Why 'should' atheists be moral?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why should you be moral? Because if you get caught acting immorally, bad shit will happen to you. You might get thrown in jail. You might get shot in the face by an angry husband. You might get your hand cut off by the local imam for stealing.

If you want an abstraction for an answer, go look into religions. Pragmatism is equally valid, and your continued attempts to take it off the table seem to outline an agenda.

I have a deep distrust of morality once it has been relocated into abstractions, because that is when injustices get rationalized by artificial absolutes.

[bennyboy]

"Should" just means a particular action is appropriate given a particular goal.

So what goal "should" we choose? (i.e. what's the goal of even having a goal?) The answer: normal people respond emotionally to their own behaviors, and seeing other members of their community suffer because of their actions makes them feel bad-- and a sensible goal in life is not to do things which make you suffer. For the remaining ones (i.e. the pricks), the answer is as Parkers Tan said: if you get busted, your life quality will be reduced; it's a different kind of suffering, but hey, even pricks don't like to suffer.

[vincent150]

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?

[mralstoner]

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 [not] 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?

Bertrand Russell:

All human activity is prompted by desire. There is a wholly fallacious theory advanced by some earnest moralists to the effect that it is possible to resist desire in the interests of duty and moral principle. I say this is fallacious, not because no man ever acts from a sense of duty, but because duty has no hold on him unless he desires to be dutiful. If you wish to know what men will do, you must know not only, or principally, their material circumstances, but rather the whole system of their desires with their relative strengths.

So, it's true, if a moral rule does not increase a person's overall happiness, they would not be inclined to support it. Which particular rules are you worried about atheists breaking?

[Tonus]

What I am asking here is why an atheist 'should' be moral.

Based on the first three or four pages of discussion, I think that the answer is that it depends on what you want from life and what actions may present an opportunity or an obstacle. If you can get away with immoral behavior, then the only reason that you 'should' act moral is out of a sense of obligation or fair play or for peace of mind. If none of those are a concern, then I don't see a reason that would be acceptable. It does imply that if you wind up being victimized by another person, you have no cause to feel cheated; he was simply playing by your rules.

[GrandizerII]

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?

Forget the "should" part. The "won't" is a much better question. I won't just kill a fellow human being for pleasure because I don't have it in me to do so.

By the way, I don't accept that premise about maximising pleasure anyway. I have a select people I care a lot about, and I would rather suffer pain if it meant saving their lives than to seek maximal pleasure for myself.

[Whateverist]

Possible answers (entirely dependent on ones upbringing and disposition):

* out of concern for the well being of others;

* out of recognition that it is in ones nature to do so;

* because one holds oneself (for some reason) to objective standards (which apply in the current circumstance);

* because the feelings or well being of the person(s) affected by ones choice are held to be precious;

* because one is a sentimental, even romantic, humanist;

* because you would hope to be shown the same consideration were the roles reversed;

* out of dumb habit;

* for no conscious reason and because one allows for some whimsy;

* because the cost in inconvenience in the current situation doesn't weigh too heavily against acting morally;

* because there is a good samaritan law in effect with repercussions which one would want to avoid;

* because the legal repercussions provide a sound incentive in the current circumstance.

By no means exhaustive but it certainly looks as though there could be a multitude of reasons not involving an ultimate rule-giver.

[Mystic]

The best motive should be belief in the value of fellow human beings. My personal belief is increased with the pantheist notion that everything is made up of God who is the ultimate value or the comprehensive station of value, the all-value, but I don't see why Atheists can't believe in value of humans. If you believe you should value yourself, you should value human beings as well. Although I don't think value of living beings can exist without supernatural as a basis, I don't see why Atheists who believe value of themselves can exist without God don't need to believe in the value of others.

[Whateverist]

The best motive should be belief in the value of fellow human beings. My personal belief is increased with the pantheist notion that everything is made up of God who is the ultimate value or the comprehensive station of value, the all-value, but I don't see why Atheists can't believe in value of humans. If you believe you should value yourself, you should value human beings as well. Although I don't think value of living beings can exist without supernatural as a basis, I don't see why Atheists who believe value of themselves can exist without God don't need to believe in the value of others.

Yes but no. You believe we should resolve to do so in advance of any and every conceivable circumstance - for abstract considerations. But for all the reasons I just gave I'm pretty sure I will attend to it if I feel like it when the time comes. If it doesn't in fact matter to me in the moment, I'm not acting on it any way.

I just don't agree that I'm smarter now than I will be when the situation requiring the moral action actually arises in all its particularity. Oh, and myself now trusts myself then to do the right thing when then becomes now. I don't think theists and moral absolutists have this basic level of trust toward their future self. They want to lock him up and control his choices .. but that is kind of weird and an important disadvantage since you can never anticipate all the details of every situation in advance.

[robvalue]

It seems to me that I have both an internal moral compass, and some sort of hard wired code as well.

The compass lets me know if I'm about to do something bad by very strong sensations. It also goes into overdrive if I go through with the bad thing. I guess these are commonly referred to as conscience and guilt. The guilt I feel if I have knowingly done something I feel is very wrong is so overpowering that it is debilitating. It urges me rectify the situation if I can before I can be normal again.

The hard code (I cant think of a better term off hand) is even more powerful in that it can literally stop me doing something. I'm sure it's some kind of evolutionary safeguard. It's not guiding me like my conscience, it's physically stopping me. I have rarely ever tried to overcome it, as it is usually bang on about what it's trying to prevent. It has to do with safety, but also seems to have been crafted from my morals.

So... I have at least 2 systems going on which make my life much easier to live if I go along with them. To fight against them on a daily basis would require so much energy that I'd quickly lose that battle.

Of course extreme circumstances and continued attempts at reprogramming could cause overrides, but on the whole I guess you could say that I follow my morals because it makes for an easier life, as well as feeling right.