analysis of the golden rule's relevance to Buddhism is ridiculous; the entire metaphysics of Mahayana Buddhism is the rule writ large. The concepts of Shì shì wú ài, Anatman and Sunyata all lead inexorably to a much broader conception of reciprocity in relation to other beings than you suggest.

[genkaus]

I did a study on Golden Rules a few months ago. Here's part of it

ARE ALL RELIGIONS THE SAME? A COMPARISON OF “GOLDEN RULES”
Christianity: Matthew 7:12 New International Version (NIV) 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
The Christian Golden Rule is far more comprehensive and inclusive than the comparable “rule” in other religions. Most other religions only say that you shouldn’t do bad things to others, an omission that leaves out the love and kindness that is the character of Christ. Some religions such as Islam and Taoism encourage only positive regard or include only some people. Christianity excels!
Judaism "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary" (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them not to do bad. Applies only to actions that are substantial enough to qualify as “hateful”, rather than the Christian version which says “in everything.”
Brahmanism (a form of Hinduism) "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:5157).
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them not to do bad. Applies only to actions that are seen as “pain”, rather than the Christian version which says “in everything”
Buddism "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udana-Varga 5:18).
Does not tell the follower to do good to others; tells them only not to do bad. Applies only to actions “you yourself would find hurtful”, rather than the Christian version which says “in everything”.
Islam “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself" (Sunnah)
Applies only to thoughts, not to action. Includes only to those regarded as “brothers”. Excludes women. Includes the judgment that one isn’t “a believer” if he doesn’t wish his brother well.
Confucianism "Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you" (Analects 15:23).
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them only not to do bad.
Taosim "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss" (T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien).
Applies only to thoughts, not to action. Lacks the important qualifier in Christianity, "in everything." Excludes those that are not perceived as neighbors.
Zoroastrianism "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself" (Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5).
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them not to do bad.

Actually, if what you said about other religions is true (though its not. I can see a lot of logical screw-ups in your argument), then Christianity screws-up majorly by trying to overreach. The other religions take care as to restrict themselves to the negative form of the rule, i.e., using the rule to dictate which acts you should refrain from, not telling you which acts you should commit. If the Christian interpretation is followed, refraining form committing an act in accordance to the rule is immoral as well. Therefore, according to Christianity, if you don't spend you life giving away your money to others and serving them, you are being immoral. Ergo, Christianity sucks!

[Jaysyn]

How do atheists know what is morally right or morally wrong? Is morality cultural, gut feel, are there any basic principled you can use? Opinions?

The Golden Rule. It's about 4000 years old, maybe you've heard of it?

[thesummerqueen]

I get my morality from Bob Ross.

lol, sorry it is a joke

I'm glad you clarified your position on that. Nothing pisses me off than idiots claiming a type of plant that's been cultivated by humans over millennia to look almost nothing like its original ancestor is somehow proof of some religious shit.

'Real' bananas might not fit as well in Ray Comfort's hand, but I'd bet with a bit of maneuvering they'd make a more satisfying butt plug than Kirk Cameron's cock.

[Creed of Heresy]

---

The Golden Rule predates religious morality. It has been used by social animals (including man) for thousands of years.

Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of
practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not Reciprocity such a
word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

— Confucius, Analects XV.24

I did a study on Golden Rules a few months ago. Here's part of it

ARE ALL RELIGIONS THE SAME? A COMPARISON OF “GOLDEN RULES”
Christianity: Matthew 7:12 New International Version (NIV) 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
The Christian Golden Rule is far more comprehensive and inclusive than the comparable “rule” in other religions. Most other religions only say that you shouldn’t do bad things to others, an omission that leaves out the love and kindness that is the character of Christ. Some religions such as Islam and Taoism encourage only positive regard or include only some people. Christianity excels!
Judaism "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary" (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them not to do bad. Applies only to actions that are substantial enough to qualify as “hateful”, rather than the Christian version which says “in everything.”
Brahmanism (a form of Hinduism) "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:5157).
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them not to do bad. Applies only to actions that are seen as “pain”, rather than the Christian version which says “in everything”
Buddism "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udana-Varga 5:18).
Does not tell the follower to do good to others; tells them only not to do bad. Applies only to actions “you yourself would find hurtful”, rather than the Christian version which says “in everything”.
Islam “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself" (Sunnah)
Applies only to thoughts, not to action. Includes only to those regarded as “brothers”. Excludes women. Includes the judgment that one isn’t “a believer” if he doesn’t wish his brother well.
Confucianism "Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you" (Analects 15:23).
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them only not to do bad.
Taosim "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss" (T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien).
Applies only to thoughts, not to action. Lacks the important qualifier in Christianity, "in everything." Excludes those that are not perceived as neighbors.
Zoroastrianism "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself" (Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5).
Does not tell followers to do good to others; tells them not to do bad.

---

That is an interesting notation, actually. I'm not going to say it validates Christianity in my eyes in any way but it at least shows it makes the effort at certain points to TRY to do good.

I think the issue with Christianity is Christians, and I think the issue with Christians is Christianity. To explain; Christianity could, in certain ways, be a force for good. But the followers tend to just adhere to Christianity for the sake of getting into heaven and avoiding hell. This is a fault of the Christian doctrine which basically states that accepting Jesus is all it takes to get into heaven. Basically is the key word here, it's more complicated than that, I know, but the long and short of it is that "being Christian" pretty much boils down to being all you need...the details of your belief need not apply, they are, to quote Captain Barbossa, "more like guidelines than actual rules."

A friend of mine is fond of stating that Christians are the best and worst examples of Christianity, and I don't think he is too far off there. Not going to say every Christian is a douchebag or an idiot; there's plenty out there who are fairly intelligent, even if we disagree on the concept of an afterlife or lackthereof. But the problem is that the doctrine itself is very loose and very easy. Too loose, and too easy.

Alas, what happens when you tighten the doctrine? You get Islam.



Yyyeahhh...

To answer the original question...my morality comes from the Golden and Silver rules. To date it has never led me to do something that would be considered socially immoral so it seems to be working perfectly.

---

...The fuck, it doubled my post into one.

[Angrboda]

One of my philosophy groups is doing a session on John Rawls' political and moral philosophy. I've always thought that A Theory of Justice sounded like little more than an extended discursion on the consequences of Kant's , but I confess to not having read it.

Anyway, I thought that Rawls and the Categorical Imperative deserved a mention here.

[Phish]

We are getting it from that ass hole in the sky





Now go wait in that corner so when you die you can go to hell or heaven or what ever you believe in. Enjoy afterlife you douchebag we are going to enjoy this one instead

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm glad you clarified your position on that. Nothing pisses me off than idiots claiming a type of plant that's been cultivated by humans over millennia to look almost nothing like its original ancestor is somehow proof of some religious shit.

'Real' bananas might not fit as well in Ray Comfort's hand, but I'd bet with a bit of maneuvering they'd make a more satisfying butt plug than Kirk Cameron's cock.

Minor nitpick, it didn't take millenia, bananas as we currently consume them are a rather recent crop.

A little light reading on bananas, courtesy of wiki.

---

Modern cultivation



A banana corm, about 10 in (25 cm) in diameter.
All widely cultivated bananas today descend from the two wild bananas Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana. While the original wild bananas contained large seeds, diploid or polyploid cultivars (some being hybrids) with tiny seeds are preferred for human raw fruit consumption.[34] These are propagated asexually from offshoots. The plant is allowed to produce two shoots at a time; a larger one for immediate fruiting and a smaller "sucker" or "follower" to produce fruit in 6–8 months. The life of a banana plantation is 25 years or longer, during which time the individual stools or planting sites may move slightly from their original positions as lateral rhizome formation dictates.[citation needed]
Cultivated bananas are parthenocarpic, which makes them sterile and unable to produce viable seeds. Lacking seeds, propagation typically involves farmers removing and transplanting part of the underground stem (called a corm). Usually this is done by carefully removing a sucker (a vertical shoot that develops from the base of the banana pseudostem) with some roots intact. However, small sympodial corms, representing not yet elongated suckers, are easier to transplant and can be left out of the ground for up to two weeks; they require minimal care and can be shipped in bulk.[citation needed]
It is not necessary to include the corm or root structure to propagate bananas; severed suckers without root material can be propagated in damp sand, although this takes somewhat longer.[citation needed]
In some countries, commercial propagation occurs by means of tissue culture. This method is preferred since it ensures disease-free planting material. When using vegetative parts such as suckers for propagation, there is a risk of transmitting diseases (especially the devastating Panama disease).[citation needed]
As a non-seasonal crop, bananas are available fresh year-round.[citation needed]

Cavendish


Cavendish bananas are the main commercial banana cultivars sold in the world market.
In global commerce, by far the most important cultivars belong to the triploid AAA group of Musa acuminata, commonly referred to as Cavendish group bananas. They account for the majority of banana exports,[34] despite only coming into existence in 1836.[35] The cultivars Dwarf Cavendish and Grand Nain (Chiquita Banana) gained popularity in the 1950s after the previous mass-produced cultivar, Gros Michel (also an AAA group cultivar), became commercially unviable due to Panama disease, a fungus which attacks the roots of the banana plant.[34]
Ease of transport and shelf life rather than superior taste make the Dwarf Cavendish the main export banana.[citation needed]
Even though it is no longer viable for large scale cultivation, Gros Michel is not extinct and is still grown in areas where Panama disease is not found.[36] Likewise, Dwarf Cavendish and Grand Nain are in no danger of extinction, but they may leave supermarket shelves if disease makes it impossible to supply the global market. It is unclear if any existing cultivar can replace Cavendish bananas, so various hybridisation and genetic engineering programs are attempting to create a disease-resistant, mass-market banana.[34]

---