Why 'should' atheists be moral?

[Exian]

Also why bring up the sense of duty thing in a thread talking about atheism, a sense of duty counts a lot more for theists then it does for atheists.

good work on misreading my post.

How do you mean? I ask because my atheism hardly figures into my duties.

[Indiveren]

Also why bring up the sense of duty thing in a thread talking about atheism, a sense of duty counts a lot more for theists then it does for atheists.

good work on misreading my post.

How do you mean? I ask because my atheism hardly figures into my duties.

Theists feel a sense of duty to god because they are told that they are supposed to always do what god wants. Atheists don't exactly have a god to feel a sense of duty to and anything else we can feel a sense of duty to a theist also can.

[Exian]

Oh, I gotcha. Still, I don't think that because theists feel a duty to god, we should nix duty from a conversation about morals. As you have said in a roundabout way, there are many things besides god to feel a sense of duty. That theists also share our sense of duty to some of these ordinary things is to be expected from humans. After all, what's the difference between a theist and an atheist, besides a belief in god? Take god away and we'll still have similar morals and duties.

[Indiveren]

Oh, I gotcha. Still, I don't think that because theists feel a duty to god, we should nix duty from a conversation about morals.

I'm not against talking about a sense of duty as it applies, but trying to make your whole point be about that is too much. It's honestly a very small element in this discussion and I don't like someone trying to make a small point into being the whole argument. But I also didn't say anything at all against having that point in the post in the first place, I just made in fun of it slightly.

[BlackMason]

This thread is like: I have the answer but lets ignore it. What is the answer to ...

[Esquilax]

For those of you that refer to evolution as the basis for morality, do you realize that doing so reintroduces teleology into the process? If evolution leaves us with a human nature and acting contrary to it is not in the best interest of humanity, then “best interest” introduces intentionality, or desired ends, into the evolutionary process, at least where humans are concerned. That’s not a problem for believers but it is for those who think evolution is a wholly undirected process.

Except that you're wrong; no intentionality is required, as the "best interest" in this case is merely what allowed us to survive. Acting contrary to our moral nature isn't against our interest because of some externally derived intention, but because it is a detriment to the survival of the individuals that did so. In the end, those of us who act in accordance with current human nature survived at greater rates, while those that did not tended to die.

You know, natural selection? One of the main mechanisms for evolutionary change, which is entirely undirected- barring direction by wholly natural means- but easily accounts for what you're talking about? I find it hard to believe that you understand how evolution works, without also knowing about natural selection.

[Brian37]

Evolution produces both cruelty and compassion, cooperation and competition. We try to avoid harm to ourselves and our empathy prevents us from harming others because we don't want harm to come to ourselves. We do better with cooperation and that group survival is where our empathy comes from.

[robvalue]

I think it's fair to say that anyone who easily dismisses evolution does not understand it.

[Whateverist]

I believe he's asking a higher level question. Where does the moral dimension of moral questions come from in an atheist world? I may choose to eat that extra slice of pie, and I shouldn't because I don't like the consequences of eating it, but consequences alone don't make the should of not eating a piece of pie into a moral 'should'. No matter the consequences of eating that piece of pie, it doesn't become a matter for morals. Now if I choose to steal something, that shouldn't has a moral dimension that eating the pie does not, even though I may suffer just as much from both. The question I think he's asking is where does this 'moral dimension' come from?

I really think it comes simply from empathy and identifying with the other person's feelings. How would I feel if they did that to me? What would they think of me? Do I want to be that guy?

It isn't clear to me why it should have to be anything more than this. The value of having a concern for one's reputation in such a social species seems pretty self-evident.

The difference between stealing from others and sabotaging ones diet gets at a hierarchal difference in the degree to which a faux pas can affect ones self respect in different settings. Here are a few from least to most impactful:

fashion sense
table manners
maintaining appropriate distance
amount of eye contact
avoiding causing needless harm to animals
avoiding causing needless harm to strangers and foreigners
avoiding causing needless harm to tribe and countrymen
avoiding causing harm to friends and family

Self awareness and an inborn sociableness are not entirely arbitrary intellectual considerations. They are facts about the way we experience the world. It isn't likely that we could comfortably reason our way to becoming a sociopath. Not every choice is equal to our entire being, even if it is when considered only intellectually.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm also a moral person and an Atheist. I think perhaps a moral life is a happier life. So there are good self interested reasons to be moral. However I'm also a Nihilist and don't think that anybody necessarily should be moral. It won't make a difference to anything whether or not you lived a moral life.