Why Have Morals?

[Heather]

I have been appraoched by many Christians about morals and how that fits into an agnostic/atheist lifestyle. In other words, what they basically wanted to know was why I think that killing another person is wrong when I don't have a god to tell me that it's wrong. Or how do I justify saying that rape or the killing of another human is "wrong" ?

I always thought this was a good question. However, being a biologist, I regard everything with skepticism and my reason is based on research. My research shows that in the past, human society cannot exist unless we restrain ourselves from certain practices (such as killing other people, rape, slavery, etc.) If we look back at ancient societies, evidence clearly states that societies run the smoothest when people don't harm other people. That means no raping, murder, or slavery. I don't need a god or the Bible to tell me this.

That is my answer to this question. How do you answer it?

Heather

[NihilistThug]

It's not wrong, it's just usually not in your own interest unless you really like killing people.
I also never respected the atheist argument "the problem of evil" because evil doesn't exist.

The Universe is an uncaring purposeless machine, whether you like it or not.

[Heather]

I agree to some degree. I think you can't define what's right and what's wrong because what is right and wrong is defined by the culture. For instance, there might be a planet out there in the universe where killing your enemy is considered a perfectly logical solution to a problem.

However, I think this is wrong in our society because past societies have shown that killing someone leads to blood fewds and nasty grudges. That's not a good way to run a society, so I consider it wrong. It's all based on logical research, not belief in an ancient book.

Heather

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

When it comes down to it, the reason why I don't just go out killing, raping, and stealing has to do with empathy, laziness, and fear of the law. And really, it has mostly to do with the first two, since I believe I'd act much the same as I'd do now if all laws disappeared tomorrow (though I'd probably go out and get myself a gun first-thing, just in case).

[NihilistThug]

I've got my guns because of the 'law'.

[Lurker]

If there is no such thing as good/bad or right/wrong then your theory about "restraining ourselves" for the good of society doesn't hold water.

You're saying one form of society is better than another, and that can't be (by definition). There are only societies - no distinctions allowed. If there is no such thing as good/bad then the most humane, most caring society is on equal footing as the most inhumane and murderous society (again, by definition).

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

If there is no such thing as good/bad or right/wrong then your theory about "restraining ourselves" for the good of society doesn't hold water.

You're saying one form of society is better than another, and that can't be (by definition). There are only societies - no distinctions allowed. If there is no such thing as good/bad then the most humane, most caring society is on equal footing as the most inhumane and murderous society (again, by definition).
The society Heather described would still have actions considered right or wrong. I would say a society that included these prohibitions is superior to one that did not. At least, I'd rather live in the former society.

[Heather]

Basically what I'm saying is that by scientific evidence, societies on our planet have only lasted if they had laws containing what we view today as a higher standard of morals. Take a look at the Romans - the Roman Empire was one of the most successful empires ever known, and their law and court system is much like ours. By scientific evidence, those barbaric societies with no morals (where things were solved by payment of blood) fell apart. They simply didn't last. THis is because in our society we view it as "wrong" to kill another human. Most people believe it is wrong because of a religious affinity. I few it as wrong because, scientifically, it does not "work" in a society. If you do around killing people, you'll wreak havoc.

This is just one way that I explain my code of morals to Christians that somehow don't understand how I decide what is right and wrong. I decide based on scientific evidence - with logic and reason, just like everything else.

Heather

[Little Earth Stamper]

Essentially, Lurker, it's wrong because it is ultimately not in your self-interest.

I approach the question from the opposite angle: How do you know if a being has the right to dictate morals to you?

If god is the source of morals, then logically, he could say, "Hitler was doing good work with his final solution" and this would be objectively true.

How, though, would god ever be able to demonstrate that this was objectively true? It's not his physical power, because the fact that someone can force you to do something is not proof that they are correct about anything.

So what's left? what objective method could be used to prove that something that viscerally seems so wrong, is in fact right?

God or not, all we have is moral relativism.

[Lurker]

This is just one way that I explain my code of morals to Christians that somehow don't understand how I decide what is right and wrong. I decide based on scientific evidence - with logic and reason, just like everything else.
I'm not trying to make a case for/against god or anything else. I'm trying to think about this logically.

If you say that good/evil do not exist then it is complete nonsense to say one society is better/preferred/more good than another. It's like saying the color blue doesn't exist and then saying one shirt is more blue than the other. There is no blue shirt and there is no better society.

If you say good/evil exist - even though we don’t understand what that really means - then you can say one society is more good than the other. You might be wrong, but at least it's possibile for you to be correct.

[t_hughes]

If you say that good/evil do not exist then it is complete nonsense to say one society is better/preferred/more good than another. It's like saying the color blue doesn't exist and then saying one shirt is more blue than the other
There are legitimate of ways to compare societies without referring to the proposed moral absolutes of good/evil.

For example, you can say a society is better/preferred if provides an empirically better standard of living for its average citizen.

You could also say a society is better/preferred based on its total accomplishments.

Or more concisely (combining both points), you can say a society is preferred if it serves the long term self interests of its occupants better than other societies its being compared to.

Your statement above seems to confuse different interpretations of good. One as a moral absolute, the other as a comparison term between different items which may serve your self interest. I.e. its a semantic objection only, as far as I can see (not a logical one).

[Erik]

This is a question that gets batted about regularly, but what is rarely discussed is what the perception of cause and effect is. Believers want to say that religious thought leads you or teaches you what good and evil, or right and wrong are. But this ignores the possibility that the cause and effect are exactly reversed, that is, that the human ideas of right and wrong are what led to religious thought. A moment's thought will reveal the almost indisputable fact that morals arose prior in time to religious thought, and most certainly prior to organized religions.

Lurker's problem is that he wants to start with a universal morality, presumably because lurker feels certain things are right and wrong intuitively. An ambitious if quixotic venture. Saying that there is good and evil is useless, unless you analyze what is meant by those terms. My experience is that believers approach this issue not unlike their approach to the definition of God: they just assume you know what is being talked about without the difficult examination. And then there is the Euthyphro problem: if there is a universal right and wrong, then there is no reason that human beings cannot discern it themselves without the need for any deity. If not, then morality is simply subject to the whim of the deity, which isn't very satisfying.

"Good" and "evil" therefore have to be analyzed in their context. Prior to the discovery of DNA, scientists fretted over ever discovering the menas by which evolution is driven at the cellular level. Is there any reason to think that an understanding of human moral sense is not attainable in a similar way? I mean, morality is essentially the Golden Rule in various forms. What's so difficult about the notion that natural and sexual selection in a social animal like man developed this sense?

[Lurker]

There are legitimate of ways to compare societies without referring to the proposed moral absolutes of good/evil.

For example, you can say a society is better/preferred if provides an empirically better standard of living for its average citizen.

You could also say a society is better/preferred based on its total accomplishments.

Or more concisely (combining both points), you can say a society is preferred if it serves the long term self interests of its occupants better than other societies its being compared to.

Your statement above seems to confuse different interpretations of good. One as a moral absolute, the other as a comparison term between different items which may serve your self interest. I.e. its a semantic objection only, as far as I can see (not a logical one).
This isn't about morals really. It's about logic. Logically, you can't have "better/preferred accomplishments" if there is no "better" or no "preferred". All you have is sameness without any distinction.

Back to my example... can I say one shirt is more blue than the other if there is no such color? If there is no such color then it would be the same as me saying one shirt is more "loklpevs" than the other - it's a meaningless color comparison. Once you say that "better" or "preferred" exists - even as an abstract concept - then it's real. That's all I'm saying.

[Lurker]

Erik,
As I said above, it's about logic more than good/evil/morals. If man is the cause of morals then it's real and man is the source. My argument is directed to the people that say morals don't exist.

[Paul B]

There are Quasi-objective morals and they have very little to do with god or Man's reason. Any comparison of animal societies will show that there are evolved norms of social interaction that are needed to keep the group functioning. Most of these should sound familiar to any good theist: don't mate with your sister, killing within the group is unlikely to make you popular, Men don't beat up on the women or adults on children, just because you are bigger, etc. There are rationals for the evolution of each of these rules, thay have arisen independantly in many orders. We inherited them long before we were truly human.

Now as I mentioned they are norms and as such can be disreguarded in some contexts If you are starving in Ethiopia you might not feed and care for your young, pregnant and unmarried at 13 you might have an abortion, if your name is Ptolomy you might mate with yout sister, but each of these encurs a cost or a great risk of a cost which was exactly what the evolved norms sought to minimize. Moreso because everyone else starts out playing by the evolved norms and most likely has evolved mechanisms to ensure that others do too- the revulsion we feel for wife beaters and child molesters for example.

Good and Evil are just semantics applied to the behavioral mechanisms we have evolved to either reward (I feel good) or punish (Shame, guilt) ourselves and others for transgression.

[Heather]

There are Quasi-objective morals and they have very little to do with god or Man's reason. Any comparison of animal societies will show that there are evolved norms of social interaction that are needed to keep the group functioning. Most of these should sound familiar to any good theist: don't mate with your sister, killing within the group is unlikely to make you popular, Men don't beat up on the women or adults on children, just because you are bigger, etc. There are rationals for the evolution of each of these rules, thay have arisen independantly in many orders. We inherited them long before we were truly human.
This is exactly what I am talking about. It's not about a deity telling us what is right and wrong. It's about what WORKS in society. If wife-beating, rape, and murder were all legal, then society would crumble. That's just how it is.

If you say that good/evil do not exist then it is complete nonsense to say one society is better/preferred/more good than another. It's like saying the color blue doesn't exist and then saying one shirt is more blue than the other. There is no blue shirt and there is no better society.
Here again we have confusions about definitions. By a society being "better" I do not mean that it contains less evil or has more morals. I mean that the "better" society is one that runs smoothly and lasts longer/is a stronger society. Without the basic guidelines that have evolved from the tribal societies of early man (what people now consider to be morals) society would crumble.

That's my point. We don't need a god to tell us what's right and what is wrong, like so many Christians claim. We just need pure logic.

Heather

[Lurker]

That's my point. We don't need a god to tell us what's right and what is wrong, like so many Christians claim. We just need pure logic.
My argument was really directed to NihilistThug because he said right/wrong/good/better doesn't exist. I think you agree they do exist, if only in the mind of the individual.

[Little Earth Stamper]

That's my point. We don't need a god to tell us what's right and what is wrong, like so many Christians claim. We just need pure logic.
My argument was really directed to NihilistThug because he said right/wrong/good/better doesn't exist. I think you agree they do exist, if only in the mind of the individual.
Well, I think even he would tell you that they exist in individual minds. But there is no universal, or absolute standard.

For example, if I take antibiotics, am I making things better, or worse? For me, they're better, but for the germs that end up dying, it's worse.

The question is if there is some kind of scale outside my own mind that indicates that I am more deserving of life then a germ, and the answer seems to be no.

[Paradox]

That's my point. We don't need a god to tell us what's right and what is wrong, like so many Christians claim. We just need pure logic.
My argument was really directed to NihilistThug because he said right/wrong/good/better doesn't exist. I think you agree they do exist, if only in the mind of the individual.
Maybe the definition of nihilism might help you understand his position a little better.

ni·hil·ism
n.
1. Philosophy.
a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
4. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
5. Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.

[ElDiablo]

Let's look at the animal/insect world. In each and every species there is a societal order. This order arises from the evolutionary tenet of survival of the species. In order to survive, order must be maintained. In every instance, the species must cooperate in order to continue.
In a species closest to humans, chimps have social structure to ensure harmony.
It doesn't take rocket science, or a religious text to see clearly that ALL species MUST maintain order (morals, values or whatever you want to call order) to survive. I play by the K.I.S.S. method. "Keep It Simple Stupid".

Now, I know that some of you may argue that chimps, while closely related, do not have the capacity to make "moral" or "value" judgements. I say balderdash! ("bullshit" for those of you that don't abla) :) Scientists discovered that male chimps, in the wild, band together to form gangs and seek out other clans, separate one from the clan, and then kill it for no apparent reason. Sounds like a Saturday night in Compton? The fact is that it's much more realistic to look toward the natural order around us. It's awfully arogant for humans to "separate" themselves from the animal/insect world. We are no different from them in so many ways. We just seem to think (and incorrectly so) that we are better.

Survival, my friends, is what our species does. We just do it with beer, guns, drugs, religion, money, discussion, etc. etc. etc. Pick one or a dozen. Life is not as complicated as we would like it to be.

My .02 worth :)

[Paul B]

There are Quasi-objective morals and they have very little to do with god or Man's reason. Any comparison of animal societies will show that there are evolved norms of social interaction that are needed to keep the group functioning. Most of these should sound familiar to any good theist: don't mate with your sister, killing within the group is unlikely to make you popular, Men don't beat up on the women or adults on children, just because you are bigger, etc. There are rationals for the evolution of each of these rules, thay have arisen independantly in many orders. We inherited them long before we were truly human.
This is exactly what I am talking about. It's not about a deity telling us what is right and wrong. It's about what WORKS in society. If wife-beating, rape, and murder were all legal, then society would crumble. That's just how it is.

If you say that good/evil do not exist then it is complete nonsense to say one society is better/preferred/more good than another. It's like saying the color blue doesn't exist and then saying one shirt is more blue than the other. There is no blue shirt and there is no better society.
Here again we have confusions about definitions. By a society being "better" I do not mean that it contains less evil or has more morals. I mean that the "better" society is one that runs smoothly and lasts longer/is a stronger society. Without the basic guidelines that have evolved from the tribal societies of early man (what people now consider to be morals) society would crumble.

That's my point. We don't need a god to tell us what's right and what is wrong, like so many Christians claim. We just need pure logic.

Heather
What I presented Heather has very little to do with the logic of modern people. Our morals come nor from what IS good for society, but what WAS good in the past under the time frame that they evolved. We are to some extent stuck with the emotional responces that are attached to certain amoral acts- killing, stealing, raping, mating with one's sister, child abuse, etc. Someone who believes that morals are simply a societal contract will have to explain why we have evolved emotional responces like shame and guilt that are not learned. You can learn what to be ashamed of and what to feel guilty about, but you cannot teach the feeling of shame itself. It is unlikely that such a strong responce came about without evolving for a purpose: the purpose of reinfocing evolved morality.

Some of our basic morality is largely irrelevant now. Someone on this list claimed that incest avoidance is the one universal morality trait, but with modern contraception the reason for its evolution is removed. The fact that we still feel revulsion for incest even when contraception is used in not a logical responce, but a holdover of inherited morality from a time when inbreeding lead to reduced survival.

Paul

[envision]

Basically what I'm saying is that by scientific evidence, societies on our planet have only lasted if they had laws containing what we view today as a higher standard of morals. Take a look at the Romans - the Roman Empire was one of the most successful empires ever known, and their law and court system is much like ours. By scientific evidence, those barbaric societies with no morals (where things were solved by payment of blood) fell apart. They simply didn't last. THis is because in our society we view it as "wrong" to kill another human. Most people believe it is wrong because of a religious affinity. I few it as wrong because, scientifically, it does not "work" in a society. If you do around killing people, you'll wreak havoc.

This is just one way that I explain my code of morals to Christians that somehow don't understand how I decide what is right and wrong. I decide based on scientific evidence - with logic and reason, just like everything else.

Heather
Scientific evidence? maybe. But scientifically prove to me the Roman empire's social functioning. Show me some observations and expermients, where's the emperical evidence? Point is you're much better off with historical evidence.

The first porotion of C.S Lewis's book Mere Christiantiy thoroughly covers this topic. Check it out if your intersted.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Basically what I'm saying is that by scientific evidence, societies on our planet have only lasted if they had laws containing what we view today as a higher standard of morals. Take a look at the Romans - the Roman Empire was one of the most successful empires ever known, and their law and court system is much like ours. By scientific evidence, those barbaric societies with no morals (where things were solved by payment of blood) fell apart. They simply didn't last. THis is because in our society we view it as "wrong" to kill another human. Most people believe it is wrong because of a religious affinity. I few it as wrong because, scientifically, it does not "work" in a society. If you do around killing people, you'll wreak havoc.

This is just one way that I explain my code of morals to Christians that somehow don't understand how I decide what is right and wrong. I decide based on scientific evidence - with logic and reason, just like everything else.

Heather
Scientific evidence? maybe. But scientifically prove to me the Roman empire's social functioning. Show me some observations and expermients, where's the emperical evidence? Point is you're much better off with historical evidence.
The experiments in this case were the actual policies of the Roman Empire, and the historical texts are equivilent to papers written up by scientists. 99% of the information we get comes from second-hand information.

We evaluate historical texts the same way we do all other second-hand reports. Its all science.

I don't remember Lewis' book too well, but as I recall, his basic thesis was that since we can't prove that the gospels were false, we should assume they are true. Possibly I'm thinking of another, much stupider apologist.

Anyway, about Incest, I would say that in some cases it clearly is immoral. Parent/child incest almost always involves abuse of power by the parent, and should be discouraged. There's arguments to be made that this power deiscrepency is present in sibling incest, as well.

On the other hand, incest between cousins, even first cousins, was seen as normal in european society until fairly recently.

[Tulkas]

Erik,
As I said above, it's about logic more than good/evil/morals. If man is the cause of morals then it's real and man is the source. My argument is directed to the people that say morals don't exist.
They dont. They only exist when you have a standard to judge them by. Just when you have a standard to judge your blue shirt and red shirt.

[envision]

The experiments in this case were the actual policies of the Roman Empire, and the historical texts are equivilent to papers written up by scientists. 99% of the information we get comes from second-hand information.

We evaluate historical texts the same way we do all other second-hand reports. Its all science.

I don't remember Lewis' book too well, but as I recall, his basic thesis was that since we can't prove that the gospels were false, we should assume they are true. Possibly I'm thinking of another, much stupider apologist.

On the other hand, incest between cousins, even first cousins, was seen as normal in european society until fairly recently.
In a broad sense of the word science maybe that is acceptable but in an empirical sense of the word I'd say no it is not science. Science deals with what can be recreated in a laboratory what can be measured and observed first hand. So no it is not science it is history. I do not think it'd be correct in grouping it all together.

That was not the thesis of Lewis' book at ALL. If that was his main thesis I'd have to agree with you that it would be very stupid. In the first portion Lewis goes through a precise step by step method of pointing out that humans behave in a certain way, then he questions why it is we do. He then goes on to present the possiblity that it is the "tribal instinct" or the possiblity that man does so merely that the species may continue, however he concludes with compelling arguments that it is not just a tribal insticnt at all but a moral law that all men innately know.

[Little Earth Stamper]

That was not the thesis of Lewis' book at ALL. If that was his main thesis I'd have to agree with you that it would be very stupid. In the first portion Lewis goes through a precise step by step method of pointing out that humans behave in a certain way, then he questions why it is we do. He then goes on to present the possiblity that it is the "tribal instinct" or the possiblity that man does so merely that the species may continue, however he concludes with compelling arguments that it is not just a tribal insticnt at all but a moral law that all men innately know.
What's the difference between a "tribal instinct" and an innate moral sense?

[Lurker]

Erik,
As I said above, it's about logic more than good/evil/morals. If man is the cause of morals then it's real and man is the source. My argument is directed to the people that say morals don't exist.
They dont. They only exist when you have a standard to judge them by. Just when you have a standard to judge your blue shirt and red shirt.
Then explain why we all manage to arrange our lives according to some non-existent code. You're saying morals don't exist - even with man as the source. You're also saying that rape/murder/torture is no better and no worse than compassion/love/caring because there is no such thing as better/preferred/more good.

[nvxplorer]

Then explain why we all manage to arrange our lives according to some non-existent code. You're saying morals don't exist - even with man as the source. You're also saying that rape/murder/torture is no better and no worse than compassion/love/caring because there is no such thing as better/preferred/more good.
I want to address this directly, but first I'll say this thread is very thoughtful. To ElDiablo: The first thing that comes to mind in discussions on morality/murder are the cases of chimp on chimp violence. This is something which cannot be ignored, IMO, and allows us to view ourselves in a manner previously unknown.

Anyway, I agree with many of your points, lurker, but the examples you give here are still relative. In the grand scheme of things, it's reasonable to categorize rape, etc. as "worse" than love, etc. However, rape, torture and murder may be seen as "better" to the people commiting these acts. The victims certainly don't see it that way, but invading armies, for example, would differ.

Religion based morality has been replaced by democratic law, which is an improvement IMO. The law is mainly concerned with and built upon protecting individual rights. As long as someone's rights are not violated, the question of morality becomes moot, from a societal standpoint. It's interesting to note that morality, rights and order are connected. When order breaks down, the common man will often abandon his morality. This can be seen in rioting, which often arises because someone's rights have been (percieved to be) violated. Rodney King is an obvious example, but there are countless others. This phenomena in itself suggests that morals are not only relative, but are subject to change at a moment's notice.

[Lurker]

Anyway, I agree with many of your points, lurker, but the examples you give here are still relative. In the grand scheme of things, it's reasonable to categorize rape, etc. as "worse" than love, etc. However, rape, torture and murder may be seen as "better" to the people commiting these acts. The victims certainly don't see it that way, but invading armies, for example, would differ.
Hey I got somebody to agree with me - sort of. :)

If my examples are relative as you say then the following twist on your statement must be equally true by definition. "it's reasonable to categorize rape, etc. as "better" than love, etc. However, rape, torture and murder may be seen as "worse" to the people commiting these acts"

If you want to think that way, that's fine. I disagree though.

[Firesolved]

Ive been askin myself that very question for years. And Im only 17. Morals...to me they see mto be the human need for order...without morals, anything is okay. I mean..I could kill the guy sittin next to me without any reprecussions (ignoring the chance of reprisals I guess). I say down with ethics and all that shit. Just...for no reason..Id just enjoy the chaos...itd be nice to see.

[schemanista]

Id just enjoy the chaos...itd be nice to see.
That's because you've never seen any.

[nvxplorer]

Anyway, I agree with many of your points, lurker, but the examples you give here are still relative. In the grand scheme of things, it's reasonable to categorize rape, etc. as "worse" than love, etc. However, rape, torture and murder may be seen as "better" to the people commiting these acts. The victims certainly don't see it that way, but invading armies, for example, would differ.
Hey I got somebody to agree with me - sort of. :)

If my examples are relative as you say then the following twist on your statement must be equally true by definition. "it's reasonable to categorize rape, etc. as "better" than love, etc. However, rape, torture and murder may be seen as "worse" to the people commiting these acts"

If you want to think that way, that's fine. I disagree though.
Yes, I see your point. A large part of this question boils down to conscience, empathy and compassion. Opposing forces must also be considered; self interest, greed, survival, etc. As complex creatures, I don't think we can say that compassion is any more natural than greed, for example. While you and I may have no difficulty in placing compassion above greed on the "good" scale, Mother Teresa and John Rockefeller were two distinct individuals. Can we really say one was "better" than the other? I believe this is where religion attempts to quantify these things. It provides a scale from which we can view ourselves and others - with Jesus being on one end and Satan the other, in Christianity. Now, whether such a scale is arbitrary, and how and why it came into being is an issue in itself.

[nvxplorer]

Ive been askin myself that very question for years. And Im only 17. Morals...to me they see mto be the human need for order...without morals, anything is okay. I mean..I could kill the guy sittin next to me without any reprecussions (ignoring the chance of reprisals I guess). I say down with ethics and all that shit. Just...for no reason..Id just enjoy the chaos...itd be nice to see.
Using murder is a poor example, yet this is probably used more often than others.

The rule of law works only when it is administered fairly and consistently. The threat of prison time is a powerful deterrent which keeps me from breaking into my neighbor's house. The risk far exceeds any possible reward.

If I remember correctly, murder is rarely committed for economic gain. It is usually a crime of passion/anger/hatred, and somewhat trancends the threat of punishment. In an anarchy, I don't believe people would suddenly begin killing off their neigbors simply because no law existed to punish them.

Without the rule of law, the threat of reprisal is also a powerful deterrent. In the absence of a structured legal system, there still exist systems of justice from a community/tribal level down to the individual. The drug lord communities in Afghanistan are prime examples of tribal law, and frontier justice is a good example of law at the individual level. If I decide I want to kill my neighbor, I have to assume he will defend himself. The chance that he may kill me first is a good deterrent to committing this act.

[peepnklown]

Atheists can have morals because humans gain knowledge of moral lessons based on examination and an understanding of human nature.
I believe an introductory standard of morality = empathy.

I also think we have to remember the “golden rule.”
If you need a basis for morality then take it from this old statement (that pre-dates all monotheist religions by centuries)
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

[EZtagger]

Why make such a big deal of this? The answer to the original question can be answered by questions to oneself. Do you want to be killed? Do you want to be raped? Do you want your belongings for which you've worked hard and long to be stolen?

[EZtagger]

Trying to figure out why I'm still labeled as a "Lurker" Because I don't come here often?

[ocmpoma]

The label is based on your number of posts. But you can change it in the options under Profile, up at the top of the page.

[psyadam]

Athiests have morals because they have feelings such as love for other people and they don't want to hurt other people. That's my brilliant explanation.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

I happened to run across this site, this forum, and this thread and had something to add, so I went ahead and registered just to bring this to anyone's attention who is truly interested in looking at this question of morals from a non-theistic viewpoint.

There is a relatively new field of study called evolutionary psychology that is attempting to address many of the issues you all are debating here and I'd like to recommend a few very good and easy to read books related to this subject:

# 1: The Moral Animal - Why We Are The Way We Are by Robert Wright

# 2: The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod

# 3: The Science of Good & Evil - Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule by Michael Shermer

[Wiredrawn]

I have been appraoched by many Christians about morals and how that fits into an agnostic/atheist lifestyle. In other words, what they basically wanted to know was why I think that killing another person is wrong when I don't have a god to tell me that it's wrong. Or how do I justify saying that rape or the killing of another human is "wrong" ?

I always thought this was a good question. However, being a biologist, I regard everything with skepticism and my reason is based on research. My research shows that in the past, human society cannot exist unless we restrain ourselves from certain practices (such as killing other people, rape, slavery, etc.) If we look back at ancient societies, evidence clearly states that societies run the smoothest when people don't harm other people. That means no raping, murder, or slavery. I don't need a god or the Bible to tell me this.

That is my answer to this question. How do you answer it?

Heather
I suggest replying with "Atheists are intelligent and ethical enought to know what's right and wrong, we don't need a fictional character to tell us." ;)

[moxnix46]

I have been appraoched by many Christians about morals and how that fits into an agnostic/atheist lifestyle. In other words, what they basically wanted to know was why I think that killing another person is wrong when I don't have a god to tell me that it's wrong. Or how do I justify saying that rape or the killing of another human is "wrong" ?
Ballance of wrong and right are always a quality instilled by intelligence not by god. Killing can indeed be justified depending on what side your on. Killing for no reason is hard to justify. An act of war is killing, but only the victors are justified by history. Being a decent person is matter of choice, not a command by god. I pity the person who feels the only reason they make the right choices are because god won't like them if they don't.

I always thought this was a good question. However, being a biologist, I regard everything with skepticism and my reason is based on research. My research shows that in the past, human society cannot exist unless we restrain ourselves from certain practices (such as killing other people, rape, slavery, etc.) If we look back at ancient societies, evidence clearly states that societies run the smoothest when people don't harm other people..
Huh? I disagree, many societies ran just fine doing these very things. Many also included canabalism. The Roman empire thrived on public displays of barbarism. When logic overcomes ignorance, peace is often the result. Religion often inspires the very basis for societies running amuck.

That is my answer to this question. How do you answer it?
Simple, tell them it's a matter of choice that every human has, and that you feel sorry for them that they can't take responsibility for their own actions.

[UnknownUser]

I had a very intresting read lately in the forum of a book called Sense and Goodness Without God by Richard Carrier

Note: anyone who saw The God who Wasn't There, they had an interview with Richard Carrier

[HarryIsAlwaysRight]

Yes yes, this old chestnut. Theists love this one cause it seems to make atheists "bad". Let's look at the worst case scenario: Atheists inherently are immoral or at least amoral and like nothing better than to spend the days raping babies, rubbing faeces into their hair and aquiring all their worldly possesions by stealing from old people who are less likely to be able to stop/hassle them. Damn those i/amoral atheists!
BUT this doesn't prove anything about the legitimacy of theistic morality based on dogma. You still have no proof that your God exists and therefore no proof of how legitmate your scripture is.

Finally, just take a look at the hard evidence. Most wars are religious. Most terrorists act on faith. Most atheists you'll ever meet will not conform to the above description. Secular countries give more in foreign aid than religious ones. That's just plain worldly evidence. Put that in your wacky religious pipe and smoke it.

[calpurnpiso]

Yes yes, this old chestnut. Theists love this one cause it seems to make atheists "bad". Let's look at the worst case scenario: Atheists inherently are immoral or at least amoral and like nothing better than to spend the days raping babies, rubbing faeces into their hair and aquiring all their worldly possesions by stealing from old people who are less likely to be able to stop/hassle them. Damn those i/amoral atheists!
BUT this doesn't prove anything about the legitimacy of theistic morality based on dogma. You still have no proof that your God exists and therefore no proof of how legitmate your scripture is.

Finally, just take a look at the hard evidence. Most wars are religious. Most terrorists act on faith. Most atheists you'll ever meet will not conform to the above description. Secular countries give more in foreign aid than religious ones. That's just plain worldly evidence. Put that in your wacky religious pipe and smoke it.
Well, one obvious fact is that ALL religious beliefs systems base their dogma on absurd irrational, anachronistic idiocies. Since these beliefs systems are not much different that the beliefs accepted as reality by those folks suffering from mental illness, it is clear those under religious beliefs are not well! Their delusions clearly defines them as NUTS.
:)

[kmisho]

This question about why non-believers don't kill people has always bothered me. Talk about a loaded question. I typically employ several devices, none of which answer the question, but all of which reveal problems with the question itself.

When someone asks me why I as an atheist on't just kill and steal, I ask them. You mean YOU would suddenly start killing and stealing right and left if you stopped believing in god? Then, please, by all means, KEEP believing in god.

My intent is to make the questionier realize that he has just admitted to being a mass murderer, but for belief in god.

I also often say that only atheists even have a chance of being ethical. The existence of god would rule out ethics. This is why it is proper to refer to theistic religion as nihilistic and amoral.

I'm sure you all know the arguments from the premise that god knows everything. In order to behave ethically, it is required that we have genuine choices, none of which we are required to make. If there is an omniscient god then there is no such thing as choice. I must conform to god's knowledge of all my actions. Predestination, the logical consequence of omnisceince, renders not only the idea of morality but existence itself as utterly devoid of meaning. A predestined world is the logical equivalent of a world that does not exist. Therefore, god and morality cannot exist at the same time. Note that this argument does not say that atheists are ethical, it only allows that we CAN be. Whereas omnisceince rules this out.

Of couse lots of theists have a problem with this argument. They will even say, flatly contradicting themselves, that god knows all AND we can make choices.

The response to this argument is of course withdrawl. You can't reason with irrationality.

[Striver]

Kmisho, you seem pretty strong-willed about your beliefs even though you claim to be an atheist. You even called using consequences to determine morality equivalent to sociopathy in a prior post.

Do me a favor. Go to google and look up "thinkers and feelers". You'll find several sites that explain the Jungian concept of thinking and feeling. People genetically have one strong one or the other. The gist is that feelers, like yourself, have values that are somewhat arbitrary. These values often get called morals. The point at which "morals" become dangerous is when they are co-opted by social organizations, rather than determined by the individual through experience.

[HarryIsAlwaysRight]

Well put x

[kmisho]

Kmisho, you seem pretty strong-willed about your beliefs even though you claim to be an atheist. You even called using consequences to determine morality equivalent to sociopathy in a prior post.
So being an atheist means I am supposed to be wishy-washy? Morality supposes a real right and real wrong. I am using the genuine form of logic here. IF morality supposes a real right and a real wrong THEN consequence is irrelevant to morality.

Do me a favor. Go to google and look up "thinkers and feelers". You'll find several sites that explain the Jungian concept of thinking and feeling. People genetically have one strong one or the other. The gist is that feelers, like yourself, have values that are somewhat arbitrary. These values often get called morals. The point at which "morals" become dangerous is when they are co-opted by social organizations, rather than determined by the individual through experience.
Ad Hominem. You attack ME rather than answer my ideas. Are you implying that morals are harmless as long as they are individually held? We may as well write off morality then. What if I think it's good to kill you, from my individual experience? I would call that dangerous morals. As I understand it, the whole point of morals is that they apply to a social struture. The individual does not count as a social structure. If you had one guy living on a planet all by himself, how could you apply morality to him? I would even argue that the basics of human evolutionary structure evolved in our tribal ancestral environment. Similar structures can be seen in the other species most similar to us suh as other primates.

kmisho

[Advocatus Diaboli]

kmisho,

A Lem fan!!!

Mockles! Fent on silpen tree,
Blockards three a-feening,
Mockles, what slips came to thee
In thy pantry dreaming?

- Stanislaw Lem, The Cyberiad

Nice to meet cha.

[calpurnpiso]

Kmisho.

Remember, if you're a true atheist. There is NO SECULAR EVIDENCE Jesus ever existed and all of that arameic sentences you post are simply delusional utterances put in his mouth by those who created him....:)

[James]

Of course there is secular evidence of Jesus. I have his skeleton, and I push my cock into its fleshless rectum-area every night.

Don't know why I just wrote that. :|

[kmisho]

Advocatus Diaboli:

A Lem fan!!!

Mockles! Fent on silpen tree,
Blockards three a-feening,
Mockles, what slips came to thee
In thy pantry dreaming?

- Stanislaw Lem, The Cyberiad

Nice to meet cha.
A huge Lem fan. As far as I know I have everything he ever wrote that has been translated into English.

"In Reimann, Hilbert or banach space,
Let superscripts and subscripts go their ways.
Our asymptotes no longer out of phase,
We shall encounter, counting, face to face."

I have only known 2 other Lem fans. Maybe we can find a way to trade email.

Calpurnpiso:
Remember, if you're a true atheist. There is NO SECULAR EVIDENCE Jesus ever existed and all of that arameic sentences you post are simply delusional utterances put in his mouth by those who created him....:)
Here's how I see it. Every charismatic cult can be traced to a single founder. Therefore there was some one person that started what eventually became Christianity, but...

His name was probably not Jesus, he was probably married and had kids and was probably never crucified.

And "Eli lama sabacthani ('God, whay have you forsaken me')?" is the most interesting thing he never said.

[calpurnpiso]

Kmisho wrote:

"And "Eli lama sabacthani ('God, whay have you forsaken me')?" is the most interesting thing he never said.

Said?...we must prove He existet first, unless of course we are talking about the fictional pagan religions amalgamated character we call Jesus.

We could be as well refering to the holy Tooth Fairy personal quotes just released by Its press agent....:)

[Advocatus Diaboli]

The nurses without breasts are students. Impossible otherwise to tell the sexes apart. Everyone is tall, attractive, perpetually smiling. I am weak and as fussy as a child. the littlest thing irritates me. After an injection today I grabbed the needle and stuck the head nurse in the behind, but she never once stopped smiling. Sometimes I feel I am floating away on my ice floe, that is, my bed. They show me pictures on the ceiling: kitty-cats, bunny-rabbits, horsies, doggies and bumblebees. Why? The magazine they gave me is for children. A mistake?

- Stanislaw Lem, The Futurological Congress

Send me a form email or something.

[Choobus]

morals are for pussies

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Actually, kmisho, I've never run across another Lem fan in this world.

[Rhinoqulous]

Actually, kmisho, I've never run across another Lem fan in this world.
"As soon as his craft had landed, I knew he was not from the neighborhood. For where we would have a head, he had a plumed fedora; for arms, a gentle breeze; and legs, a shimmering rainbow."

(Quote not accurate, I wrote it from memory, from the Cyberaid)

Lem is my favorite science fiction author. I only know one other person who’s ever heard of him. So, with Adcovatus and kmisho, I now know three.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Rhinoqulous,

Wonder what the odds are of three Lem fans in the same thread?

[miata]

There are Quasi-objective morals and they have very little to do with god or Man's reason. Any comparison of animal societies will show that there are evolved norms of social interaction that are needed to keep the group functioning. Most of these should sound familiar to any good theist: don't mate with your sister, killing within the group is unlikely to make you popular, Men don't beat up on the women or adults on children, just because you are bigger, etc. There are rationals for the evolution of each of these rules, thay have arisen independantly in many orders. We inherited them long before we were truly human.

Now as I mentioned they are norms and as such can be disreguarded in some contexts If you are starving in Ethiopia you might not feed and care for your young, pregnant and unmarried at 13 you might have an abortion, if your name is Ptolomy you might mate with yout sister, but each of these encurs a cost or a great risk of a cost which was exactly what the evolved norms sought to minimize. Moreso because everyone else starts out playing by the evolved norms and most likely has evolved mechanisms to ensure that others do too- the revulsion we feel for wife beaters and child molesters for example.

Good and Evil are just semantics applied to the behavioral mechanisms we have evolved to either reward (I feel good) or punish (Shame, guilt) ourselves and others for transgression.
There are people alive today only because of the laws that forbid killing them. Just how moral is it to fake a muti billion dollar lie??