Atheists; what do you base your morals on?

[Whateverist]

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'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.

[Mystic]

I tried to understand. I don't get it. Can you re-word or explain?

[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.

[Mystic]

Well, some people don't feel emotions. It's like flat out gone. Yet they still have a sense of duty and praise.

It isn't due to their actions, it's simply due to mental illness.

[Darkstar]

Well, some people don't feel emotions. It's like flat out gone. Yet they still have a sense of duty and praise.

It isn't due to their actions, it's simply due to mental illness.

A sense of duty and praise are not unusual to have even if you have not emotion...I think. I could be wrong, I just don't see any obvious reason for it, unless empathy is paried with emotion here.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence of your reply.

When I referred to someone who didn't have empathy, I was referring to someone like a psychopath.
Psychopathy

Psychopathy is a personality disorder that has been variously characterized by shallow emotions (including reduced fear, a lack of empathy, and stress tolerance), coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, antisocial behavior, a lack of remorse, and a parasitic lifestyle.

---

Psychopaths have been considered notoriously amoral – an absence of, indifference towards, or disregard for moral beliefs. There are little firm data on patterns of moral judgment, however. Studies of developmental level (sophistication) of moral reasoning found all possible results – lower, higher or the same as non-psychopaths. Studies that compared judgments of personal moral transgressions versus judgments of breaking conventional rules or laws, found that psychopaths rated them as equally severe, whereas non-psychopaths rated the rule-breaking as less severe.

A study comparing judgments of whether personal or impersonal harm would be endorsed in order to achieve the rationally maximum (utilitarian) amount of welfare, found no significant differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. However, a further study using the same tests found that prisoners scoring high on the psychopathy checklist were more likely to endorse impersonal harm or rule violations than non-psychopaths were. Psychopaths who scored low in anxiety were also more willing to endorse personal harm on average.

Assessing accidents, where one person harmed another unintentionally, psychopaths judged such actions to be more morally permissible. This result is perhaps a reflection of psychopaths' failure to appreciate the emotional aspect of the victim's harmful experience, and furnishes direct evidence of abnormal moral judgment in psychopathy.

[Mystic]

I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence of your reply.

A lot of people with schizophrenia don't have emotions or have very little of it. They are termed dangerous often due to that. But a lot of them act with perception of praise and goodness. It's just that we cannot understand their exact perception, because ours is accompanied by emotion (love, happiness, sorrow, etc).

[Whateverist]

Well, some people don't feel emotions. It's like flat out gone. Yet they still have a sense of duty and praise.

It isn't due to their actions, it's simply due to mental illness.

I think it is always remarkable and praiseworthy whenever someone with a disability finds a way to overcome it. Anyone with flattened affect or the like who adhers to an objective set of morals for fear of doing harm is certainly being conscientious. But I wonder if that is really necessary when the person doing so is obviously so motivated to do right by other people. Perhaps they don't harbor any demons that might leak out? Their call however.

My own brother has always been a mean bastard to almost everyone. He joined the Mormon church at some point when he was really unhappy and probably clinically depressed. Very frankly I didn't voice any objection as I did worry about the harm he could do. (He is also a very big guy and prone to belligerence.)

When I was depressed I never had a worry about doing any harm. I don't have any such inclination. It is more, as you say, a question of remembering to make an effort for your own sake even when there is no reasonable expectation that happiness will follow. (Sometimes you have to prime the pump.)

[Mystic]

I agree. Which is why we can't define morals simply through empathy and logic even if it's our prime reliance in most morals.

[Darkstar]

I agree. Which is why we can't define morals simply through empathy and logic even if it's our prime reliance in most morals.

Altruism? Maybe, as there is evidence of inherant altruism as being a part of "human nature" to some extent, but it does seem that there is something else to take into account. We have empathy, altruism, reason, and fear of punishment, (though the last really just prevents immoral actions, rather than directly supporting moral ones, and altrusim, if applied indescriminately, can be immoral in some cases, such as helping terrorists, though I guess the same could be said of empathy. Hence, reason...but if you know right from wrong and just don't care...).
There could be something else I am not thinking of...

[iameatingjam]

I dont have morals, since the only way to have morals is if an invisible man threatens you to burn in hell forever if you disobey him. My hobbies include stealing, raping and murder. It would be ridiculous to assume I would consider treating people how I like to be treated without believing in a widespread bronze age cult.