Atheists: explain where your moral system comes from

[Gogf]

People post all the time about how there's this common misconception that "atheists cannot be moral." I am curious what morality means to most CFC atheists.

If your explanation consists of an appeal to moral intuitions, please explain why those moral intuitions have access to some sort of objective moral truth. Please also clarify what it means for an ethical statement to be true and what it is that makes these ethical statements objectively true.

If you do not believe in objective morals, please say whether or not you consider your moral relativism to be meaningfully prescriptive and discuss the relative merits of this versus the objective morality that religion can (supposedly) provide.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I reject any notion of "morality" and instead view actions as broadly "good," "evil," and "neutral." (If you really need to, that's "morally good," "amoral," and "immoral.") Then, when I am about to act, I shuttle my actions into these categories. Whenever I undertake an action with many elements of good or evil to it (as actions often are), I spur-of-the-moment decide which elements outweigh the others in importance and treat the entire action as one. With this in mind, I tend toward doing good things and consciously try to avoid judging the actions of others in a similar manner unless it's an extremely good idea to do so.

The basis for my classification is just basically, "what sounds right to me?" and nothing else. Devising rules for this sort of stuff is silly.

 

[Gogf]

I reject any notion of "morality" and instead view actions as broadly "good," "evil," and "neutral." (If you really need to, that's "morally good," "amoral," and "immoral.") Then, when I am about to act, I shuttle my actions into these categories. Whenever I undertake an action with many elements of good or evil to it (as actions often are), I spur-of-the-moment decide which elements outweigh the others in importance and treat the entire action as one. With this in mind, I tend toward doing good things and consciously try to avoid judging the actions of others in a similar manner unless it's an extremely good idea to do so.

The basis for my classification is just basically, "what sounds right to me?" and nothing else. Devising rules for this sort of stuff is silly.

So basically you do not have a moral system but just act in accordance with how you feel? How does this differ from moral intuitions, and do you think that, broadly speaking, your spur-of-the-moment assessment about whether or not actions are "good" or "evil" (which are very morally-loaded terms) in some way have access to the truth about whether or not they are actually moral or immoral?

Also: Hi. Long time no see.

 

[Souron]

I just have some ideas about what feels right, and I apply logic so that there is consistency in the expression of those ideas. Morality is objective to the extent that that we as humans are all similar, and so would mostly agree on what moral values are. The relative weight of those values is subject to debate, but such debate as could have a conclusion.

 

[Bill3000]

I am a very moral person because I never clean myself.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Treat people how you would expect to be treated yourself.

I think some religious dude said that once too.

 

[Japanrocks12]

So basically you do not have a moral system but just act in accordance with how you feel? How does this differ from moral intuitions, and do you think that, broadly speaking, your spur-of-the-moment assessment about whether or not actions are "good" or "evil" (which are very morally-loaded terms) in some way have access to the truth about whether or not they are actually moral or immoral?

Also: Hi. Long time no see.

Hey

In the context of my post, "good" and "evil' are just dummy terms to describe an incredibly familiar concept. My "moral intuitions" (as long as we're tossing around terms here) steer me towards certain actions and away from others, and so I have chosen those words to classify what I'm steering away from and what I'm steering towards.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, just considering something permissible or not is good enough for me to consider it actually moral or actually immoral. I mean, I'm not omniscient (nor is anything else,) so the closest approximation to the truth is.. what I decide is good or bad.

 

[Akka]

"I have gained this by philosophy : that I do without being commanded, what others do only by fear of the law."

The ability to intellectually distinguish between good and evil ? The simple Golden Rule applied in good faith - nothing more needed, honestly.
The ability to WANT things to be moral ? The natural empathy that is inside most of us.

There is absolutely nothing religious needed to know what is good and to want it to be. It's much, much more about what's inside yourself.

 

[JohnRM]

I don't have a moral system. I do whatever is in my own self-interest.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Kinda downplays yourself and fellow man a bit to think an objective moral truth that none of us can ever be sure of is the standard of measurement for all of us.

Best to act in the moment, and to just not go out of your way to make other people's life hell.

 

[bathsheba666]

The suggestion that my morality is any less or more objective than a burning bush blog from white beardy sky man is one I find I reject.

 

[Arwon]

Some version of the golden rule or the harm principle, built on the humility that comes with knowing we ain't that special.

 

[Mise]

Most ethical systems are found to a greater or lesser extent in other animals (primates especially), and are more or less universally adopted in human civilisations throughout the world. Various studies have shown that specific ethical systems are artifacts of natural selection; ethical systems are "universal" insofar as they apply to any sufficiently intelligent life that evolved under the same evolutionary pressures that we did.

I don't know whether the question applies to me, but yes, I consider ethical systems to be meaningfully prescriptive.

 

[ArneHD]

No idea. Most likely a conglomaration of various habits and ideas that more or less innevetably accumulate during upbringing.

 

[SG-17]

What is logical is what is correct.

 

[Arakhor]

I know that Kent Hovind is on record as saying that without God, there can be no moral system whatsoever. Isn't it hilarious that the Bible literalist and YEC has completely forgotten what Jesus said?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

discuss the relative merits of this versus the objective morality that religion can (supposedly) provide.

The religion I was raised with maintains that condoms are a morally reprehensible thing to use. As to why preventing the spread of AIDS is a morally reprehensible thing, that I cannot fathom.

 

[Arakhor]

I can guess that that is because using contraception defies the will of God. Millions of people have made entire careers on predicating that they know the will of God better than us mere mortals.

 

[Karalysia]

Secular humanism.

 

[emzie]

Most ethical systems are found to a greater or lesser extent in other animals (primates especially), and are more or less universally adopted in human civilisations throughout the world. Various studies have shown that specific ethical systems are artifacts of natural selection; ethical systems are "universal" insofar as they apply to any sufficiently intelligent life that evolved under the same evolutionary pressures that we did.

I don't know whether the question applies to me, but yes, I consider ethical systems to be meaningfully prescriptive.

This. There are certain hard-wired moral principals in humans, agreed upon by all peoples (though not all people... effin' sociopaths)

While that doesn't demonstrate biological reasoning, I do think it demonstrates morality doesn't come from supernatural forces. Further, as Mise points out, the foundations of morality shared amongst people can be found in animals. That, I do think, shows biological reasoning.