Atheist moral code

[Void]

There could be two universal sources regarding different aspects of morality without necessarily conflicting with each other. And yea, I might be overthinking. At least I believe that I am at the very bottom of the question. As far as one can get. If there are any such sources, I don't think anyone can identify them. At least I cannot imagine what they could be.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think there are any universal sources of morality, given the contrary evidence we have on even one small planet for multiple, contrary moralities.

[CapnAwesome]

Still it seems like moral is a very subjective thing, differing from individual to individual. The question is if there are one or more universal sources from where morals could be extracted.

Here is the thing, I think there is a difference between what is moral and what an individual perceives to be moral. I think when a lot of people say that morality depends on an individual they don't necessarily mean morality but rather they mean people's perception of morality. If everybody in a society approves of slavery, does that mean all of the unspoken arguments against slavery are suddenly rationally unsound? As Atheists we certainly don't say that what is rational depends on the individual or that rationality is subjective but for some reason it's extremely popular amongst Atheists to say that morality is subjective. Why? They are both human creations. So although I myself am a nihilist, I believe that there certainly could be morality independent of what individuals perceive, based on what causes the most good.

Like you said, it does lead down the slippery slope of utilitarianism, which is something that I strongly disapprove of, but at the same time it's easy to say for me that morality could exist as something absolute and natural.

---

I don't think there are any universal sources of morality, given the contrary evidence we have on even one small planet for multiple, contrary moralities.

But again, you aren't talking about different moralities, just what different people perceive to be moral in large groups. Just because a large group of people say something is moral, doesn't make it so. Slavery wasn't moral before the 20th century. The people who said it was were wrong. Those same people who were wrong about the morality of slavery were equally ignorant and wrong about all kinds of stuff and it's easy to acknowledge their other wrongness but for some reason we can't say that they are wrong about moral issues when we cling to this idea that morals are subjective. All the same rational arguments that we make today about the evils of slavery applied just the same back then. In fact people made those arguments and those people were proven right in the end. The same way people who believed in evolution were proven right. I think Atheists don't like to acknowledge that there could be a natural law of morality because Theists believe in absolute morality and we are just a contrarian lot. If you do an action that causes more happiness in the universe, for yourself and other people, that's the moral choice.

[Spooky]

Perhaps we atheists have a better moral code as we are using the times and the situation and not some archaic text.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I posted this earlier today. It seems relevant.

Towards 1880, when the French professors endeavoured to formulate a secular morality, they said something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis, so we will do without it. However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain values should be taken seriously; they must have an a priori existence ascribed to them. It must be considered obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat one’s wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that these values exist all the same, inscribed in an intelligible heaven although, of course, there is no God. In other words – and this is, I believe, the purport of all that we in France call radicalism – nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself.

Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is A Humanism

(my bold)It seems to me that they started with the conclusion and worked toward justifying it. This seems to be the case with most attempts at formulating a secular ethical theory. People start from the belief that violence and fraud are wrong then work backwards looking for ways to support that conclusion. It really isn't much better of an approach than 'Creation Science'.

It also seems to me that the only real scientific question that can be asked is how people come to have the values that they have. Science cannot speak to the ethical merits of those values.

[Angrboda]

I posted this earlier today. It seems relevant.

Towards 1880, when the French professors endeavoured to formulate a secular morality, they said something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis, so we will do without it. However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain values should be taken seriously; they must have an a priori existence ascribed to them. It must be considered obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat one’s wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that these values exist all the same, inscribed in an intelligible heaven although, of course, there is no God. In other words – and this is, I believe, the purport of all that we in France call radicalism – nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself.

Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is A Humanism

(my bold)It seems to me that they started with the conclusion and worked toward justifying it. This seems to be the case with most attempts at formulating a secular ethical theory. People start from the belief that violence and fraud are wrong then work backwards looking for ways to support that conclusion. It really isn't much better of an approach than 'Creation Science'.

Yeah, I thought that was Sartre's point. I'm not sure that everyone read that the same way.

[Lek]

The problem with with atheist morality is that it all depends on what the individual considers immoral. If someone considers murdering or stealing moral and can get away with it, he's okay. That goes for anything else he decides to be moral. It's hard to argue that anyone is acting immorally if you claim that morality is something that each individual decides for themselves. How does a society decide to establish laws that are fair to all, when everybody could claim a different morality?

[Esquilax]

The problem with with atheist morality is that it all depends on what the individual considers immoral.

"The problem with the morality of people called Lek is that it all depends on what the individual considers immoral."

You wanna argue that? Betcha I could find someone willing to call themselves Lek in the same manner you do, who'll disagree with you on one or more of your moral precepts, and then bam, you specifically would be a moral relativist. But I think we both know that's not fair, and that's for the same reason that your claim about atheism isn't fair: atheism is a single quality that a person has, not an overarching worldview like Christianity. They aren't equal concepts; atheism's opposite isn't Christianity, it's theism, which is also a single quality that a person has and doesn't necessarily entail a set of moral values with it. Both are just opinions on a single issue. Atheists are no more moral relativists as a set than Metallica fans or people who like The Wire; all three of those groups may not have unifying moral principles that they all share, but that doesn't entail that all members of that group are bound to strictly relativistic morality. You're making a category error there.

I mean, that's just ignoring the profound rudeness of just making that assumption rather than just asking; personally, I'm not a moral relativist at all, I don't think morality is subject to opinion and nothing else, making your assertion incorrect at the outset.

If someone considers murdering or stealing moral and can get away with it, he's okay.

Additionally, I'm certain I've explained exactly this concept to you in other threads, making it quite bothersome to see that you haven't learned at all what we may think, when you seem so intent on talking about it.

That goes for anything else he decides to be moral. It's hard to argue that anyone is acting immorally if you claim that morality is something that each individual decides for themselves.

I don't see anyone here claiming that but you, and you don't even have the decency to claim it for yourself, you've decided to tamper in other people's claims.

How does a society decide to establish laws that are fair to all, when everybody could claim a different morality?

How do people vote for president, when everybody could claim a different candidate?

I don't happen to think I'm making a good comparison, but it is at least a valid one.

It seems to me that they started with the conclusion and worked toward justifying it. This seems to be the case with most attempts at formulating a secular ethical theory. People start from the belief that violence and fraud are wrong then work backwards looking for ways to support that conclusion. It really isn't much better of an approach than 'Creation Science'.

Whether they worked backwards or not, that doesn't necessarily mean there's no way to work forward, and I happen to think that there is: thinking beings benefit from a society in which violence and fraud are wrong, as a simple consequence of reality, and this is sufficient justification. If you're tempted to ask me why we should use the benefit of thinking beings as our standard, I'll remind you that we all end up at axioms sooner or later. It's a part of epistemology we're unable to escape as yet.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The problem with with atheist morality is that it all depends on what the individual considers immoral. If someone considers murdering or stealing moral and can get away with it, he's okay. That goes for anything else he decides to be moral. It's hard to argue that anyone is acting immorally if you claim that morality is something that each individual decides for themselves. How does a society decide to establish laws that are fair to all, when everybody could claim a different morality?

This ignores the evolutionary roots of altruism, and the morality of empathy. Truly, if your faith is the only thing keeping you from being a rapacious murderer, please, stay Christian.

If, on the other hand, you have another source for your morality, perhaps you should ponder that before posting garbage like this.

[Void]

OK, let's try another approach to the morality question...

Is there any action that all Atheists could agree on being moral or immoral? Like for instance torture, rape, charity, democracy.