Why 'should' atheists be moral?

[The Grand Nudger]

I touched upon this in my first post and don't think it is a valid answer. Yes if everyone was immoral it would make for a much worse community, but the way it is now, if you know everyone else in the community will be moral, why not benefit yourself by being one of the few immoral people in it.

People do that, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If they cross the line into illegality the answer becomes simple.

-because we'll put you in a box/hit you on the head with a brick.

If those things aren't enough to dissuade you, so be it (and clearly for some they aren't)...but at least we know where we stand in relation. I don;t think that this is really much to the advatnage of anyone, but I don't think that morality -has to be- an issue of advantage...though it could be. Personally, by whatever measure I could call myself a good person, it has it's origins in no justification, no reason - it's just who I am, I'm comfortable with that - I simply don't require a reason. How about you?

[vincent150]

Morality is a quality of being social creatures, which is the way our evolutionary cookie crumbled. Morality is beneficial to the survival of the individual as well as the tribe. To me, the question "should atheists be moral" is kind of nonsensical. It's almost unavoidable by all humans, not just atheists.

If we didn't evolve as social creatures, then it would be every man for himself. Murder and all manner of immoral behavior would be the norm. The question of morality wouldn't come up. If having even one bad apple was detrimental to our survival, the bad apple would be worked out of our system. Every person would be trustworthy. The question of morality wouldn't come up. It's because our soecies is able to have both good and bad people that morality is even brought up. The question shouldn't be "should we be moral", but "Can we even avoid being moral as individuals?", and on the flip side "Can a murderous psychopath make a conscience decision to be moral?"

I agree we are the way we are because we evolved as social creatures but now we are intelligent enough to realise that why do we not go back to every man himself.

'Can we avoid being moral as individuals'. Yes is the answer. I know it is wrong and immoral to steal. However, I can make my life better if I do it. The question is why 'should' I not steal it?

"Can a murderous psychopath make a conscience decision to be moral?" I think this is irrelevant to the debate. Like I said I'm assuming everyone agrees on what is moral and people 'purposely' going out of their way to do something immoral for the benefit of themselves.

[The Grand Nudger]

However, I can make my life better if I do it. The question is why 'should' I not steal it?

Can you, really? Do you want to be stolen from - and is this idea of making your life better enough of a reason for you to steal- if it were demonstrably true-?

[vincent150]

If those things aren't enough to dissuade you, so be it (and clearly for some they aren't)...but at least we know where we stand in relation. I don;t think that this is really much to the advatnage of anyone, but I don't think that morality -has to be- an issue of advantage...though it could be. Personally, by whatever measure I could call myself a good person, it has it's origins in no justification, no reason - it's just who I am, I'm comfortable with that - I simply don't require a reason. How about you?

Well that reason is what religious people are actually asking for when they ask this question I think. I think it is strange when you think about it, that you are completely aware that you are a good person for no reason and justification and you know you could potentially benefit your life if you weren't but are still choosing not to.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not really choosing, far too much coercion for me to call it a choice. There are things that I could do which are neither unethical nor illegal that I'm simply not comfortable with. I could charge twice as much as I do for a tomato or a clamshell full of raspberries - people would pay it...and what could anyone say about that? What moral or legal criticism could be offered? Nada - and yet......I couldn't sleep at night..lol.

[vincent150]

However, I can make my life better if I do it. The question is why 'should' I not steal it?

Can you, really? Do you want to be stolen from - and is this idea of making your life better enough of a reason for you to steal- if it were demonstrably true-?

No of course you would not want to have something stole from you but that doesn't answer the question why should you not steal from someone else. If it is the case that stealing something would make your life better, then what is the downside to doing it. You would make the life worse of someone you don't know but why 'should' you care about that as an atheist.

[Esquilax]

This is a similar argument to the above post I just replied to. I agree with you completely it makes life better for everyone but why should someone who is intelligent enough to take advantage of everyone else being moral to each while being immoral himself not do it.

Because morality is not about individual people. It's not about what you or I should do, but about everyone together. You may be able to take advantage, but in doing so you're propagating a meme that is directly detrimental to society. Like I said, the reason you want to act morally is because you want everyone else to, that's the social agreement at play here; I won't hurt you, if you don't hurt me. You can't just expect everyone else to sign that agreement while you go "but I'm the exception."

The idea of 'should' only makes sense in reference to values and goals, with can only come from two sources: outside the moral agent (objectively) or from within to the moral agent (subjective). Without values and goals that transcend the individual, like the Good or the True, the moral agent must look to their own desires and needs as the source. Now to transcend the individual one need only go up one level to the community. That move doesn't say from where a community gets its values. Appealing to evolution doesn't solve the problem, since it only applies to survival. You need to be able to show that survival is the ultimate source of value to get near anything objective.

Chad, do you ever not assume a whole bunch of conclusions whenever you make your claims? Can you even demonstrate the existence of these "ultimate values"? Or is this just something we have to presuppose to be true, so that you can make your point about how inferior godless moral systems are?

[Chad32]

The idea of 'should' only makes sense in reference to values and goals, with can only come from two sources: outside the moral agent (objectively) or from within to the moral agent (subjective). Without values and goals that transcend the individual, like the Good or the True, the moral agent must look to their own desires and needs as the source. Now to transcend the individual one need only go up one level to the community. That move doesn't say from where a community gets its values. Appealing to evolution doesn't solve the problem, since it only applies to survival. You need to be able to show that survival is the ultimate source of value to get near anything objective.

Survival is the foundation of everything else. Without it, nothing else would be possible. People would die, communities would crumble, and empires would fade from existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

No of course you would not want to have something stole from you but that doesn't answer the question why should you not steal from someone else.

Some would say that this answers the question quite handily. If you accept that it;s okay to steal, you;ve accepted that it's okay to be stolen from.

If it is the case that stealing something would make your life better, then what is the downside to doing it.

Having those things stolen from you, primarily - and having no recourse consistent with your own actions by which to commence a pity party or elicit the assistance of others in reclaiming your stolen property.

You would make the life worse of someone you don't know but why 'should' you care about that as an atheist.

I don't think that the answer is different depending on atheism or theism. Do you? The same reasons would apply (or not) regardless, don't you think (reasons being your thing, anyway)?

[vincent150]

You can't just expect everyone else to sign that agreement while you go "but I'm the exception."

This is exactly what I'm asking, why should someone not let themselves be the exception? Yes, it would ruin society if everyone said this but if you know everybody else isn't going to say this, which is how it is in out society, you can benefit from being the exception. Religious people would say they wouldn't do this because of God, what is the reason an atheist can give for not doing it.