Where does atheist morality come from?

[Night FM]

Even though an atheist can claim they have morals or ethics, I would argue that immoral behavior is easier to justify as an atheist than as one who believes in a God, meaning that they are morally accountable to something higher than themself. An atheist could easily believe that, since there is no life after death, that any immoral behavior they want to engage in is justified so long as they escape earthly punishment, such as by the law.

I'm aware that many atheists argue in favor of morality, but even if they do, I think they'd be hard-pressed to find a source for it, or render it entirely subjective and subject to the feelings and whims of the individual (e.x. an atheist may say they personally find killing people abhorrent, but if someone else does not find abhorrent, an atheist would have a hard time coming up with a coherent argument as to why that person shouldn't kill). An ultimately, even if an atheist believes that murder is absolutely wrong, they would have to simply rest this axiom on faith (meaning it would be little different than resting it on God or on the 10 Commandments).

Edited Thursday at 11:30 PM by Night FM

[joigus]

27 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I would argue that immoral behavior is easier to justify as an atheist than as one who believes in a God, meaning that they are morally accountable to something higher than themself.

Tens[?], hundreds[?], of thousands of Tlaxcaltecs who were sacrificed by Aztec devotees every year would disagree with that.

No atheist in their right mind would extract the beating heart of a living innocent person from their body.

A religious person might.

Quote

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

― Steven Weinberg

For those Aztecs, killing thousands of people as a sacrifice to their gods was totally moral. That's what god-fearing people can do.

Edited Thursday at 11:56 PM by joigus
minor addition

[KJW]

There is the Golden Rule, which need not be based on any notion of a higher power.

 

[Night FM]

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

That's a rather nonsensical and unsubstantiated quote. I'm sure that plenty of people thought they were doing "good" in aiding Hitler and Stalin's rise to power.

How do you know an atheist wouldn't extract a person's heart? Where does this source of morality derive from?

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Even though an atheist can claim they have morals or ethics, I would argue that immoral behavior is easier to justify as an atheist than as one who believes in a God, meaning that they are morally accountable to something higher than themself. An atheist could easily believe that, since there is no life after death, that any immoral behavior they want to engage in is justified so long as they escape earthly punishment, such as by the law.

I'm aware that many atheists argue in favor of morality, but even if they do, I think they'd be hard-pressed to find a source for it, or render it entirely subjective and subject to the feelings and whims of the individual (e.x. an atheist may say they personally find killing people abhorrent, but if someone else does not find abhorrent, an atheist would have a hard time coming up with a coherent argument as to why that person shouldn't kill). An ultimately, even if an atheist believes that murder is absolutely wrong, they would have to simply rest this axiom on faith (meaning it would be little different than resting it on God or on the 10 Commandments).

This is such a load of crap. How about stop telling us what atheists think or believe. Even if you are an atheist, you don’t speak for anyone but yourself, and atheists are no more of a monolithic group than religious people are 

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Night FM said:

That's a rather nonsensical and unsubstantiated quote.

That's pretty rich coming from you.

Quote

Where does atheist morality come from?

The same place it comes from for theists. People make it up.

[iNow]

The source of morality is the same whether you believe in a magic sky pixie or don’t:

Existence as a social species with group norms that get reinforced by ostracization from the tribe when they are not followed, thus further reinforcing them through evolution itself since being voted off the island means loss of access to food, group security, and potential mates. 

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, Night FM said:

How do you know an atheist wouldn't extract a person's heart? Where does this source of morality derive from?

Ahem... no atheist in their right mind...?

Be honest when quoting me, please. Of course atheists can do horrible things, but not out of belief. Viral ideas can be lethal. Religion is but one example of a viral idea with no logic or evidence to substanciate it. Religion can make an otherwise perfectly functional mind do horrible things. That was my point.

Disfunctional minds can do what we all know they can do. Of course. Don't be disingenuous.

[Night FM]

43 minutes ago, iNow said:

The source of morality is the same whether you believe in a magic sky pixie or don’t:

Existence as a social species with group norms that get reinforced by ostracization from the tribe when they are not followed, thus further reinforcing them through evolution itself since being voted off the island means loss of access to food, group security, and potential mates. 

That fails to substantiate whether or not the norms are moral or should be the norms, since obviously society can and does change. That also presumes that everyone shares the same norms and the same moral compass, when obviously they don't (e.x. in the context of a drug cartel, murdering rival gang members may be a "group norm" even if such behavior is illegal and considered wrong by larger segments of society).

Slavery used to be a "group norm", and the people advocating the abolition of slavery would have been the ones more likely to be "voted off the island".

A lot of morality and ethics is based in rational and philosophical thought, not simply mindlessly repeating what is currently a norm, or otherwise there would be no social evolution or change from prior norms which would be considered primitive by modern standards.

Edited Friday at 01:01 AM by Night FM

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Night FM said:

That fails to substantiate whether or not the norms are moral or should be the norms

It doesn’t need to since norms and mores are context / group dependent.

Your implicit suggestion that there’s an absolute morality is childish and silly. 

Edited Friday at 01:03 AM by iNow

[Night FM]

52 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That's pretty rich coming from you.

The same place it comes from for theists. People make it up.

You're conflating the making up of rules or laws with the logic which said rules or laws are predicated on to begin with, and obviously people don't make the logic up. Obviously, there are specific reasons that people make rules and laws against specific behaviors and not others.

As an example, people may make up rules or laws against murder, but the harm which murder causes its victims is objectively verifiable, even if there is not a rule or law against it.

Edited Friday at 01:04 AM by Night FM

[iNow]

Also if your idea is that morality comes from the Bible, how then do the theists reading it know which parts to ignore?

[Night FM]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

It doesn’t need to since norms and mores are context / group dependent.

Whether or not something should be a norm or more isn't. If what you're saying, for example, is that whether or not slavery is allowed depends on what the group is trying to accomplish, then I accept that. But whether or not slavery should be allowed isn't dependent simply on the group's preference to allow it. The arguments for slavery being immoral are valid even if the group refuses to accept them.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your implicit suggestion that there’s an absolute morality is childish and silly. 

Not at all, I'm saying that there are absolute ways in which groups should behave, even if, in practice, they aren't doing so.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Night FM said:

You're conflating the making up of rules or laws with the logic which said rules or laws are predicated on to begin with

No, I'm not. 

You on the other hand are conflating your random thoughts with reason and truth.

4 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Not at all, I'm saying that there are absolute ways in which groups should behave, even if, in practice, they aren't doing so.

That's the same thing. But you did use different words this time, so good for you.

[Night FM]

Just now, zapatos said:

No, I'm not. 

No, I made it pretty simple. A person could create a law against eating chocolate ice cream just as they could create a law against murder. But, objectively, eating chocolate ice cream would not cause the harm to another person that murder would, and the harm would objectively occur even if there was no law against murder.

So, obviously, there are reasons that it is illegal to murder but not illegal to eat chocolate ice cream, and these reasons heavily relate to the harm that murder causes. People didn't just create laws against murder on a whim.

Just now, zapatos said:

You on the other hand are conflating your random thoughts with reason and truth.

The idea that everyone should adhere to reason and truth is made up.

[KJW]

7 minutes ago, Night FM said:

A person could create a law against eating chocolate ice cream just as they could create a law against murder. But, objectively, eating chocolate ice cream would not cause the harm to another person that murder would, and the harm would objectively occur even if there was no law against murder.

So, obviously, there are reasons that it is illegal to murder but not illegal to eat chocolate ice cream, and these reasons heavily relate to the harm that murder causes. People didn't just create laws against murder on a whim.

Are you suggesting that religions don't have arbitrary rules?

 

[Night FM]

10 minutes ago, KJW said:

Are you suggesting that religions don't have arbitrary rules?

The rules in religion have an intent behind them, just as the rules of law in modern society do. Even if you want to argue that they are bad or unnecessary, it would be odd to think that people invented them for "no reason". Do you really think people made laws against murder just because "they felt like it", as opposed to the observable harm caused by murder?

Edited Friday at 01:33 AM by Night FM

[KJW]

28 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The rules in religion have an intent behind them, just as the rules of law in modern society do. Even if you want to argue that they are bad or unnecessary, it would be odd to think that people invented them for "no reason". Do you really think people made laws against murder just because "they felt like it", as opposed to the observable harm caused by murder?

So far, you seem to be justifying religious laws such as those against murder by saying that secular society also have such laws. But what about rules that religions have that are not a part of secular society? What justifies those rules? Are you suggesting that such rules don't exist?

Also, by saying that people made laws against murder based on the observable harm caused by murder, you are more-or-less answering the question you asked in the title of this thread.

 

Edited Friday at 01:55 AM by KJW

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The rules in religion have an intent behind them

Desire for power and control?

43 minutes ago, Night FM said:

The arguments for slavery being immoral are valid even if the group refuses to accept them.

Only bc the larger group does accept them and the subgroup who refuses gets outnumbered. 

[MigL]

People who commit crimes and claim the 'not of sound mind' or insanity defense are usually tried on the basis of recognizing right from wrong.
No judge, jury or lawyer ever asks whether they are religious or atheist.
They only question whether they recognize right from wrong, not the source of their moral standards.

[Markus Hanke]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

meaning that they are morally accountable to something higher than themself.

Fear of punishment - whether earthly, or by some god - is not the same as genuine morality.

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, Night FM said:

Even though an atheist can claim they have morals or ethics, I would argue that immoral behavior is easier to justify as an atheist than as one who believes in a God, meaning that they are morally accountable to something higher than themself. An atheist could easily believe that, since there is no life after death, that any immoral behavior they want to engage in is justified so long as they escape earthly punishment, such as by the law.

I'm aware that many atheists argue in favor of morality, but even if they do, I think they'd be hard-pressed to find a source for it, or render it entirely subjective and subject to the feelings and whims of the individual (e.x. an atheist may say they personally find killing people abhorrent, but if someone else does not find abhorrent, an atheist would have a hard time coming up with a coherent argument as to why that person shouldn't kill). An ultimately, even if an atheist believes that murder is absolutely wrong, they would have to simply rest this axiom on faith (meaning it would be little different than resting it on God or on the 10 Commandments).

This doesn't bear a moment's serious examination.  

While it is true that morality in western societies is strongly coloured by the pervasive heritage of Christianity, similar moral principles are found in numerous societies elsewhere that have a radically different idea of God or gods, or no idea of a god at all. (One obvious example of the last would be Buddhist societies.) 

Respect for life and for property seems to be a natural trait among human beings - and one can immediately see why it would be, for a social animal, simply to avoid conflict. Religions with a god or gods may present these natural principles as instructions from a God who judges humanity's compliance. This certainly provide societies with nice, explicit and easy to grasp reasons for morality, but it is idle to pretend that without belief in a god these moral principles would not be present.     

Edited Friday at 07:55 AM by exchemist

[geordief]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

This doesn't bear a moment's serious examination.  

While it is true that morality in western societies is strongly coloured by the pervasive heritage of Christianity, similar moral principles are found in numerous societies elsewhere that have a radically different idea of God or gods, or no idea of a god at all. (One obvious example of the last would be Buddhist societies.) 

Respect for life and for property seems to be a natural trait among human beings - and one can immediately see why it would be, for a social animal, simply to avoid conflict. Religions with a god or gods may present these natural principles as instructions from a God who judges humanity's compliance. This certainly provide societies with nice, explicit and easy to grasp reasons for morality, but it is idle to pretend that without belief in a god these moral principles would not be present.     

I wonder what we would define as a moral decision or an admonition and when this could have  first come into play  as we evolved as a species.

Is it by definition a kind of social contract   and did  it arise as some kind of an attempt to put on the record  then ,that there are times when the short term benefit of  a  decision  can lead to longer term  harmful   consequences?

Whoever was responsible for "laying down" this new prescription for action (or their "disciples" ) may have felt the need to justify their advice  to their more headstrong  colleagues  and (heaven forbid)  invented an imaginary friend(conveniently dead ,possibly)  who had told them this

The rest ,as they say  ..

 

I also wonder if there is evidence of moral codes  in other species that do not have the benefit of   being able to record their conversations with each other.(ie all of them?)

 

 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, joigus said:

Don't be disingenuous

I think that ship has sailed

10 hours ago, Night FM said:

Slavery used to be a "group norm", and the people advocating the abolition of slavery would have been the ones more likely to be "voted off the island".

Religious people owned slaves, and used the Bible to justify it, since it’s mentioned in there. Your reasoning would suggest that abolition is an atheistic immorality pushed upon society.

[Night FM]

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Desire for power and control?

That's basically a conspiracy theory. The idea that rules against murder, theft and such aren't about the observable harm they cause and are part of some secret cabal's desire to "control people" just for jollies is worthy of Alex Jones.

"Controlling people" isn't necessary a bad thing, especially if they won't control themselves. That's why we have laws.

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Only bc the larger group does accept them and the subgroup who refuses gets outnumbered. 

Right, the larger group of society doesn't accept murder and rape, and the subgroup who commits murder and rape gets outnumbered. That's a good thing.

And in reality, that scenario isn't even accurate, as there would likely be plenty of instances where the group making and enforcing the rules is the minority.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

I think that ship has sailed

Religious people owned slaves, and used the Bible to justify it, since it’s mentioned in there. Your reasoning would suggest that abolition is an atheistic immorality pushed upon society.

I'd argue that there are plenty of arguments in the Bible against slavery, so if some are cherry-picking parts of it while ignoring the whole then that's on them.

14 hours ago, exchemist said:

This doesn't bear a moment's serious examination.  

While it is true that morality in western societies is strongly coloured by the pervasive heritage of Christianity, similar moral principles are found in numerous societies elsewhere that have a radically different idea of God or gods, or no idea of a god at all. (One obvious example of the last would be Buddhist societies.)

There's nothing within Christianity or the Bible that says similar principles can't exist elsewhere. If anything the ubiquitous of them argues in favor of them being universal. Likewise, the Bible says that sin is "common to man", so I'd argue this further substantiates the idea of universal principles of right and wrong behavior.

And while I'm not an expert on Buddhism, whether or not it specifically invokes a God, it more or less argues in favor of ultimate truths about how people should or shouldn't behave.

14 hours ago, exchemist said:

Respect for life and for property seems to be a natural trait among human beings - and one can immediately see why it would be, for a social animal, simply to avoid conflict. Religions with a god or gods may present these natural principles as instructions from a God who judges humanity's compliance. This certainly provide societies with nice, explicit and easy to grasp reasons for morality, but it is idle to pretend that without belief in a god these moral principles would not be present.     

Right, but there are examples of social groups (e.x. drug cartels) who have little to no respect for these rules, and this type of behavior would be easier to justify by holding a purely materialist worldview. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that "most people don't" commit extremely atrocious crimes, but, in theory, they could justify doing so much easier from a particular worldview.

Edited Friday at 09:57 PM by Night FM