NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.

This is posted out of sincere curiosity and a desire to understand. I know, that might be hard to believe in an environment like this, but it's true.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Once again, I ask out of honest curiosity. If you find that question offensive for some reason, then pardon me and move on. If you are religious and want to jump in to attack atheists, I invite you to move on as well. I'm trying to gain some knowledge here.

You could look up Objectivism, and see what you find there. Not that all atheists are Objectivists, but it's a start.

There are plenty of moral and ethical frameworks designed either by atheists or in such a way that one need not make a call to a higher power in order to differentiate right and wrong.

Kantian ethics, the Golden Rule, Utilitarianism all come to mind.

All can be applied (and frequently are applied) without needing a god.

If they don't need a god, they can be used by atheists to differentiate right and wrong.

I think that may have come off as a bit circular, but the paragraph was supposed to be mentally separated from the individual lines. One is a statement, the other is an attempt to explain that statement.

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.

This is posted out of sincere curiosity and a desire to understand. I know, that might be hard to believe in an environment like this, but it's true.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Once again, I ask out of honest curiosity. If you find that question offensive for some reason, then pardon me and move on. If you are religious and want to jump in to attack atheists, I invite you to move on as well. I'm trying to gain some knowledge here.

Let me just point something out, first...

I'm not convinced the 'source of morality for a religious person' IS obvious. They might get their guiding lights in scripture, but clearly not every moral cue is scriptural... else, Christian nations would still allow slavery.

I'm an Atheist. My 'ethical compass, if you will, is purely pragmatic. Call it 'do unto others'... call it 'an it harm none, do as thou wilt'... whichever. I don't like being murdered, so I don't murder. I don't like being stolen from, so I don't steal. I don't like being lied to, so I don't lie.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?


The Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity), basically.
Simply because it makes sense.

its weird I just try to be a good guy (subjective as that is), I think religious folk do the same or at least I hope so :confused:

Atheists, at least rational ones, don't tend to believe in an objective morality. They just use subjective principles that ensure people are happy, healthy etc...

Pretty much the same places theist get their sense of ethics sans one book: their mother and father, the teachers they have at school, their friends, television(movies), etc. As little as you'd like to admit it, religion has a much lesser effect on your sense of ethics than these factors do.

Personally, a combination of the golden rule, utilitarianism, logic (ie. conforming with reversability and universiality), and common sense.

Pretty much the same places theist get their sense of ethics sans one book: their mother and father, the teachers they have at school, their friends, television(movies), etc. As little as you'd like to admit it, religion has a much lesser effect on your sense of ethics than these factors do.

...not sure why you're assuming what I'd like to admit to or not... but meh.

Well, I'm not atheist, but I don't use any religion as a moral compass so I easily fall under the intended object of study of this thread.

Several key concepts I use:

The value of human life. Nobody can end another's life - unless that person wants to suicide but can't do so him/herself.
The value of property. You can't go and snatch away things from the people!
The value of honestity. Lying only makes your way more tortuous. Being honest goes a long way.
The value of inoffensiveness. If something doesn't hurt anyone, it can't be bad.
The value of choice. If you want to do something that's bad for you, that's your bussiness along it's not bad for anyone else.
The value of fair advantage. If you have the choice of taking a fair advantage, or an unfair advantage, you should always go with the first.
The value of compromise: If you have conflicting interests with someone, reaching a middle ground is often a very good solution.
The value of vengeance: What the hell, if someone is asking for it, punch him/her in the face. There are peoples who can't be reasoned with. Still, it's better to avoid them most of the time.

I find the thought of a world where the only thing keeping you from raping and murdering is the threat of punishment really horrifying.

Scary fucking people.

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.Apology accepted :)

For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?There are numerous alternatives, like Hobbes' contract theory, Kant's maxims or Mill's utilitarianism.
And it's not like there aren't problems with a god-given code of ethics, e.g.: is something good because God wants it (making it fairly arbitrary), or does God want what is good (and why is it good then?)

But practically, morals and values are mostly just something people pick up. Most athiests in predominantly Christian areas share the same christian morals to a high degree. Actually, most people around the world share most morals to a high degree (murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc).
I think one of my philosophy professors called ethics a shortcut in decision making. They are overall species-promoting behaviours (putting it in an evolutionary perspective).

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues?

No.

I lack belief in God. This is not a source for moral cues, any more than my lack of belief in Santa is a source for moral cues.


I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Non-religious people make moral decisions exactly the same way religious people do: we judge individual situations on their merits and in terms of the culture in which we exist (and the culture in which we were reared).

If you actually examine things closely, you'll find that most religious people have an underlying moral code that comes well before their religious beliefs.

I use it all the time, but try out the Kitten Experiment if you want to see this in action:

"Hello, Religious Believer! I have a friendly question for you. If your God/gods personally spoke directly to you, and you had no doubt whatsoever that it WAS God speaking to you, and then God/gods said they wanted you to torture and kill an adorable little kitten, would you do it?"

Most believers will initially squirm a bit, and will often insist that their God would never ask such a thing. That pretty much answers your question right there, because they are sure God is Good, and Good does not jibe with kitten-torturing (for most people). They have a standard for Good, and they are able to examine individual situations based on this standard.

You then follow up with, "Thank you! Next question: replace 'kitten' with 'human infant.' Same question."

Religious believers generally do not say that they would torture a human infant if God told them to. They generally say, "Shite, that's hideous! I wouldn't do that." Because most religious believers are not bugfuck insane.

They have a concept of Good that exists independently. They don't need their God-belief to have a concept of Good or Moral. The moral system exists first, and the religion comes second.

I find the thought of a world where the only thing keeping you from raping and murdering is the threat of punishment.

Scary fucking people.

But of course this is just a fabricated misunderstanding of what most religious people actually believe.

Thanks for the replies. Makes sense, and I appreciate the time y'all took to post.

One of the reasons I started thinking about the subject was that one of my hobbies is writing stories and in one project I decided to start exploring human responses and what a person would do if they knew there was -no- chance that he would make it to Heaven.

(I know it's not the same thing as Atheism. In my story, the guy believes completely in God. he just knows he's comdenmed and is now seeking a reason not to devolve into a total inhuman bastard.)

So it occurred to me that such a character MIGHT seek a code of ethics ouside the scope of -any- religion and thus it made me start thinking on a tangent about what Atheists think of all of that.

So thanks!

Apology accepted :)

There are numerous alternatives, like Hobbes' contract theory, Kant's maxims or Mill's utilitarianism.
And it's not like there aren't problems with a god-given code of ethics, e.g.: is something good because God wants it (making it fairly arbitrary), or does God want what is good (and why is it good then?)

But practically, morals and values are mostly just something people pick up. Most athiests in predominantly Christian areas share the same christian morals to a high degree. Actually, most people around the world share most morals to a high degree (murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc).
I think one of my philosophy professors called ethics a shortcut in decision making. They are overall species-promoting behaviours (putting it in an evolutionary perspective).

Quoted for truth.

I'm an athiest, and I don't have ethical or moral cues.

I'm an athiest, and I don't have ethical or moral cues.

So why don't you do bad things?

i try to be a kind or at least reasonable person out of the hope that people will be kind or at least reasonable to me. i don't need a god or a holy book to tell me that this is a good idea.

I find the thought of a world where the only thing keeping you from raping and murdering is the threat of punishment really horrifying.

Scary fucking people.

Lesser crimes though I only don't indulge in because of punishment. I'm not saying that everyone is the same but i've always found the ads against piracy on dvds here (which say something along the lines of "you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a phone, so why use pirated films") strange. In my mind i'm always thinking "because i'd get caught". Thankfully my morals and ethics kick in at a point way before raping and murdering

Thanks for the replies. Makes sense, and I appreciate the time y'all took to post.

One of the reasons I started thinking about the subject was that one of my hobbies is writing stories and in one project I decided to start exploring human responses and what a person would do if they knew there was -no- chance that he would make it to Heaven.

(I know it's not the same thing as Atheism. In my story, the guy believes completely in God. he just knows he's comdenmed and is now seeking a reason not to devolve into a total inhuman bastard.)

So it occurred to me that such a character MIGHT seek a code of ethics ouside the scope of -any- religion and thus it made me start thinking on a tangent about what Atheists think of all of that.

So thanks!I find you pretty weird. Do you really need to search for ethics that are not attached to the moronic God of abrahamic religions? Have you never thought about the relevant questions yourself? Have you no decency beyond the behavior that is indoctrinated in you by religion. If you need religion to be a good person, you are not a good person, you are just a puppet.

Lesser crimes though I only don't indulge in because of punishment. I'm not saying that everyone is the same but i've always found the ads against piracy on dvds here (which say something along the lines of "you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a phone, so why use pirated films") strange. In my mind i'm always thinking "because i'd get caught". Thankfully my morals and ethics kick in at a point way before raping and murdering

I find those hilarious. If I'd pirated the movie they'd of edited that bit out. Way to berate paying customers!

I find you pretty weird. Do you really need to search for ethics that are not attached to the moronic God of abrahamic religions? Have you never thought about the relevant questions yourself? Have you no decency beyond the behavior that is indoctrinated in you by religion. If you need belief to be a good person, you are not a good person, you are just a puppet.

People like you are the resaon so often folks are unwilling to ask open and honest questions.

Everybody else seemed to understand the spirit of the question just fine. What's your excuse?

Being a jackass doesn't make a person look cool. It just makes them look like a jackass.

Lesser crimes though I only don't indulge in because of punishment. I'm not saying that everyone is the same but i've always found the ads against piracy on dvds here (which say something along the lines of "you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a phone, so why use pirated films") strange. In my mind i'm always thinking "because i'd get caught". Thankfully my morals and ethics kick in at a point way before raping and murdering

Ironically I'm a little ambivalent on that one. IMHO, stealing a car isn't in the same ballpark as copying a DVD. If I steal your car, I've now deprived you of your means of transportation, your personal property, potentially your means of earning an income, violated your privacy and indirectly caused you any number of inconveniences.

On the other hand, if I copy a DVD, I deprive you of nothing, except possibly the hypothetical couple dollars' profit that you may or may not have received, based on whether I felt the movie was actually worth purchasing in the first place.

I find you pretty weird. Do you really need to search for ethics that are not attached to the moronic God of abrahamic religions? Have you never thought about the relevant questions yourself? Have you no decency beyond the behavior that is indoctrinated in you by religion. If you need religion to be a good person, you are not a good person, you are just a puppet.

Without getting into wether you're right or not, you're being a little bit too harsh in this post. The OP has started the thread with very good intents and manners, out of honest curiosity and with a research-like approach.

I don't think it's quite a good idea to answer in the way you have, if at least to show respect for his/her good manners.

Ironically I'm a little ambivalent on that one. IMHO, stealing a car isn't in the same ballpark as copying a DVD. If I steal your car, I've now deprived you of your means of transportation, your personal property, potentially your means of earning an income, violated your privacy and indirectly caused you any number of inconveniences.

On the other hand, if I copy a DVD, I deprive you of nothing, except possibly the hypothetical couple dollars' profit that you may or may not have received, based on whether I felt the movie was actually worth purchasing in the first place.

Yeah it makes sense. The thing that disappoints me about myself though is that I can't seem to care about the difference.

Thanks for the replies. Makes sense, and I appreciate the time y'all took to post.

One of the reasons I started thinking about the subject was that one of my hobbies is writing stories and in one project I decided to start exploring human responses and what a person would do if they knew there was -no- chance that he would make it to Heaven.

(I know it's not the same thing as Atheism. In my story, the guy believes completely in God. he just knows he's comdenmed and is now seeking a reason not to devolve into a total inhuman bastard.)

So it occurred to me that such a character MIGHT seek a code of ethics ouside the scope of -any- religion and thus it made me start thinking on a tangent about what Atheists think of all of that.

So thanks!

you've framed your answer in the question. the real question is "why does this man need religion in order to be human? surely his humanity is inherent unless he is a psychopath and is therefor missing something that the rest of us posess?". he is human, therefore he is not inhuman, unless he is a psychopath or sociopath.

I'm agnostic. I believe that the terms "good" and "bad" are completely arbitrary and essentially made up by humans to maintain a stable society. Nothing is intrinsically good or bad, rather, things are either productive or not-productive.

My morality is therefore entirely subjective. If it is productive for me to steal, then I'll steal. If it is not productive for me to steal, I won't. An example of productivity is if I wouldn't be caught, and the owner had insurance. An example of non-productivity is that the item was irreplaceable or I'd get caught.

Ironically I'm a little ambivalent on that one. IMHO, stealing a car isn't in the same ballpark as copying a DVD. If I steal your car, I've now deprived you of your means of transportation, your personal property, potentially your means of earning an income, violated your privacy and indirectly caused you any number of inconveniences.

On the other hand, if I copy a DVD, I deprive you of nothing, except possibly the hypothetical couple dollars' profit that you may or may not have received, based on whether I felt the movie was actually worth purchasing in the first place.

For me it's just that plus another thing: CD and DVD companies charge way too much for their pieces of plastic. And since (for most of their products) I don't have a love that justifies such a rip-off, I'm going to have them the GRATIS way.

Sabotaging a world-wide attempt at unfair advantage, that's it.

you've framed your answer in the question. the real question is "why does this man need religion in order to be human? surely his humanity is inherent unless he is a psychopath and is therefor missing something that the rest of us posess?". he is human, therefore he is not inhuman, unless he is a psychopath or sociopath.

That is a good point. I think my intent though, is to come at it (within the context of that story and thus not this thread) as a person who, because he DOES believe in God and that he's been rejected by that God, feels he has -no- incentive whatsoever to give a fig about ANYTHING. In that sense, he'd be better off as an Atheist because then at least he would be able to share that viewpoint and be fine. It is BECAUSE this character believes he's condemned that he's struggling, because even concepts like the good of the species or the Golden Rule mean nothing to someone who is now looking to get away with whatever he can without getting caught.

The story is in its formative stages because I really don't have a plot or a decent ending. It's more meant to explore those issues than to actually concern itself with those things until the philosophical part is much more fleshed out.

No one has mentioned game theory. There are game-theoretic considerations that lead to moral guidelines independant of religious teaching. A good starting place to find out more would be a biography of John Von Neumann (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/neumann.htm)

For me it's just that plus another thing: CD and DVD companies charge way too much for their pieces of plastic. And since (for most of their products) I don't have a love that justifies such a rip-off, I'm going to have them the GRATIS way.

Sabotaging a world-wide attempt at unfair advantage, that's it.

I think my biggest peeve is how they distort the truth to try and scare/guilt people into not pirating. I have a couple DVDs (Store bought) where I have to sit through a PSA about not pirating. I can't skip over it and I can't go to the disc menu. I am FORCED to play that PSA every time I want to watch the DVD. To me, this whole crying victim thing out of big media is getting old.

People like you are the resaon so often folks are unwilling to ask open and honest questions.

Everybody else seemed to understand the spirit of the question just fine. What's your excuse?

Being a jackass doesn't make a person look cool. It just makes them look like a jackass.If you do not have values that are not rooted in religion you are the jackass. Your religious arrogance apparently blinds you, Master Bretonnia. You are outside of the enlightenment as Kant describes it. You, like many others, have not yet come out of the dark age. Maybe you should try to live in Europe for a while.

If you do not have values that are not rooted in religion you are the jackass. Your religious arrogance apparently blinds you, Master Bretonnia. You are outside of the enlightenment as Kant describes it.

You obviously have no knowledge of Kant then, since he would actually agree more with the idea that you need an afterlife to ever motivate you to act in accordance with the categorical imperative.

If you do not have values that are not rooted in religion you are the jackass. Your religious arrogance apparently blinds you, Master Bretonnia. You are outside of the enlightenment as Kant describes it. You, like many others, have not yet come out of the dark age. Maybe you should try to live in Europe for a while.

You complain of religious arrogance and yet you are showing an arrogance in yourself with this post. And please don't say that Europe is better than all others. It just builds up the idea that all Europeans are as arrogant as yourself

You obviously have no knowledge of Kant then, since he would actually agree more with the idea that you need an afterlife to ever motivate you to act in accordance with the categorical imperative.Why would an afterlife be needed to make you act exemplarily?
And the point is: Kant thought of humans as rationally autonomous self-conscious beings, or at least as beings capable of being rationally autonomous. Religious people, however, are not autonomous in their rationality, be it because of their upbringing and subsequent mental laziness, or out of choice. In fact, religious people are necessarily irrational.

So why don't you do bad things?
I fear punishment.

Deterrence works.

I fear punishment.

Deterrence works.True. However, how much of that is deterrence and how much is not being comfortable with the idea of doing some of the currently unstated 'bad things?'

Why would an afterlife be needed to make you act exemplarily?
And the point is: Kant thought of humans as rationally autonomous self-conscious beings, or at least as beings capable of being rationally autonomous. Religious people, however, are not autonomous in their rationality, be it because of their upbringing and subsequent mental laziness, or out of choice. In fact, religious people are necessarily irrational.

Kant didn't believe that.

'Moral compass' and 'moral values' are purely religious concepts, so an atheist wouldn't derive anything from these ideas as they are preset in a religious doctrine.

As an atheist, I say I get my guidance from what makes logical sense; that which is civilised and allows me to live and lets others leave me alone.

Treating someone as an equal is how you get by. If you want to know how to treat someone, ask yourself how you'd like to be treated.

That is a good point. I think my intent though, is to come at it (within the context of that story and thus not this thread) as a person who, because he DOES believe in God and that he's been rejected by that God, feels he has -no- incentive whatsoever to give a fig about ANYTHING.There's really two conflicting impulses one might have. Either to prove you deserve what you get, by being as bad as you can. Or the opposite, prove you're better: "So, God doesn't want me? Well, screw him, I'm too good for him."

I don't really see how anyone should need incentive to care about something though, either you do or you don't; there's no helping it. The most an incentive does is making you care about the incentive. Which is the whole problem, really. "Do I care about goodness for goodness sake, or merely for God's sake?"

I am a secular humanist myself. My ethics come from the realization that all the essential factors that make my own life and well being valuable to me are also present in other human (and perhaps animal) beings. This concept exists in all healthy human beings on an emotional level. We commonly call a certain aspect of it 'compassion.' Various ideologies and social factors encourage and discourage this impulse to a greater or lesser extent. I view the expression of this natural social impulse as well as institutions and social ideas that encourage it to be 'good.' Similarly I view institutions and ideas that encourage the maximization of personal and social freedom as good.

As a secular humanist I also follow 'the philosophy of the belly.' The needs of our bodies come first. Above all we must strive to ensure the basic needs of all people. "God" has nothing to do with it. A young rat knows to bring food to an old blind rat. I've never heard of a rat taking communion though.

My moral compas comes from what I thing the situation calls for. If, in order for me to survive, I must take another humans life, I don't think I would have any proplems doing just that. I do what I have to do to survive. and despite that, I'm still a communist, weird eh?

'Moral compass' and 'moral values' are purely religious conceptsI daresay two thousand years of philosophy disagrees with that. Socrates already worked gods out of the equation.

I daresay two thousand years of philosophy disagrees with that. Socrates already worked gods out of the equation.

He doesn't matter. :p He's dead and gone anyway. Sure he had some great ideas, but what's he done in the last 2000 years? Squat is what. :)

Break the law -> Prison

Also, you dont need to be a genius and know that if you act moraly, you will live a much hapier and easier life.

And I´m an atheist and I believe in Karma, if not for its spiritual meaning, but because it clearly states that postive actions will probabily have positive consequences, and negative actions will have negative consequences.

:D someone who cares about the truth, and on ns, this is incredible!!

ok, here is my thoughts on the subject.

existentialism- there morals come from the want mainly to be left alone. such as, if i eat this piece of cake in my fridge no one will care, i am also hungry, therefore, i think it is a good thing for me to eat this cake. as opposed to, if i kill this person, my life will become really complicated and people will go out of there way to hate me, therefore, i will not kill this person. (its a lot more complex then that but its an easy way to explain it)

absurdism- people who are absurdist mainly want to have a fairly long life and be as content as they want. so, if i eat well i will suffer less when i am old, therefore i will eat well. if i kill this person, i will suffer greatly and not have a chance to have a good and full life, therefor i will not kill this person

nihilism- due to an equal disappointment from everything we end up doing, so we try to do a little as possible. as little as possible includes doing anything that will get us in trouble because we have to do a lot more if we have people making things hard for us.

now, these are just my view points on these different atheist philosophies as i have experienced them so they will be biased to a small point and i cant say that i have a true understanding. but, i hope this helps

I am an Objectivist. I do not view morals as having anything to do with pragmatism or individual situations. I do not lie merely because I might earn money from doing so, nor do I kill because it would eliminate another blustering, idiotic, talkative annoyance.

You either have morals or you don't. You apply those morals to situations, but you have a set of ethics nonetheless if you are applying certain values when determining cases as they occur.

As an Objectivist I view altruism as evil, and egotism as good. I view theft, fraud, and violence to all be the worst sort of crimes, and indeed, virtually the only.

I fear punishment.

Deterrence works.
Not as well as actual ethical beliefs though. Fear of punishment only works as far as you are being closely watched. Now if you believe that an activity is actually wrong, you will struggle against it whether there is a realistic chance of retribution or not.

Keeping people at gunpoint is not a very efficient way of enforcing basic social mores. It is ultimately ineffective and unnecessary. In fact, most effective 'law enforcement' happens internally.

If you do not have values that are not rooted in religion you are the jackass. Your religious arrogance apparently blinds you, Master Bretonnia. You are outside of the enlightenment as Kant describes it. You, like many others, have not yet come out of the dark age. Maybe you should try to live in Europe for a while.

Your tirade against me is predicated upon the following erroneous assumptions:

-That all of my ideas of right and wrong come from my religion. This is not the case. There have been periods in my life when I had no religion at all and yet I refrained from socially destructive behavior. In my OP, when I indicated that religious people derive their sense of morality from religion, I was deliberately oversimplifying precisely because this thread was not, nor has it become, intended to discuss where religious people get their moral cues. Most people understood that just fine. For whatever reason you chose to attack. The folly is yours.

-That I've done something to demonstrate religious arrogance. If I have, then do try and be constructive, and show me where.

-That you know enough about me to make an educated hypothesis on where I am in terms of enlightenment, based upon a couple of posts which you've demonstrated that you have not understood correctly.

-That somehow living in Eurpoe would cure me of the ills you've ascribed to me.

...Although I am quite fascinated with the Dark Ages. IMHO there's no more fascinating period in history.

I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

There's your problem right there--you're assuming that the religion is the source of morality, when really, it's just an expression of the morality that those followers claim to believe in.

Break the law -> Prison

Also, you dont need to be a genius and know that if you act moraly, you will live a much hapier and easier life.Unless the law is immoral. Which, being constructed by a bunch of wealthy white men with their own interests in mind, it generally is. In the case of the immoral law, it is easier to act immorally. Many have died and gone to prison for acting morally.

And I´m an atheist and I believe in Karma, if not for its spiritual meaning, but because it clearly states that postive actions will probabily have positive consequences, and negative actions will have negative consequences.

This actually reminded me of something I had meant to include in my OP but completely forgot: Spiritualism as it apples to an Atheist philosophy. I know that one can be spiritual without believing in a Supreme Being, and that still qualifies one as an Atheist by definition, but I don't know whether that's common or uncommon.

Do most Atheists have a spiritual belief of some kind, or no?

Do most Atheists have a spiritual belief of some kind, or no?
The thing about Atheism is that there isn't a dogma, or a shared set of beliefs or thought on the matter. You really can't say that most atheists feel this or that way about a subject, because there's no way of knowing. We're not organized the way religious groups are, and we're way more contentious about what we believe and don't believe than most churches are.

This actually reminded me of something I had meant to include in my OP but completely forgot: Spiritualism as it apples to an Atheist philosophy. I know that one can be spiritual without believing in a Supreme Being, and that still qualifies one as an Atheist by definition, but I don't know whether that's common or uncommon.

Do most Atheists have a spiritual belief of some kind, or no?

Try EVERY Buddhist or Jain.

The thing about Atheism is that there isn't a dogma, or a shared set of beliefs or thought on the matter. You really can't say that most atheists feel this or that way about a subject, because there's no way of knowing. We're not organized the way religious groups are, and we're way more contentious about what we believe and don't believe than most churches are.

That last line really surprised me. I'm used to the idea of denominations being at each other's throats at times, but it never occurred to me that there would be dispute among Atheists, since people tend to see Atheism as a sort of homogenous group.

...which is why I started this thread.

Try EVERY Buddhist or Jain.

Wouldn't a Bhuddist consider themselves to be religious?

Wouldn't a Bhuddist consider themselves to be religious?

Religious, but still atheist.

The thing about Atheism is that there isn't a dogma, or a shared set of beliefs or thought on the matter. You really can't say that most atheists feel this or that way about a subject, because there's no way of knowing. We're not organized the way religious groups are, and we're way more contentious about what we believe and don't believe than most churches are.

Yet you can't really say that most THEISTS say this and that either, which many people do. Theism is not one religion.

Religious, but still atheist.

I wouldn't call them atheists.

That last line really surprised me. I'm used to the idea of denominations being at each other's throats at times, but it never occurred to me that there would be dispute among Atheists, since people tend to see Atheism as a sort of homogenous group.

...which is why I started this thread.

And that's the reason for a lot of the tension atheists feel--we're not like a church. We are, in many ways, an anti-church. Ask ten atheists to define their lack of belief in God and you'll probably get a dozen answers--that's just the way we are, because we're all still searching for some transcendent truth, but we're generally looking on our own. No guidebook. No simple answers. And that's fine because in my case at least, it's the questions which drive me. They're the interesting things--not the answers, because there's relatively few places to go from there.

I don't believe in god, but I do believe in karma. If someone's a career criminal who specializes in identity theft, they can expect their next life to be abject one of poverty. At the same time, a hard working fellow who donates large amounts frequently can expect an affluent lifestyle in their next life.

The main iussue between the religious and nonreligious is that the religious think morality exists because of god, while the nonreligious think it exists in spite of god. Remember, some things are universal -- you don't need religion to know that greabbing a club and beating the neighbor's kids is immoral.

I wouldn't call them atheists.

Do they believe in a god?
No.

Atheist.

Wouldn't a Bhuddist consider themselves to be religious?

Buddhists don't believe in a god. They are by definition atheists.

Yet you can't really say that most THEISTS say this and that either, which many people do. Theism is not one religion.

Never said you could--but you can make claims about specific religious groups. Catholics have a dogma. So do Baptists. So do Orthodox Jews. The only way to make that sort of claim of theists is to lump them under the rubric of "god(s) believer" and make that one claim. Atheists have none of that.

...but don't they think Buddha's at least a demigod?

True. However, how much of that is deterrence and how much is not being comfortable with the idea of doing some of the currently unstated 'bad things?'
Either way, you're rationally avoiding consequences you don't like, be it punishment, social ostracism, or feelings of guilt.

But believing there to be some sort of moral rule governing you strikes me as irrational. There's simply no basis for the belief.

Except, of course, the feelings of guilt aren't rational. Why worry about something you can't avoid?

I don't believe in god, but I do believe in karma. If someone's a career criminal who specializes in identity theft, they can expect their next life to be abject one of poverty. At the same time, a hard working fellow who donates large amounts frequently can expect an affluent lifestyle in their next life.

The main iussue between the religious and nonreligious is that the religious think morality exists because of god, while the nonreligious think it exists in spite of god. Remember, some things are universal -- you don't need religion to know that greabbing a club and beating the neighbor's kids is immoral.

The idea of karma is to avoid any karmas, good and bad and break the cycle of reincarnation.

Do they believe in a god?
No.

Atheist.

They believe in paranormal/supernatural stuff. It's very complicated, they do believe in various supernatural beings but not a creater God. An atheist would never be able to believe in such things.

...but don't they think Buddha's at least a demigod?

Depends on how you define demigod. He was a man, an ordinary, mortal man who achieved enlightenment and became one with the universe upon his death. They attribute to him teachings on how to achieve enlightenment as he did, but confer him no supernatural powers.

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.

This is posted out of sincere curiosity and a desire to understand. I know, that might be hard to believe in an environment like this, but it's true.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Compassion, empathy, rationality, conscience...

Personally I'd probably describe myself as utilitarian, i.e. conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons.

They believe in paranormal/supernatural stuff. It's very complicated, they do believe in various supernatural beings but not a creater God. An atheist would never be able to believe in such things.

Bullshit.

You can believe in paranormal, supernatural things without believing in a god. And if you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist.

They believe in paranormal/supernatural stuff. It's very complicated, they do believe in various supernatural beings but not a creater God. An atheist would never be able to believe in such things.

Really, I can't? Care to tell me what else I can't believe in? 'Cause I'm all ears.

Buddhists don't believe in a god. They are by definition atheists.Depends on the school of Buddhism. Some do in fact worship gods. I would not call 'pure land' adherents atheists for example.

I'm not buddhist, though -- the way I see things, the VAST majority (99+%) will be reborn. Maybe "karma" isn't the proper term, but I imagine your netx life WILL depend on your actions during this one.

Unless the law is immoral. Which, being constructed by a bunch of wealthy white men with their own interests in mind, it generally is. In the case of the immoral law, it is easier to act immorally. Many have died and gone to prison for acting morally.

Well, life isnt perfect, reality isnt just.

There is no such thing as good or bad in absolute terms.

But its also easy to understand why the laws are aplied the way they are. Without them, civilization wouldnt work.

Law is the way we humans found out to work conflicts without bloodshed. That is it. Just like most conflicts are imoral, the law is usualy imoral too.

But at least people usually survive. Even the poor and powerless ones.

what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues?

Personally, it’s a version of the golden rule, but mine goes like this: do unto others and you’d have them do unto your children. Basically, you treat everyone as you’d want them to treat your kids, which is likely slightly better than you'd expect to be treated yourself.

And you don’t do so because of some promise of eternal salvation and some glorious afterlife in the clouds, or because of some other personal gain. It’s because if this is all we have – the here and now – we live better and happier lives for making the most of it while we can. Regardless of what I gain over my life, it’s worthless when I’m gone, so you work to leave things slightly better than when you found them for someone else to enjoy.

Bullshit.

You can believe in paranormal, supernatural things without believing in a god. And if you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist.

Yeah, but the way you use the term atheists, your acting as if they are the same ast the sorts of atheists you get on NSG.

Anyway, they do believe in a sort of God. Similar to plato's form of good, ultimate perfection etc.. Totally contrary to central atheistic beliefs. There are more types of God then merely the creator type God.

Law is the way we humans found out to work conflicts without bloodshed.
Best of all possible worlds you say? You sir are a hopeless idealist. The law is laid down by the powerful with the intention of maintaining their power. Bloodshed is inherent in the law and it is at the law's very core. People have been working out conflicts without bloodshed for many millennia. in fact, the state has given us our bloodiest conflicts.
But at least people usually survive. Even the poor and powerless ones. Many of us cannot survive within the law and so we survive outside of it under the specter of the law's mailed fist. The fact that you are not aware of this does not negate the fact. We may survive outside of the dragon's cave, but will be safer and better off after we slay the beast.

I'm a humanist, and generally work by the harm principle as a baseline.

I define the harm principle as "something is bad if it causes harm, good if it prevents harm, and also good if it improves quality of life." It also helps that I only concern myself with harm to people. All activities that neither cause harm, prevent it, or affect quality of life, are morally neutral activities.

I believe that intent is very important in the judgment of a person. If someone suddenly found out that, in a sick parody of Ender's Game, the character they controlled in GTA corresponded to some freakish robot who was actually killing real people, they would not be guilty of murder. (rather, the person who set this whole trap up would be.)

I also believe that freedom of choice and expression are very important.

This actually reminded me of something I had meant to include in my OP but completely forgot: Spiritualism as it apples to an Atheist philosophy. I know that one can be spiritual without believing in a Supreme Being, and that still qualifies one as an Atheist by definition, but I don't know whether that's common or uncommon.

Do most Atheists have a spiritual belief of some kind, or no?

As The Nazz said, its hard to talk about atheists in a specific sense.

But I do think a man cant live without some kind of spirituality. Mind you that spirituality has absolutely no direct meaning to religion: spirituality is the beliefs one has about how the world work, how people work, and how he works himself. A man doesnt need to believe in god to try to find a meaning to the world.

Atheists, at least rational ones, don't tend to believe in an objective morality. They just use subjective principles that ensure people are happy, healthy etc...

Without an objective sense of morality, what's to say that people should be happy, healthy etc?

Without an objective sense of morality, what's to say that people should be happy, healthy etc?

Because thats how the human mind works? Thats what humans want, being 'good' to each other will help improve our happyness, so we are fulfilling our desires.

'Moral compass' and 'moral values' are purely religious concepts, so an atheist wouldn't derive anything from these ideas as they are preset in a religious doctrine.

As an atheist, I say I get my guidance from what makes logical sense; that which is civilised and allows me to live and lets others leave me alone.

Treating someone as an equal is how you get by. If you want to know how to treat someone, ask yourself how you'd like to be treated.

Huh? Since when has Religion exclusive rights to morality?

There's a reason that common sense is called common sense -- nearly everyone has it. They have two terms for those without it -- "unable to distinguish between right and wrong" and "innocent by reason of insanity".

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.

This is posted out of sincere curiosity and a desire to understand. I know, that might be hard to believe in an environment like this, but it's true.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Once again, I ask out of honest curiosity. If you find that question offensive for some reason, then pardon me and move on. If you are religious and want to jump in to attack atheists, I invite you to move on as well. I'm trying to gain some knowledge here.

I usually tend towards situational ethics. This comes from my Humanist background. I don't believe there can be a suitable universal formulation of ethics or morality. What I believe in are guidelines to how we should treat each seperate ethical problem. Whenever I'm tackling an ethical problem, I usually default to Kantian categorical imperative to evaluate the potential outcomes. Sometimes I might use utilitarian ethics, but that's usually reserved for more minor ethical problems.

There's a reason that common sense is called common sense -- nearly everyone has it. They have two terms for those without it -- "unable to distinguish between right and wrong" and "innocent by reason of insanity".

actually it's typically refered to as "not guilty by reason of diminished mental capacity" these days

Really? I could've sworn they used the word "insanity" on the news just the other day.

Regardless, the point still holds.

Really, I can't? Care to tell me what else I can't believe in? 'Cause I'm all ears.

lmao...

Try EVERY Buddhist or Jain.

That is not exactly true.

Buddhism, just like most religions, has diferent branches, and these branches have diferent convictions and beliefs.

In Buddhism, there are mainly two branches: Theravada (way of the ancients) and Mahayana (the great boat).

Theravada is a more truthfull aproach to Buddha´s teachings. Buddha himself said he was nothing but a man who found infinite wisdom. He knew he was a man, and theravada buddhists believe that and follow him as a model. But a human model.

Mahayana has a diferent aproach. They believe Buddha as a mystical being, a being of light, an higher spirit. They do believe Buddha was a "god" and should be worshiped, not copied, like the theravada buddhist do.

And even some of the Theravada buddhists believe in gods, angels and spirits; but for them, they arent that important religion wise. For most buddhists, just like we look at an ant and consider it to be so inferior to us we dont bother with it, angels, spirits and gods look at us and dont even bother. And they arent important to religion because they are subjected to the exact same laws we humans are: Karma. And dealing with karma is important to someone, not gods.

Now, you can be a buddhist and an atheist. But that isnt enforced. In fact, you can be a buddhist and still believe in another religion (even if some members of this other religion couldnt understand it). So, that is why most people see buddhism as a set of life philosophies, a way of living your life, not a religion.

Thanks to all those who posted such insightful and useful details.

I'm religious... VERY religious, but I want very much to understand what others believe and why. It makes communication much better. One of the things I disdain most are people who use religion as an excuse to stick their head in the sand and close themselves off from everyone else's belief. I think people do that, no matter what they believe, out of fear. Fear that somehow another person's beliefs will weaken their own faith and so closed-mindedness becomes a defensive measure. That peeves me.

So that's why I ask questions. Learning = good. Closed mindedness = bad. Now in the future I think I'll be able to understand better when I'm conversing with an Atheist, no matter the subject, and be more equipped to understand their point of view. If this thread is still going tomorrow I'll probably post some more questions, but for now, it's time to slide down the big dinosaur's tail and pick up Barney at the gate...

I'm not buddhist, though -- the way I see things, the VAST majority (99+%) will be reborn. Maybe "karma" isn't the proper term, but I imagine your netx life WILL depend on your actions during this one.

The buddhists and many other religions from India have a saying:
"When a man points to the moon, the ignorant looks to the finger; the wise, to the moon".

That is something anyone that wants to become wise and understand the world has to figure out.

Words, beliefs, theories, religions, they are nothing but fingers, trying to point to the truth, the world. If you get an object and give it a name, like "Pen" for example, it doesnt change it. If you get someone from another country and ask what it is, he may say its a "Caneta" (portuguese name for pen).

But, in the end, the name of it doesnt change it. It will always be what it is, wheter its a "pen" or a "Caneta". Buddhists know that and understand that. They believe all the religions, theories, names and information are nothing but atempts to name or point at things that are already there and will always be there, no matter the name.

That is why you can believe in religion and science at the same time, as long as you understand that they are nothing but "fingers", not the absolute truth. Anyone that beliefs in a religion in absolute terms is nothing but an ignorant that is only looking at the finger, but not at the truth.

For buddhists, to reach this truth, to get to see the moon without pointing at the finger, you need to reach the absolute understanding of the world through nirvana. Its impossible to explain it, because if you tried too, it would be nothing but a "finger", meaning its an atempt to explain the unexplainable truth through words.

Now, that also means I, as a buddhist, can believe in Karma.

Karma is quite simple: Actions have consequences. That is a concept of buddhism and science alike. If you do something good, you will get something good out of it. If you do something bad, bad things will happen.

If you smile towards someone, he will smile back. If you punch someone, he will punch back.

If you live a good life, where you try to achieve good karma, buddhists say that in your next life, you will live a better life.

Some atheists may not believe that, think that reincarnation or rebirth is bullshit.

But what about your kids? If science says that a man soul is his DNA, what about your kids, that share 50% of your DNA? If you work a lot in your life, get a better house, more money, and is able to give your kid a better future, wouldnt you be ensuring that your own soul doesnt get a better future? What about your grandson? Your descendants?

So you see, its all about diferent ways to portray reality. Words doesnt exist by themselves, they are only symbols, fingers that try to point to reality. That is the same with theories, religions, philosophies, words, knowledge, science and everything else. Even the concept of Karma can be changed, because it is only an atempt to point at the laws of action-consequence.

Well this is actually an interesting topic. First of all i would like to bring to attention that i am a born Muslim, and that the questions of Atheism and morality fall very very close to the scriptures.

I went through a phase in my life when i viewed the religious as immoral, and that only those who were led by the golden rule were the incorruptible, however, after reading more of my original religion i realized, religion is not what drives people away from each other, and it is not the thing that is a passport to heaven, nor the thing that makes one man superior to another, it is the force that binds people together as a community that shares a belief, both in our equality and our destiny.

Islam respects Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and to a certain point Atheism and Agnosticism. Muslims should read the scripture and judge from the book, where a set of morals is recorded in words that are read out in musical order. The main belief in Islam is that all life and reality revolves around one thing: logic. Mathematicians and scientists of the early and later Islamic world have revolutionized the world with their findings. As a religion, this is like a socialistic order, one that brings people together, no matter what race, ethnicity, gender and religion is involved, and toleration of belief is to be held sacred. Unfortunately,recent events by radical terrorists have bought shame to an entire religion of people. For a religion of peace, heinous acts of unimaginable terror sweep humanity with a fearsome blow. Intolerance is the death of humanity, and only tolerance between those who believe, and the ones that don't believe, will bring good on this earth.

And finally i come to the conclusion of my discursive topic, in this i will share the belief of the judgment day. This will be ground shaking, and the decision will bring unto us our path to heaven or hell. In most forms of religion (mainstream or not) heaven and hell are only for those who have faith in certain things, however i will use Islam as an example to say that it judges by morality rather than religion, which supports the fact that belief holds less power than actions in the future. If you are Devout in Islam, yet you torture an animal to it's death on purpose, you shall go to hell, and you could be a moral atheist, who will do good at any chance, and through any mistake you may repent, you will go to heaven with the good. The good being the ones that held true to their respective religion as well as those who stick to a code of morals that dictate philosophies such as the golden rule etc...
:D
The thing is, you must not worry as an Atheist if you are going to heaven or hell, you are merely using your senses instead of conforming, which is a normal part of human nature. Only the good in your heart will be judged by the supreme, whether you believe in it or not. You must not seek acceptance or you shall be denied it by the the ignorant that read not of their scriptures, by the religious that are called to believe and convert others to the faith, or by the fearful of the lord (actually not a bad thing to be fearful of the supreme creator). So hold comfort in your beliefs, and prosper in life.

P.S. If anyone is offended by any part of my discussion, nothing in the part:
"denied it by the the ignorant that read not of their scriptures, by the religious that are called to believe and convert others to the faith, or by the fearful of the lord (actually not a bad thing to be fearful of the supreme creator)." is meant negatively. We are all in some way ignorant in that we do not know anything compared to what is existent to our knowledge. Fear of the creator is accepted by god in the Koran as a form of belief, but courage is better seen in god's eyes. And to those who are offended by any other part, i did not in this post ever mean to or try to offend anybody.

Hope this helps, it took a while to type :D

Yeah, but the way you use the term atheists, your acting as if they are the same ast the sorts of atheists you get on NSG.

Anyway, they do believe in a sort of God. Similar to plato's form of good, ultimate perfection etc.. Totally contrary to central atheistic beliefs. There are more types of God then merely the creator type God.

Yes. Some atheists cant live without gods, and for them, their god is science.

And they are just as bad as most fanatics.

I believe there is no god.

I believe in reincarnation.

I know that those are inconsistent, but so are the alternatives.

Best of all possible worlds you say? You sir are a hopeless idealist. The law is laid down by the powerful with the intention of maintaining their power. Bloodshed is inherent in the law and it is at the law's very core. People have been working out conflicts without bloodshed for many millennia. in fact, the state has given us our bloodiest conflicts.
Many of us cannot survive within the law and so we survive outside of it under the specter of the law's mailed fist. The fact that you are not aware of this does not negate the fact. We may survive outside of the dragon's cave, but will be safer and better off after we slay the beast.

Hunm, good to see youve created an entire perception of myself based on two sentences I´ve wrote. If one of us is an idealist here, its you, since it looks like you have a me/them mentality.

Now, did you read what I write? Powerstrugles have always existed and they will always exist. Violence has always existed and it will always exist. The strong and the weak will always exist.

But that doesnt mean we havent found out a way to deal with these diferences without violence.

Law is that: A way to settle conflicts without violence. The easiest way to settle a conflict IS through violence, but it doesnt work anymore. That is why we turn to the law. Does that mean the law is just? HELL FUCKING NO GOD DAMMIT. But that means that instead of killing ourselves, we use the law to solve the conflicts, even if there are far more powerfull people than others in the oposite sides of this conflict.

Btw, are you an anarchist?

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.

This is posted out of sincere curiosity and a desire to understand. I know, that might be hard to believe in an environment like this, but it's true.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Once again, I ask out of honest curiosity. If you find that question offensive for some reason, then pardon me and move on. If you are religious and want to jump in to attack atheists, I invite you to move on as well. I'm trying to gain some knowledge here.

I am not atheist, but this question seems easy to answer, because I have NO religion. Morals work on the overall benifit of society, and an inherent concience God gave us all. I think it would be quite silly if you only did right because you were afraid God would punish you.

I believe there is no god.

I believe in reincarnation.

I know that those are inconsistent, but so are the alternatives.

why would you have to believe in god to believe in reincarnation?

One is science, the other is religion. They just seem.... incompatible.

Generally, athiest morality is similar to religious morality in many ways, since religious morality is usually quite reasonable (Don't kill, steal, etc.). Atheists tend to get a little different on topics such as sex, where they tend to be far more liberal then their religious counterparts.

Yeah, but the way you use the term atheists, your acting as if they are the same ast the sorts of atheists you get on NSG.

Anyway, they do believe in a sort of God. Similar to plato's form of good, ultimate perfection etc.. Totally contrary to central atheistic beliefs. There are more types of God then merely the creator type God.

No. Atheists don't believe in 'god'. That's kind of the point. In my experience, the people who say 'Atheism is a religion' or 'Atheism has a god' are the people who need to feel that Atheism is at least as irrational as religion.

The problem with that, of course, is that many (I'm not going to suggest all) Atheists are Atheists purely because of 'rationality'.

But, you can always fall back on that tired "there are more types of gods" schtick. That way you get to call those with careers 'idolators', and claim they worship 'Mammon'. The problem with that is - that's not the same thing as 'god'. If you really want to trivialise it to that extent, then wiping your arse when you get off the pot is a 'god', because most of us 'believe' in it.

No. Atheists don't believe in 'god'. That's kind of the point. In my experience, the people who say 'Atheism is a religion' or 'Atheism has a god' are the people who need to feel that Atheism is at least as irrational as religion.


When did I ever say otherwise?


But, you can always fall back on that tired "there are more types of gods" schtick. That way you get to call those with careers 'idolators', and claim they worship 'Mammon'. The problem with that is - that's not the same thing as 'god'. If you really want to trivialise it to that extent, then wiping your arse when you get off the pot is a 'god', because most of us 'believe' in it.

What? I have no idea what the hell your going on about. It is generally accepted by many philosophers and even many buddhists themselves agree that their highest form, this metaphysical perfection can be called their God. Again, an atheist could not believe in this sort of thing, otherwise he wouldn't really be an atheist.

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.

This is posted out of sincere curiosity and a desire to understand. I know, that might be hard to believe in an environment like this, but it's true.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Once again, I ask out of honest curiosity. If you find that question offensive for some reason, then pardon me and move on. If you are religious and want to jump in to attack atheists, I invite you to move on as well. I'm trying to gain some knowledge here.


From my past experiences as filtered through my emotions.

Generally, athiest morality is similar to religious morality in many ways, since religious morality is usually quite reasonable (Don't kill, steal, etc.). Atheists tend to get a little different on topics such as sex, where they tend to be far more liberal then their religious counterparts.

That's because "Don't do it or you'll go to hell" loses some meaning when you don't believe in hell. If there's not a rational reason for it to be against "the rules" atheists tend to think it's perfectly fine.

When did I ever say otherwise?

What? I have no idea what the hell your going on about. It is generally accepted by many philosophers and even many buddhists themselves agree that their highest form, this metaphysical perfection can be called their God. Again, an atheist could not believe in this sort of thing, otherwise he wouldn't really be an atheist.

I guess you don't read your own posts.

I guess you don't read your own posts.

Or, you misread one of my posts. I get the impression that you think I think that atheists have a god.

Yeah, but the way you use the term atheists, your acting as if they are the same ast the sorts of atheists you get on NSG.

Anyway, they do believe in a sort of God. Similar to plato's form of good, ultimate perfection etc.. Totally contrary to central atheistic beliefs. There are more types of God then merely the creator type God.

You're the one with the improper definition then. To suggest that the non-religious atheist is the archetype atheist is just as ludicrous as assuming that all Hindus/all Christians/all Jews/all Muslims are the archetypal theists.
Buddhists ARE atheists. That ultimate good you refer to is no more godlike than the Platonic Ideals.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Common sense, life experience, good advice. My "practicing" of atheism is to live life as I please, and chose how I live it.

Buddhists ARE atheists. That ultimate good you refer to is no more godlike than the Platonic Ideals.

Which are also regarded as a God by many. I would argue that it is at least highly irattional to be a strict atheist through reasoning, and yet believe in Buddhism.

Or, you misread one of my posts. I get the impression that you think I think that atheists have a god.

I tcould be misreading. Or, it could just be that your post doesn't say what you think it says. Certainly not in any comprehensible form.

I'm an atheist, and I don't have ethics. But the two things are not connected.

Buddhists ARE atheists. That ultimate good you refer to is no more godlike than the Platonic Ideals.

Shit, I dont even know why I bother.

That isnt true. Some buddhists are atheists, most arent.

In fact the majority arent atheists.

I tcould be misreading. Or, it could just be that your post doesn't say what you think it says. Certainly not in any comprehensible form.

Can't you just agree it's a misunderstanding then?

Which are also regarded as a God by many. I would argue that it is at least highly irattional to be a strict atheist through reasoning, and yet believe in Buddhism.

Not at all. If one were a philosophical Idealist, a rationally defendable position, one could easily believe in reincarnation and Nirvana through the persistence of the mind after death without having to take the additional leap into theism.

I personaly use The LAW not as moral guidlines, just so I dont get thrown in jail. Foe Morals I usiually do whatever I want, I go by my gut. Like with drugs and stuff. Killing I wouldnt do for fun. Only for money, to stop from going to jail and in wars, rape= no thanks I'm a player and robbery= I just feel bad when I do it. So all in alll atheists go with their gut, and the general consensus

I'm an atheist, and I don't have ethics. But the two things are not connected.

More or less how I feel. but I just wanted to blab

Atheists, at least rational ones, don't tend to believe in an objective morality.

Incorrect.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, it is the rational man who accepts the fact that there is indeed one objective correct morality, and chooses to abide by it.

Not at all. If one were a philosophical Idealist, a rationally defendable position, one could easily believe in reincarnation and Nirvana through the persistence of the mind after death without having to take the additional leap into theism.

But I would say that being a philosphical idealist would lead you to agnosticism, not atheism.

Incorrect.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, it is the rational man who accepts the fact that there is indeed one objective correct morality, and chooses to abide by it.

So give me some examples of universal morallity, without God.

I did not say "universal". I said "objective". The two are wildly different.

Morality is a matter of objective fact--but, because not everyone accepts the objectively correct moral code, it is not universal. That it is not universal does not make it any less objectively correct--it simply means that those who reject it are wrong and immoral.

Atheism, the way I "practice" it, is me simply not believing there is a god of any sort or any divine figure which I follow

That does not mean I don't have a concience. It simply means I deny theories which I personally do not believe can be proven. The "Ten Commandments" Play a major role in most peoples lives, whether religious or not, because they are the rules anyone with any sort of rational thought would follow.

There doesn't have to be a reward at the end of the line to make you a good person. Real decent humans should follow basic morals whether or not they believe they are getting some sort of pay for it in the end.

I did not say "universal". I said "objective". The two are wildly different.


No they arn't. Universal simply means it is always true in every situation, not that everyone believes in it.


Morality is a matter of objective fact--but, because not everyone accepts the objectively correct moral code, it is not universal.

See above.


That it is not universal does not make it any less objectively correct--it simply means that those who reject it are wrong and immoral.

See above.


Can you give me some examples of objective morality?

No they arn't. Universal simply means it is always true in every situation, not that everyone believes in it.

No, that is moral absolutism, which is also not the same as moral objectivism.

Now, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but as it turns out the one objectively correct moral code is not an absolutist moral code.

An absolutist moral code is something along the lines of the Kantian moral imperative; e.g. lying is always wrong, killing is always wrong, etc. But the objectively correct moral code rejects that premise, because actions do not take place in a vacuum. Actions are always performed within a certain context, and so the morality of that action must be judged within that context; therefore, this is not an absolutist moral code. However, since for each action-context combination there is one objectively correct evaluation of the morality of the given action, it is objective.

Experience.

When i was in 1 & 2 grade here in quebec, i was bullied because of my lack of a french tongue, all of them were *seperatists anyway. Now a days i dare say i am pretty popular because of the hardship i faced. How? because i am nice to all and am always joking around with em. That is my moral compass.

No, that is moral absolutism.

Yes you can call it that also.


But the objectively correct moral code rejects that premise, because actions do not take place in a vacuum. Actions are always performed within a certain context, and so the morality of that action must be judged within that context; therefore, this is not an absolutist moral code.

i.e. it's subjective to the situation, not objective.


However, since for each action-context combination there is one objectively correct evaluation of the morality of the given action, it is objective.

What decides what is and isn't the correct action?

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.

This is posted out of sincere curiosity and a desire to understand. I know, that might be hard to believe in an environment like this, but it's true.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Once again, I ask out of honest curiosity. If you find that question offensive for some reason, then pardon me and move on. If you are religious and want to jump in to attack atheists, I invite you to move on as well. I'm trying to gain some knowledge here.

I use my conscience, my gut instincts, and what my parents have told me.

I'm a deist, and rely primarily on Kantian ethics. I still need to do more reading on Objectivism to see if I lean that way.

I am an Objectivist. I do not view morals as having anything to do with pragmatism or individual situations. I do not lie merely because I might earn money from doing so, nor do I kill because it would eliminate another blustering, idiotic, talkative annoyance.

You either have morals or you don't. You apply those morals to situations, but you have a set of ethics nonetheless if you are applying certain values when determining cases as they occur.

As an Objectivist I view altruism as evil, and egotism as good. I view theft, fraud, and violence to all be the worst sort of crimes, and indeed, virtually the only.

:fluffle:

Yes you can call it that also.
Nope, moral objectivism and moral absolutism are two completely different concepts. You can continue to assert otherwise, but that won't change anything.


i.e. it's subjective to the situation, not objective.
Nope.

For it to be "subjective" means that it is essentially a matter of personal opinion. It is relative to the situation, but it is still objective because there is still one objectively correct course of action in that particular situation.

Moral subjectivism is the opposite of moral objectivism, and moral absolutism is the opposite of moral relativism. The subjectivism-objectivism divide is one about the fundamental metaphysical nature of ethical codes, while the absolutism-relativism divide is about particular substantial aspects of a given ethical code. They are two completely separate conceptual levels.

What decides what is and isn't the correct action?
No one "decides", in the sense that it is not dictated by someone. Rather, it is something that is discovered through reason.

It's like Newton...he didn't dictate that the attractive force between two objects is proportional to the product of the masses of the two objects; he simply discovered it.

Nope, moral objectivism and moral absolutism are two completely different concepts. You can continue to assert otherwise, but that won't change anything.


Yes I will continue to assert the truth. But I choose not to continue in these pointless semantics.


Nope.

For it to be "subjective" means that it is essentially a matter of personal opinion.

Which it is, but the word subjective has many meanings. Generally when you say ethics are subjective, what you are really saying is that it's subjective to someones opinion. But that doesn't mean it cant be subject to something else.


It is relative to the situation, but it is still objective because there is still one objectively correct course of action in that particular situation.

Which is what?


Moral subjectivism is the opposite of moral objectivism, and moral absolutism is the opposite of moral relativism. The subjectivism-objectivism divide is one about the fundamental metaphysical nature of ethical codes, while the absolutism-relativism divide is about particular substantial aspects of a given ethical code. They are two completely separate conceptual levels.


Moral subjectivism, and the word subjective, are different things.


No one "decides", in the sense that it is not dictated by someone. Rather, it is something that is discovered through reason.


But people can reason different sollutions to the same event, how do you know which person is correct?

...For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues?...

...and I didn't read the rest...

I come from a non-religous family. I wouldn't say they are atheist, they just didn't concern themselves (or me) with religion. That, combined with the knowledge that most wars are about religious differences is why I am an atheist.

Our moral cues (queues?)?
Consequences? Good upbringing? Respect for others? Human decency? We ARE human. Did any of that cross your mind? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but why do "religies" assume we are heartless savages/cut-throats/anarchists/rapists/killers/thieves/etc etc...?

To me every religion was originally designed as a tool to teach children about morality using a fairy tale - just like fairy tales of today (mother goose, superhero comics). [soap box]The problem is when adults start taking stories seriously[/soap box]

I think I understand why is everyone so long winded here...

I'm a deist, and rely primarily on Kantian ethics. I still need to do more reading on Objectivism to see if I lean that way.


That's really not how it works.

To pick a philosophy because its precepts accord with your pre-existing notions defeats the whole point of philosophy: the rigorous search for truth.

The proper way to do it:
Question everything you hold to be true. See if it stands up to rigorous analysis. If you find it lacking, then start seeking out alternatives. If you find an alternative that holds up better, accept it until you find another one. If you can't find a better alternative, feel free to develop your own--and then see how well it holds up.

This is the proper way to engage in philosophical inquiry--it is how I became an Objectivist.

I am an Objectivist not because Objectivism agrees with the notions I already held to be true before I started calling myself one (which it doesn't, not by a long shot) but rather because, after constant rigorous questioning, it has continued to stand up.

That's really not how it works.

To pick a philosophy because its precepts accord with your pre-existing notions defeats the whole point of philosophy: the rigorous search for truth.

The proper way to do it:
Question everything you hold to be true. See if it stands up to rigorous analysis. If you find it lacking, then start seeking out alternatives. If you find an alternative that holds up better, accept it until you find another one. If you can't find a better alternative, feel free to develop your own--and then see how well it holds up.

Which is exactly what I am doing.

Yes I will continue to assert the truth. But I choose not to continue in these pointless semantics.
It's not "pointless semantics".

Words have meanings. If you want to be understood when discussing an academic field, you need to use words in the sense that those already involved in that field use them.

Which it is, but the word subjective has many meanings.
Not within the rigorous academic pursuit of ethics and meta-ethics. One of the first things that is done whenever a new academic field is developed is the formation of a lexicon where each word has one single, well-defined meaning.

But people can reason different sollutions to the same event, how do you know which person is correct?

By checking the validity of their respective premises and lines of reasoning. It is impossible for there to be valid, complete lines of reasoning from the same set of premises that lead to different conclusions. Thus, if two people disagree in their conclusions then (at least) one of them has made an error in his premises, his reasoning, or both.

Which is exactly what I am doing.

When you say "I still need to do more reading on Objectivism to see if I lean that way," (emphasis mine) then it certainly implies that your intentions are simply to see if it agrees with what you already hold to be true.

When you say "I still need to do more reading on Objectivism to see if I lean that way," (emphasis mine) then it certainly implies that your intentions are simply to see if it agrees with what you already hold to be true.
I would only lean towards a philosophy if it is reasonable and well-argued for (and indeed, possesses all the virtues you mentioned), something which requires rather extensive reading to establish. That is the sense in which I invoked the word.

By checking the validity of their respective premises and lines of reasoning.

How can you check which is valid and which isn't? How do you know what counts as valid and what doesn't?


It is impossible for there to be valid, complete lines of reasoning from the same set of premises that lead to different conclusions.

Wy? And even if this is true, how can you show which is valid and which isn't? Ethics isn't mathematical, the correct thing to do in a situation is only correct if the person feels that the outcome is what they wanted. What if two people wanted different outcomes? and so on and so on....


Thus, if two people disagree in their conclusions then (at least) one of them has made an error in his premises, his reasoning, or both.

This is all based on the assumption that there is an objective truth, a right answer.

How can you check which is valid and which isn't? How do you know what counts as valid and what doesn't?
By looking for flawed reasoning; by seeing if the premises are in fact correct.

Wy?
Why does 1+1=2? It's simply true--provably, objectively true.

Ethics isn't mathematical,
Sure it is.

the correct thing to do in a situation is only correct if the person feels that the outcome is what they wanted.
Nope. The objectively correct morality is not consequentialist.

What if two people wanted different outcomes?
A murderer's desired outcome is the death of his victim; the victim's desired outcome is to remain alive. Are you claiming that the murderer and his victim are morally equivalent?

This is all based on the assumption that there is an objective truth, a right answer.

You mischaracterize it as an "assumption". It's not.

Why does 1+1=2? It's simply true--provably, objectively true.


Thats not an answer.


Sure it is.


Neither is that. Ethics is deffinately not the same type of reasoning as maths. You state that there is only one correct course of actions in each situation, but the only thing that decides what is and isn't correct is ourselves.


Nope. The objectively correct morality is not consequentialist.


If it's based on the situation, how can you determine what the correct thing to do is by anything other then the outcome?


A murderer's desired outcome is the death of his victim; the victim's desired outcome is to remain alive. Are you claiming that the murderer and his victim are morally equivalent?


In my opinion the victim is morally superior, however opinions are meaningless ultimately in deciding what is and isn't objectively correct.


You mischaracterize it as an "assumption". It's not.

If you state somone has to be wrong, then you assume that somone has to be correct.

Incorrect.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, it is the rational man who accepts the fact that there is indeed one objective correct morality, and chooses to abide by it.

Please, no Ayn Rand bullshit.

And dont tell me you read that crap Terry Goodkind writes.

There is no one true morality.

That is the bottom line, and it's much easier to get along with people once you accept it.

A popular Atheist view of the universe is this: (similar to many theists' beliefs, only with God absent).

14 billion years ago was the Big Bang. The universe "exploded" from a singularity of unknown origin and expanded. Two billion years ago, the first, simplest life formed from inanimate matter (many theories exist as to how). From then on, evolution more or less worked over the next two billion years to bring the world to what it is today -- a world with humans. That the exact conditions to create life would seem to be extremely, mindbogglingly unlikely. However, this is balanced out by the fact that the universe is extremely, mindbogglingly big and even if life failed to form in billions of solar systems, eventually life would get "lucky" and happen.

My question regards the basis of the atheistic ethic system. Why value humanity whatsoever? Why is human life important at all? Aren't we all just the result of random chance? In that regard, I'm no different or better than a rock, or an atom, or a parrot, or a star.

Why don't I go throw myself off a bridge? (Or conversely, why would I?) Why shouldn't I throw you off a bridge? Why don't I rape a child?(something that seems very wrong, but then, why is it wrong when the child is objectively nothing special? When the very concepts of "wrong" and "special" don't even exist.) What value are you or me? Are humans "neat" or "cool" so we shouldn't do such things? Aren't we just as neat as a grain of sand? In a cosmology where everything is formed randomly, where do concepts such as "neat" or "complex" or "interesting" come from? Aren't all these just societal concepts merely creations of the human imagination that are likely, on some level, fueled by the human impulse to survive?

If a man "realizes" this, why doesn't he stop behaving the way that his impulses or society want him to? They don't matter, so why follow what they say? What would the result be? A complete and utter lack of action since nothing matters? What if he realizes that he can't ignore his impulses. Eventually he eats because he is hungry. Darwinian programming. Then what? Does he decide to live only by his impulses, because, though they don't really matter objectively, they are really the only reason for him to do anything subjectively (or, is his consciousness really just a crossroads of all his different impulses?)?
So what would a human look like that followed only his impulses? Would he steal money every time he knew he could get away with it? Would he rape every transient he could get his hands on? Would he only treat people "nicely" if he knew that he could get something in return? Would he bother standing up for others who are being persecuted if their persecution affects him in no way?

I honestly can't see how atheistic ethics don't devolve into a "nothing really matters" attitude except to think that people believe that human constructs of "being nice to people" or "living life to its fullest" actually matter, which, objectively, they don't.

A transcendent being, particularly one who claims that human life is special, changes things. God is not an automatic "everything is solved!" button as far as morality goes. I could see how there would be some who would still question the validity of a God-based ethics system, even if they knew for sure that God existed. However, the line of debate and questioning would be much different than that of the atheistic ethics system, I think.


(Don't worry, I'm not going to go on a killing/raping/stealing spree)

how ironic: i just came from a thread about suicide and find a post here with a very convincing argument of the futility of things having also read earlier a thread on evolution and our sentient consciousness.


you have summed my day up very nicely with your post, Thank you Dorregnob. :)

in responce to all of this -

as far as ethics go, i am a pragmatist. i do whatever would benefit me the most and let me live comfortably within society as we know it.

in a sense i hold to the idea that this is a primal standard function within creatures. - "what will benifit me most in my survival and let me live among others of my kind?" (though we are the only such beings that activly reflect upon it and ask why)

I honestly can't see how atheistic ethics don't devolve into a "nothing really matters" attitude except to think that people believe that human constructs of "being nice to people" or "living life to its fullest" actually matter, which, objectively, they don't.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png

Life indeed has no purpose. But we can make one.

It is impossible for there to be valid, complete lines of reasoning from the same set of premises that lead to different conclusions.That depends on the set of premisses. I would in fact posit that most peoples ethical premisses are inconsistent, and thus reasoned through allow any conclusion. At least purely logically (In practice the further you reason away from a premisse the less attached people are to deduced conclusions).

If you take the two premisses
-Doing whatever god wants you to do is good
-Torturing kittens is wrong
Then you inevitably run into inconsistency when God tells you to torture kittens. Patching the premisses to explicitly avoid this case helps only untill the next problem crops up.
Nevermind all the conclusions you can reach that conflict your moral intuition, rather than your theory.

Ethics isn't mathematical

Sure it is.Even if we were to consider ethics as mathematics, you run into practical problems. You cannot take all factors into account while reaching a decision because there are too many factors involved. Never mind the effect chaos has on the outcome of the world centuries after you made your decision. Squashing that butterfly might have just prevented a hurricane down the line; on the other hand, it may cause it.


People aren't mathemethical ;)

That the exact conditions to create life would seem to be extremely, mindbogglingly unlikely.
No; replicating those conditions would be extremely unlikely.

My question regards the basis of the atheistic ethic system. Why value humanity whatsoever? Why is human life important at all?
Because we are them?

Aren't we all just the result of random chance?
But the salient point is that WE are the result of random chance.

In that regard, I'm no different or better than a rock, or an atom, or a parrot, or a star.
I'm better just because I'm me, and they're not.

Why don't I go throw myself off a bridge? (Or conversely, why would I?)
Because it would hurt?

Why shouldn't I throw you off a bridge?
Because it would hurt you? And besides, I might like you, if I knew you.

Why don't I rape a child?(something that seems very wrong, but then, why is it wrong when the child is objectively nothing special?
The child is as special as I am, simply because the child, like me, is itself. It is "better" too, unto itself. That is worthy of my respect.

When the very concepts of "wrong" and "special" don't even exist.)
Why are they lacking?

What value are you or me?
"I" have value in contrast to every single conscious allocation of identity to the things around me.

Are humans "neat" or "cool" so we shouldn't do such things? Aren't we just as neat as a grain of sand?
Rather, they are as special as we are --and that's why we must respect things.

In a cosmology where everything is formed randomly, where do concepts such as "neat" or "complex" or "interesting" come from?
From me? us?

Aren't all these just societal concepts merely creations of the human imagination that are likely, on some level, fueled by the human impulse to survive?
D'uh?

If a man "realizes" this, why doesn't he stop behaving the way that his impulses or society want him to? They don't matter, so why follow what they say?
Who says they don't matter?

What would the result be? A complete and utter lack of action since nothing matters?
I'm not clear on why you think they do not matter.

What if he realizes that he can't ignore his impulses. Eventually he eats because he is hungry. Darwinian programming. Then what?
Oh, I know this one. Then his hunger gets sated.

Does he decide to live only by his impulses, because, though they don't really matter objectively, they are really the only reason for him to do anything subjectively (or, is his consciousness really just a crossroads of all his different impulses?)?
They matter subjectively, and that counts. Counts more.

So what would a human look like that followed only his impulses? Would he steal money every time he knew he could get away with it? Would he rape every transient he could get his hands on? Would he only treat people "nicely" if he knew that he could get something in return? Would he bother standing up for others who are being persecuted if their persecution affects him in no way?
Well, that's why we generally don't act on all our impulses. Things that matter --subjectively matter --prevent us from acting on all our impulses.

I honestly can't see how atheistic ethics don't devolve into a "nothing really matters" attitude except to think that people believe that human constructs of "being nice to people" or "living life to its fullest" actually matter, which, objectively, they don't.
Because they do matter, to us (i.e. subjectively). They also matter objectively, but that's another story.

A transcendent being, particularly one who claims that human life is special, changes things. God is not an automatic "everything is solved!" button as far as morality goes. I could see how there would be some who would still question the validity of a God-based ethics system, even if they knew for sure that God existed. However, the line of debate and questioning would be much different than that of the atheistic ethics system, I think.

(Don't worry, I'm not going to go on a killing/raping/stealing spree)

A transcendent being, particularly one who claims that human life is special, changes things.

No, it doesn't.

Indeed, if anything it is less clear to us that we should give a damn what God thinks than that, say, we should care for our friends and family.

God changes absolutely nothing.

A popular Atheist view of the universe is this: (similar to many theists' beliefs, only with God absent).

14 billion years ago was the Big Bang. The universe "exploded" from a singularity of unknown origin and expanded. Two billion years ago, the first, simplest life formed from inanimate matter (many theories exist as to how). From then on, evolution more or less worked over the next two billion years to bring the world to what it is today -- a world with humans. That the exact conditions to create life would seem to be extremely, mindbogglingly unlikely. However, this is balanced out by the fact that the universe is extremely, mindbogglingly big and even if life failed to form in billions of solar systems, eventually life would get "lucky" and happen.

My question regards the basis of the atheistic ethic system. Why value humanity whatsoever? Why is human life important at all? Aren't we all just the result of random chance? In that regard, I'm no different or better than a rock, or an atom, or a parrot, or a star.

Why don't I go throw myself off a bridge? (Or conversely, why would I?) Why shouldn't I throw you off a bridge? Why don't I rape a child?(something that seems very wrong, but then, why is it wrong when the child is objectively nothing special? When the very concepts of "wrong" and "special" don't even exist.) What value are you or me? Are humans "neat" or "cool" so we shouldn't do such things? Aren't we just as neat as a grain of sand? In a cosmology where everything is formed randomly, where do concepts such as "neat" or "complex" or "interesting" come from? Aren't all these just societal concepts merely creations of the human imagination that are likely, on some level, fueled by the human impulse to survive?

If a man "realizes" this, why doesn't he stop behaving the way that his impulses or society want him to? They don't matter, so why follow what they say? What would the result be? A complete and utter lack of action since nothing matters? What if he realizes that he can't ignore his impulses. Eventually he eats because he is hungry. Darwinian programming. Then what? Does he decide to live only by his impulses, because, though they don't really matter objectively, they are really the only reason for him to do anything subjectively (or, is his consciousness really just a crossroads of all his different impulses?)?
So what would a human look like that followed only his impulses? Would he steal money every time he knew he could get away with it? Would he rape every transient he could get his hands on? Would he only treat people "nicely" if he knew that he could get something in return? Would he bother standing up for others who are being persecuted if their persecution affects him in no way?

I honestly can't see how atheistic ethics don't devolve into a "nothing really matters" attitude except to think that people believe that human constructs of "being nice to people" or "living life to its fullest" actually matter, which, objectively, they don't.

A transcendent being, particularly one who claims that human life is special, changes things. God is not an automatic "everything is solved!" button as far as morality goes. I could see how there would be some who would still question the validity of a God-based ethics system, even if they knew for sure that God existed. However, the line of debate and questioning would be much different than that of the atheistic ethics system, I think.


(Don't worry, I'm not going to go on a killing/raping/stealing spree)

all that you said is true, from the universe's point of view.

if we were killing/stealing/raping all day long, no one would care but us.

and yet for those of us who still want to lead a (mostly) happy life even in the mist of this cold, uncaring universe, the best way to do that is to adopt a (subjective, because created by us) moral code. do you think a society could work if anyone could commit anything as long as he was able to? it would end up in a clan system, because you need to unite with people in order to survive, and then it would lead to... guess what? nations! with moral codes!

andthat's what happened...

I have a question about theistic morality.

If your God tells you to kill me because I'm a disgusting sinner, would you do it?

What about your friends? Your parents? A child?

What if it weren't just killing, but slow, brutal torture, too?

Hmm... maybe you do have a morality independent of your deity after all.

I have a question about theistic morality.

If your God tells you to kill me because I'm a disgusting sinner, would you do it?

is that a trick question? I seem to recall a lot of instances where religious leaders told religious people to kill other people, and they obeyed quite readily...

The Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity), basically.
Simply because it makes sense.

i'm an agnostic not an athiest but this rule pretty much covers it all.

I daresay two thousand years of philosophy disagrees with that. Socrates already worked gods out of the equation.

No; he worked literally interpreted myths out of the equation.

If you take the two premisses
-Doing whatever god wants you to do is good
-Torturing kittens is wrong
Then you inevitably run into inconsistency when God tells you to torture kittens.

You don't even need the second one -- just have god command "Disobey this command!"

Thank you, Epimenides.

there is no true morality of anything other then the avoidance of causing suffering. that is not to say our human imperfections are inhierently evil or anything of the sort.

but

it is up to how we actualy live, not what we claim to believe in or don't, that ultimately determines the kind of world we ALL have to live in.

not just in this life OR the next one, but inheirintly all existence of all immaginable to me kinds.

are there kinds of existence unimmaginable to me?

what limits exist to what is possible, is neither known to science NOR belief, so of course this remains possible as well.

possible, but the likelyhood of any belief having the slightest idea what the hell it is talking about, other then existence not being limited to what we can physicly sense, does seem rather extremely remote.

=^^=
.../\...

i'm an agnostic not an athiest but this rule pretty much covers it all.I sometimes prefer the zinc rule.

'Do onto others as they would have done unto them.'

No

See "Euthypro."

I sometimes prefer the zinc rule.

'Do onto others as they would have done unto them.'

The two are equivalent.

It is according to that rule that, definitionally, we want to be treated... meaning that if we treat others the way we want to be treated, we must obey that rule.

The two are equivalent.
Yes, but there are enough self-professed 'golden rule' adherents who just will not leave you alone that it needs to be mentioned:p

See "Euthypro."



The two are equivalent.

It is according to that rule that, definitionally, we want to be treated... meaning that if we treat others the way we want to be treated, we must obey that rule.

actualy they are not. which is the whole reason the so called "zinc" rule was invented.

the so called "golden" rule fails to take into account, those, extra terrestrial alien or otherwise, to whome the way YOU want to be treated, would be pure, shere, unadulturated torture.

=^^=
.../\...

actualy they are not. which is the whole reason the so called "zinc" rule was invented.

the so called "golden" rule fails to take into account, those, extra terrestrial alien or otherwise, to whome the way YOU want to be treated, would be pure, shere, unadulturated torture.

=^^=
.../\...Ah, but don't we all want to be treated the way that we want to be treated?;)

actualy they are not. which is the whole reason the so called "zinc" rule was invented.

the so called "golden" rule fails to take into account, those, extra terrestrial alien or otherwise, to whome the way YOU want to be treated, would be pure, shere, unadulturated torture.

=^^=
.../\...

You mean a masochist?

You mean a masochist?Even masochists have 'safe words.'

My question regards the basis of the atheistic ethic system. Why value humanity whatsoever? Why is human life important at all? Aren't we all just the result of random chance? In that regard, I'm no different or better than a rock, or an atom, or a parrot, or a star. Human life isn't important. We're just animals, more intelligent than most, but still just critters. All life has value, grass, trees, birds in the sky. There's an elegance and beauty to it all, and it should all be respected and honored. Not because some creator dreamt it all up, but because it exists, a manifestation of order from chaos. The universe started as a vast wave of random crap and has organized itself into a vast wonderland of beauty and life. That's to be respected.


Why don't I go throw myself off a bridge? (Or conversely, why would I?) Why shouldn't I throw you off a bridge? Why don't I rape a child?(something that seems very wrong, but then, why is it wrong when the child is objectively nothing special?

Because that would be immoral. Respect life, respect other's inherent right to live their lives as freely as possible, harm no one. People who cannot see that scare the hell out of me.

Respect life, respect other's inherent right to live their lives as freely as possible, harm no one. People who cannot see that scare the hell out of me.
Yep. People who need Gawd to tell them not to throw other people off bridges are scary. :(

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues?

I use a philosophical understanding of human flourishing as my standard of ethics. I find Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-452-FAQ_Objectivist_Position_Morality_Ethics.aspx) helpful, as well as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics) and various other ethics in the eudaimonistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia) tradition of ethical thought.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I am an Objectivist not because Objectivism agrees with the notions I already held to be true before I started calling myself one (which it doesn't, not by a long shot) but rather because, after constant rigorous questioning, it has continued to stand up.

Bravo! :D


eudaimonia,

Mark

...and I didn't read the rest...

...

Our moral cues (queues?)?
Consequences? Good upbringing? Respect for others? Human decency? We ARE human. Did any of that cross your mind? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but why do "religies" assume we are heartless savages/cut-throats/anarchists/rapists/killers/thieves/etc etc...?


If you HAD bothered to read the rest, you'd have known that I did NOT make that assumption.

My ethics (far from being a complete, well-developed system) works more or less like this.

Fact: I like being alive.
Fact: I need other humans to survive and enjoy a good life.
Guess: All humans are similar to me.
Postulate: All humans like being alive, and they need other humans (including myself) to survive and enjoy a good life.
Corollary: All humans need to build a society.
Guess: There can be no society functioning without rules.
Corollary: If there were no other human being except myself, there would be no need for ethics as there would be no society.
Thesis: The golden rule, in its weak-negative (do not do unto others...) and in its strong-positive (do unto others...) is needed to build a society.
Corollary: I will abide the golden rule.

similarly:

Fact: I like being free.
Postulate: All humans like to be free.
Corollary: In a society, there is no total freedom.
Thesis: One's freedom ends where the other's freedom begins.
Corollary: Personal freedom must be limited by ethics.
Theorem: If law doesn't follow ethics, it is useless to society.
Corollary: I must operate inside the society to make law descend from ethics.

I think this could be called a sort of social utilitarianism, but hey, I'm no expert in the philosophy of ethics.

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.

This is posted out of sincere curiosity and a desire to understand. I know, that might be hard to believe in an environment like this, but it's true.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Once again, I ask out of honest curiosity. If you find that question offensive for some reason, then pardon me and move on. If you are religious and want to jump in to attack atheists, I invite you to move on as well. I'm trying to gain some knowledge here.
As an agnostic I would use "treat others as you would want to be treated yourself"

A couple people have alluded to the difference between Atheists and Theists is that a Theist needs God to tell him or her not to do bad stuff.

I think that's intellectually dishonest to say. I dind't mention this yesterday because at that point the only person to bring it up was someone who apparently woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but since it has come up in the discussion a few other times, I think it's worth addressing.

People who take their moral cues from the tenets of their religion aren't somehow morally crippled, needing a biblical crutch to prevent them from behaving like animals. As has been said here many times, people, on some level, have reason enough to function as part of society independent of relgious training. What purpose then, does religion provide when it comes to supplying morality and ethics?

Well, IMHO, it supplies context. It supplies a "big picture" that goes beyond simply what works to help society function and grow. Killing someone is considered bad not ONLY because of such philosophical ideas like the Golden Rule or the preservation of the species, but also because to commit such an act goes opposite higher ideals like love and compassion, as expressed within the context of a religious framework.

There's also fine tuning. If you have no religion and rather adhere to a code of behavior based upon whichever philosophy you find most satisfying/logical, what does it have to say about more abstract concepts like jealousy, forgiveness, etc? Sometimes it's clear, sometimes not. Religions tend to address such issues directly, precisely because they're harder to evaluate in a truly quantitative way that satisfies a more terrestrial context. Maybe that's why Bhuddism can be both a religion AND an Atheist approach... it does address these things. Jealousy is considered wrong not because it harms others, but because it harms the SELF on a spiritual level.

From reading this thread I can see there are plenty of Atheist philosophies that address these things as well, and my point is only to say that religion addresses them too. It's not a crutch, as has been implied a couple of times.

I sometimes prefer the zinc rule.

'Do onto others as they would have done unto them.'

Whoops, should have read this one!

Incorrect.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, it is the rational man who accepts the fact that there is indeed one objective correct morality, and chooses to abide by it.

I think 'proved' would be overstating the case of any philospher, let alone this particular one.

Yep. People who need Gawd to tell them not to throw other people off bridges are scary. :(

Yeah, because the unspoken line is that if they had a crisis of faith and stopped believing in God, they would turn instantly into a total monster!:rolleyes:

A couple people have alluded to the difference between Atheists and Theists is that a Theist needs God to tell him or her not to do bad stuff.

I think that's intellectually dishonest to say. I dind't mention this yesterday because at that point the only person to bring it up was someone who apparently woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but since it has come up in the discussion a few other times, I think it's worth addressing.

People who take their moral cues from the tenets of their religion aren't somehow morally crippled, needing a biblical crutch to prevent them from behaving like animals. As has been said here many times, people, on some level, have reason enough to function as part of society independent of relgious training. What purpose then, does religion provide when it comes to supplying morality and ethics?

Well, IMHO, it supplies context. It supplies a "big picture" that goes beyond simply what works to help society function and grow. Killing someone is considered bad not ONLY because of such philosophical ideas like the Golden Rule or the preservation of the species, but also because to commit such an act goes opposite higher ideals like love and compassion, as expressed within the context of a religious framework.

There's also fine tuning. If you have no religion and rather adhere to a code of behavior based upon whichever philosophy you find most satisfying/logical, what does it have to say about more abstract concepts like jealousy, forgiveness, etc? Sometimes it's clear, sometimes not. Religions tend to address such issues directly, precisely because they're harder to evaluate in a truly quantitative way that satisfies a more terrestrial context. Maybe that's why Bhuddism can be both a religion AND an Atheist approach... it does address these things. Jealousy is considered wrong not because it harms others, but because it harms the SELF on a spiritual level.

From reading this thread I can see there are plenty of Atheist philosophies that address these things as well, and my point is only to say that religion addresses them too. It's not a crutch, as has been implied a couple of times.
I have met and worked with people who have told me that the only thing that stopped them sinning was the fear of going to Hell. One "Born again" could not understand why I was not living a life of pure evil as I was not a church goer!

A popular Atheist view of the universe is this: (similar to many theists' beliefs, only with God absent).

14 billion years ago was the Big Bang. The universe "exploded" from a singularity of unknown origin and expanded. Two billion years ago, the first, simplest life formed from inanimate matter (many theories exist as to how). From then on, evolution more or less worked over the next two billion years to bring the world to what it is today -- a world with humans. That the exact conditions to create life would seem to be extremely, mindbogglingly unlikely. However, this is balanced out by the fact that the universe is extremely, mindbogglingly big and even if life failed to form in billions of solar systems, eventually life would get "lucky" and happen.

My question regards the basis of the atheistic ethic system. Why value humanity whatsoever? Why is human life important at all? Aren't we all just the result of random chance? In that regard, I'm no different or better than a rock, or an atom, or a parrot, or a star.

Why don't I go throw myself off a bridge? (Or conversely, why would I?) Why shouldn't I throw you off a bridge? Why don't I rape a child?(something that seems very wrong, but then, why is it wrong when the child is objectively nothing special? When the very concepts of "wrong" and "special" don't even exist.) What value are you or me? Are humans "neat" or "cool" so we shouldn't do such things? Aren't we just as neat as a grain of sand? In a cosmology where everything is formed randomly, where do concepts such as "neat" or "complex" or "interesting" come from? Aren't all these just societal concepts merely creations of the human imagination that are likely, on some level, fueled by the human impulse to survive?

If a man "realizes" this, why doesn't he stop behaving the way that his impulses or society want him to? They don't matter, so why follow what they say? What would the result be? A complete and utter lack of action since nothing matters? What if he realizes that he can't ignore his impulses. Eventually he eats because he is hungry. Darwinian programming. Then what? Does he decide to live only by his impulses, because, though they don't really matter objectively, they are really the only reason for him to do anything subjectively (or, is his consciousness really just a crossroads of all his different impulses?)?
So what would a human look like that followed only his impulses? Would he steal money every time he knew he could get away with it? Would he rape every transient he could get his hands on? Would he only treat people "nicely" if he knew that he could get something in return? Would he bother standing up for others who are being persecuted if their persecution affects him in no way?

I honestly can't see how atheistic ethics don't devolve into a "nothing really matters" attitude except to think that people believe that human constructs of "being nice to people" or "living life to its fullest" actually matter, which, objectively, they don't.

A transcendent being, particularly one who claims that human life is special, changes things. God is not an automatic "everything is solved!" button as far as morality goes. I could see how there would be some who would still question the validity of a God-based ethics system, even if they knew for sure that God existed. However, the line of debate and questioning would be much different than that of the atheistic ethics system, I think.


(Don't worry, I'm not going to go on a killing/raping/stealing spree)

We don't need to find our species special. We find ourselves special. It is simple extrapolation to apply that same quality to others that we perceive as 'like us'.

For some people, 'like us' includes only a certain group of people. For others, 'like us' involves a number of domesticated animals...

'Morality' then, can be described as a pragmatic process - we treat those who are 'like us' as we would like them to treat us.

A couple people have alluded to the difference between Atheists and Theists is that a Theist needs God to tell him or her not to do bad stuff.

I think that's intellectually dishonest to say. I dind't mention this yesterday because at that point the only person to bring it up was someone who apparently woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but since it has come up in the discussion a few other times, I think it's worth addressing.


I'd argue the opposite, Abrahamic religion tells it's followers that they are special, that all other life exists to serve them. The Bible is quite clear on this point, the world was made for humans and all else are to be used by humans. That's a fairly morally bankrupt view. You either have to view life as inherently important or not.

Here's a scenario: Humans make contact with alien life. These aliens are a hundred times more intelligent than us. What has puzzled our greatest thinkers for millennia is a child's game to them. They view us as mere animals, stupid and pretty useless. Would it be morally right from their perspective to prey upon us? If they're of the opinion that only their lives have meaning it would be.

They may recognize our intelligence, but it may not matter. We're too stupid to ever be a threat to them, or ever be an equal to them. As far as their ethics are concerned we're like lab rats, plentiful and clever in our own way but expendable. That ought make you rethink how you treat rats.

If you view life as intrinsically valuable then you can only hope they would as well.

I have met and worked with people who have told me that the only thing that stopped them sinning was the fear of going to Hell. One "Born again" could not understand why I was not living a life of pure evil as I was not a church goer!

I'd point out that what's a sin for them might not be for you (or even me, for that matter). What, to a rabid Born Again is a sin? Watching R rated movies perhaps, going out to dinner on a Sunday, Having sex before marriage, etc. Fear of going to Hell might indeed be a deterrent against those actions, but aren't what one might consider inherently immoral because their sinfulness exists only within the context of their religious norms.

I'm sure they didn't mean that, without fear of Hell, they'd go on a wild berzerker killing spree of blood, death and rape.

actualy they are not. which is the whole reason the so called "zinc" rule was invented.

the so called "golden" rule fails to take into account, those, extra terrestrial alien or otherwise, to whome the way YOU want to be treated, would be pure, shere, unadulturated torture.

=^^=
.../\...

...that would explain some of the current religions...

I'd argue the opposite, Abrahamic religion tells it's followers that they are special, that all other life exists to serve them. The Bible is quite clear on this point, the world was made for humans and all else are to be used by humans. That's a fairly morally bankrupt view. You either have to view life as inherently important or not.

Here's a scenario: Humans make contact with alien life. These aliens are a hundred times more intelligent than us. What has puzzled our greatest thinkers for millennia is a child's game to them. They view us as mere animals, stupid and pretty useless. Would it be morally right from their perspective to prey upon us? If they're of the opinion that only their lives have meaning it would be.

They may recognize our intelligence, but it may not matter. We're too stupid to ever be a threat to them, or ever be an equal to them. As far as their ethics are concerned we're like lab rats, plentiful and clever in our own way but expendable. That ought make you rethink how you treat rats.

If you view life as intrinsically valuable then you can only hope they would as well.

I see where you're coming from, and at the risk of hijacking my own thread I would like to point something out though. When, in the Bible, it talks about the resources and animals of the earth as being created for the use of man, there is a mentality of stewardship that goes with it. (This is emphazised in Mormon, Catholic and Evangelical teaching. I don't have enough knowledge of other Abrahamic systems to comment on them) It's not about consuming and subjugating those resources, but rather using them as needed and tending to them in a responsible way.

The analogy of ultra intelligent aliens are to humans as humans are to rats doesn't apply to explain this scenario, if you're oprating within the scope of such a belief system. In that system, we are stewards over these resources because we, unlike they, are children of God and thus are able to obtain enlightened knowledge and understanding. It's why we can sin and a rat cannot. If, within that system, an alien race of that level of advancement does exist, then one might presuppose that they would be able to recognize in us that same capacity.

If you don't accept that religious sytem, then the analogy isn't very useful because for you, it's all hogwash anyway ;)

/hijack

I see where you're coming from, and at the risk of hijacking my own thread I would like to point something out though. When, in the Bible, it talks about the resources and animals of the earth as being created for the use of man, there is a mentality of stewardship that goes with it. (This is emphazised in Mormon, Catholic and Evangelical teaching. I don't have enough knowledge of other Abrahamic systems to comment on them) It's not about consuming and subjugating those resources, but rather using them as needed and tending to them in a responsible way.Mind to point out the passages in the bible that support your claim?

A couple people have alluded to the difference between Atheists and Theists is that a Theist needs God to tell him or her not to do bad stuff.

I think that's intellectually dishonest to say. I dind't mention this yesterday because at that point the only person to bring it up was someone who apparently woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but since it has come up in the discussion a few other times, I think it's worth addressing.

People who take their moral cues from the tenets of their religion aren't somehow morally crippled, needing a biblical crutch to prevent them from behaving like animals. As has been said here many times, people, on some level, have reason enough to function as part of society independent of relgious training. What purpose then, does religion provide when it comes to supplying morality and ethics?

Well, IMHO, it supplies context. It supplies a "big picture" that goes beyond simply what works to help society function and grow. Killing someone is considered bad not ONLY because of such philosophical ideas like the Golden Rule or the preservation of the species, but also because to commit such an act goes opposite higher ideals like love and compassion, as expressed within the context of a religious framework.

Sounds to me like you already knew the answer to your own question, then. You knew all along that religion wasn't the source of your morality, it is simply one way of expressing morality that can exist completely without religion.


There's also fine tuning. If you have no religion and rather adhere to a code of behavior based upon whichever philosophy you find most satisfying/logical, what does it have to say about more abstract concepts like jealousy, forgiveness, etc? Sometimes it's clear, sometimes not.

This problem is equally present with religion. The only difference is, if you are having to work out such moral problems for yourself then you will be a better, more thoughtful, and more ethical human being for it.

If you content yourself with simply swallowing answers from books or priests, without actually taking the time to think about it, then you're a drone.

If you take the time to really think about what your religion tells you about morality, then you are doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING that the atheist does. You are both examining the information you are given, and seeing how it fits with all your other information and experience.


Religions tend to address such issues directly, precisely because they're harder to evaluate in a truly quantitative way that satisfies a more terrestrial context. Maybe that's why Bhuddism can be both a religion AND an Atheist approach... it does address these things. Jealousy is considered wrong not because it harms others, but because it harms the SELF on a spiritual level.

From reading this thread I can see there are plenty of Atheist philosophies that address these things as well, and my point is only to say that religion addresses them too. It's not a crutch, as has been implied a couple of times.
Religion IS a crutch for a great many people. It doesn't have to be, and plenty of people don't use it as one, but plenty of people do use it that way. It's pointless and dishonest to try to claim otherwise.

In my opinion, religion is morally neutral at best. It may help some people grasp certain moral concepts, but I think it gets in the way more often than not. Far too many people get caught up in the idea of simplicity and obedience and mindless adherence to rules, and this stalls them out at a juvenile stage of moral development. Not only do many religions do nothing to try to deal with this, but a great many of them out-right encourage it.

Mind to pint out the passages in the bible that support your claim?

I was thinking Genesis 1:26-31.

I was thinking Genesis 1:26-31.And where does this hold restrictions to treat plants and animals in a responsible way?

"fill the earth and subdue it" is pretty clear, isn't it?

And where does this hold restrictions to treat plants and animals in a responsible way?

"fill the earth and subdue it" is pretty clear, isn't it?

Really doesn't say anything about responsible. That's a fairly new interpretation I believe. Though I'd have to do more reading (which I'm disinclined to do) to be certain.

So give me some examples of universal morallity, without God.

Kant's Categorical imperative.

the so called "golden" rule fails to take into account, those, extra terrestrial alien or otherwise, to whome the way YOU want to be treated, would be pure, shere, unadulturated torture.

That rule of behavior would be "treat others as a clone of yourself would want to be treated", or something along those lines.

Does it comply with the Golden Rule? Well... do we want to be treated by others as if we were their clones? Of course not, for precisely the reason you provide. So that rule of behavior is not only not implied by the Golden Rule, but, indeed, is inconsistent with it.

How do we want to be treated? Definitionally, according to the way we want to be treated. Therefore, if we accept the Golden Rule, we must accept the Zinc Rule. We must treat others the way they want to be treated, too.

Kant's Categorical imperative.

"Universal" in what sense?

"Universal" in what sense?

"Universal" as in binding of everyone who is capable of rational thought. I'm not a Kantian myself, but I think CI makes a good "guideline" for ethics. I'm more inclined to follow situational ethics myself.

How do we want to be treated? Definitionally, according to the way we want to be treated. Therefore, if we accept the Golden Rule, we must accept the Zinc Rule. We must treat others the way they want to be treated, too.
Or you could look at the Golden Rule in a negative light; don’t treat others in a way you wouldn’t want to be treated yourself.

Although, if one was to live by the Golden Rule, getting into specific actions would muddle things. You may want to be treated in a way someone else wishes not to be.

However, f you accept that in the statement ‘treat others as you would have others treat you’, that the treatment others give to you is a general respect for your free actions, up to the point where your actions impinge upon someone else, I think you’re on clearer ground.

"Universal" as in binding of everyone who is capable of rational thought.

Well, it's supposed to be, anyway.

I'll give Kant this: he makes a far better case than the "God said so" crowd.

I'm not a Kantian myself, but I think CI makes a good "guideline" for ethics.

I agree. But it does not get us all that much further than careful consideration of the Golden Rule.

I'm more inclined to follow situational ethics myself.

Situational ethics founded upon what principle?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but why do "religies" assume we are heartless savages/cut-throats/anarchists/rapists/killers/thieves/etc etc...? Many of the anarchists that I have met are some of the most ethical people that I have ever had the pleasure of having contact with.

Or you could look at the Golden Rule in a negative light; don’t treat others in a way you wouldn’t want to be treated yourself.

What way do we want to be treated? According to the way we want to be treated.

What ways, then, do we not want to be treated? Any other way. ;)

Although, if one was to live by the Golden Rule, getting into specific actions would muddle things. You may want to be treated in a way someone else wishes not to be.

Only if you only consider it on its surface level.

Do you want to be treated in a way you do not want to be treated? Definitionally, no. So by the Golden Rule, you cannot treat others in ways they do not want to be treated, either.

See "Euthypro."
Just so.

all that you said is true, from the universe's point of view.

if we were killing/stealing/raping all day long, no one would care but us.


Why should we care? Who cares if we care?


and yet for those of us who still want to lead a (mostly) happy life even in the midst of this cold, uncaring universe, the best way to do that is to adopt a (subjective, because created by us) moral code.


Why should I want to be happy? What is happy? Why should I care about this moral code? Who says the universe is caring or uncaring? Why is adopting a moral code any "better" than not adopting one?

On a different train of thought, where did the moral code come from? If morality is subjective, then it doesn't really objectively matter. Isn't living a life by such subjective terms completely pointless? Isn't any life pointless?


do you think a society could work if anyone could commit anything as long as he was able to? it would end up in a clan system, because you need to unite with people in order to survive, and then it would lead to... guess what? nations! with moral codes!

andthat's what happened...

First the obligatory what do you mean by "work"? Second, what you're describing seems very darwinic, both on an individual scale and on a societal scale. Individuals who seek the help of others thrive, those who go it alone die (at least, when evolution still applied to our ancestors). On the same line, societies that work together survive while others dwindle (in a general sense).
So is that it? Is that all we are? Just cogs in a bazzilion to one universal accident that continues on in a "If you have X trait you survive and live to pass on X trait and if not you die" sort of way?

My point is that atheists, theists, everybody, does what society would almost unanimously agree to be "good" acts even, sometimes, to the determent of themselves. Is this the result of some "intellect" that has both somehow broken away from basic human impulses and yet is ignorant about the "reality" that nothing objectively matters? There are a million other theories as to why people do what they do, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me. What people do does not seem to match up with any objective reason for them to be doing it -- from an atheistic view point of the universe.

One final thing. Atheists are usually the lovers of objectivity. So why do atheists live their whole lives based on a subjective morality and subjective view of the universe? (that what we do actually matters).
Science is real. It's objective (maybe you could argue that it's not, but for the most part). You jump up, you fall back down. Water freezes at 0 celsius at one atmosphere. And on and on and on. God, on the other hand, according to atheists, there is no good evidence for. People's subjective beliefs and religious experiences are discounted, sometimes mocked by the atheist. If it's subjective, if it only exists in the human mind with no basis in reality, it doesn't matter. Why care about something that's not real?

But morality is different. It has use. It keeps us happy! But that argument is just as subjective as the moral code its defending. We're back to square one. According to the atheistic view, it doesn't matter if we're happy. It doesn't matter if we survive.

all that you said is true, from the universe's point of view.

if we were killing/stealing/raping all day long, no one would care but us.


Why should we care? Who cares if we care?


and yet for those of us who still want to lead a (mostly) happy life even in the midst of this cold, uncaring universe, the best way to do that is to adopt a (subjective, because created by us) moral code.


Why should I want to be happy? What is happy? Why should I care about this moral code? Who says the universe is caring or uncaring? Why is adopting a moral code any "better" than not adopting one?

On a different train of thought, where did the moral code come from? If morality is subjective, then it doesn't really objectively matter. Isn't living a life by such subjective terms completely pointless? Isn't any life pointless?


do you think a society could work if anyone could commit anything as long as he was able to? it would end up in a clan system, because you need to unite with people in order to survive, and then it would lead to... guess what? nations! with moral codes!

andthat's what happened...

First the obligatory what do you mean by "work"? Second, what you're describing seems very darwinic, both on an individual scale and on a societal scale. Individuals who seek the help of others thrive, those who go it alone die (at least, when evolution still applied to our ancestors). On the same line, societies that work together survive while others dwindle (in a general sense).
So is that it? Is that all we are? Just cogs in a bazzilion to one universal accident that continues on in a "If you have X trait you survive and live to pass on X trait and if not you die" sort of way?

My point is that atheists, theists, everybody, does what society would almost unanimously agree to be "good" acts even, sometimes, to the determent of themselves. Is this the result of some "intellect" that has both somehow broken away from basic human impulses and yet is ignorant about the "reality" that nothing objectively matters? There are a million other theories as to why people do what they do, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me. What people do does not seem to match up with any objective reason for them to be doing it -- from an atheistic view point of the universe.

One final thing. Atheists are usually the lovers of objectivity. So why do atheists live their whole lives based on a subjective morality and subjective view of the universe? (that what we do actually matters).
Science is real. It's objective (maybe you could argue that it's not, but for the most part). You jump up, you fall back down. Water freezes at 0 Celsius at one atmosphere. And on and on and on. God, on the other hand, according to atheists, there is no good evidence for. People's subjective beliefs and religious experiences are discounted, sometimes mocked by the atheist. If it's subjective, if it only exists in the human mind with no basis in reality, it doesn't matter. Why care about something that's not real? Atheists don't. Religion is discounted by atheists because they ultimately believe that it is not objectively real.

But morality is different, it could be argued. It has use. It keeps us happy! But that argument is just as subjective as the moral code it's defending. We're back to square one. Why does it doesn't matter if we're happy. It doesn't matter if we survive. There's no objective basis, so it doesn't matter.

Why should we care? Who cares if we care?
*psst* he's a troll.

And a parody troll, no less.

Or you could look at the Golden Rule in a negative light; don’t treat others in a way you wouldn’t want to be treated yourself.

Although, if one was to live by the Golden Rule, getting into specific actions would muddle things. You may want to be treated in a way someone else wishes not to be.

However, f you accept that in the statement ‘treat others as you would have others treat you’, that the treatment others give to you is a general respect for your free actions, up to the point where your actions impinge upon someone else, I think you’re on clearer ground.
My personal version of the Golden Rule tends to be mainly about my hatred of hypocrisy. I really, really, really don't like hypocrites, and I really, really, really don't want to be one.

So if I know that I would be pissed off at somebody if they did a certain thing to me, then I make damn sure I don't do that certain thing to anybody else. Why? Well, for largely selfish reasons: if I act in a hypocritical manner, I piss myself off. And I have to live with me. ALL THE TIME. I'm really goddam annoying when I'm pissed off.

Situational ethics founded upon what principle?

Depends on the situation. Sometimes I'll use the humanist harm principle, other times I'll use CI or the Golden rule. I sometimes give utilitarianism a consideration.

Depends on the situation.

Then what principle do you use to determine which principle applies to which situation?

I have seen no post that addressed this topic directly, but if there was one and it escaped my notice, please accept my apology.

This is posted out of sincere curiosity and a desire to understand. I know, that might be hard to believe in an environment like this, but it's true.

I haven't known too many Atheists personally, so my understanding is limited and I bring my question here. For those of you who are Atheists, what do you use as a source of ethical or moral cues? I know Atheists are generally no more or less ethical or moral than their religious counterparts, but the source of morality for a religious person is obvious: their religion. But what I don't know, and seek to learn, is what do Atheists use as a moral compass, and why?

Once again, I ask out of honest curiosity. If you find that question offensive for some reason, then pardon me and move on. If you are religious and want to jump in to attack atheists, I invite you to move on as well. I'm trying to gain some knowledge here.


I do not wish harm on others, because I am a human being. That is all I have to say on this subject. Yes,I do find that question slightly offensive, or at best rather ignorant.

Then what principle do you use to determine which principle applies to which situation?

I haven't really worked that part out yet.

<snip> ...

But practically, morals and values are mostly just something people pick up. Most athiests in predominantly Christian areas share the same christian morals to a high degree. Actually, most people around the world share most morals to a high degree (murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc).
I think one of my philosophy professors called ethics a shortcut in decision making. They are overall species-promoting behaviours (putting it in an evolutionary perspective).

Morals (from Latin, mos, mores, customs) are typically "whatever is considered socially acceptable" (unless you attach some special philosophical definition of morality.) Garden variety morality is "what people get away with." Here, in the USA, in 2007, it is generally moral to waste water and electricity, to buy stuff that is overpackaged, etc.

Morals change. It was once moral to buy and own and sell slaves. Beating, starving or otherwise mistreating a slave was in many situations considered to be childish or stupid ... as would be any act of destroying one's own property ... but not immoral. Beating children was once moral in the USA, "Spare the rod ... etc." and in other places, it is moral to

A group with the same religious beliefs may share a morality, but many who believe "X" do "not X" ... so believers may be completely immoral in the sense of behaving contrary to group norms.

Ethics is the ~systematic~ approach to issues of right and wrong behaviors in private and in public life, to values and social/ecological/biological customs of behavior, and to concepts of responsibility and duty.

I have determined specific moral codes I apply to life that I honestly feel would be best for everyone to apply.

First and foremost, we must recognize that there is no good nor evil; there are only decisions. What is right and what is wrong? That is up to the individual to decide for themselves.

We must also recognize that when it comes to defining laws and rights, we must assume the lack of a God, gods, and/or an afterlife of any kind, be it eternal punishment, eternal pleasure, eternal dullness, or what have you.

As such, there are a great many rights all sentient beings possess. For the purpose of this I define a sentient being as one who is self-aware, capable of making moral decisions and communicating such decisions to others, whatever the method may be. This definition includes not only humans, but whatever other species may develop full sentience on our own planet(such as chimpanzees and dolphins, which creep quite close to it as of yet), any species we might create(such as robots and other forms of A.I) or any species we may encounter that is not of our own planet(in other words, an alien race.) This definition also covers infants and other types of offspring of these species, but excludes offspring in gestation that are not capable of living on their own. Offspring in gestation that are capable of living on their own are covered under these rights.

1. The sentient being has a full right to life, to live as they please without harming another. No sentient being may take another sentient being's life unless the situation provides absolutely no alternative(such as in cases of self-defense, of oneself and others.)

2. The sentient being has a right to do with their own body as they please. They may ingest whatever substances they wish, may utilize whatever drugs they wish, may harm or otherwise damage their body if they wish. They may freely engage in sexual intercourse with any other willing sentient being--excluding certain instances, such as children who are not yet capable of making a decision with such ramifications, as defined by both emotional maturity and maturity of the brain--regardless of gender, race, species, or any other criteria apart from those already mentioned. No sentient being may harm another's body or decide what that sentient being does with their body without the consent of the sentient being, including and especially determing reproductive rights, such as how to have sexual intercourse, abortion, and any other related activity.

3. The sentient being has full rights to free speech, to say or think whatever thoughts they wish, regardless of the content expressed. No sentient being may abridge this right without full consent of the sentient being who's rights are abridged.

4. The sentient being has full rights to whatever property they own and may own whatever property they wish, property being defined as inanimate objects or pets below a certain level of intelligence, such as rats, and may treat the property however they wish. Pets who display intelligence of the level of cats or above are not property, nor are offspring. No sentient being may deprive another of property without just cause, such as removing weapons from a violent criminal.

5. The sentient being has full rights to whatever beliefs they wish to espouse, and may espouse these beliefs freely so long as said espousing does not restrict any right already inscribed. The sentient being may restrict themselves in whatever fashion they wish. The sentient being does not have the right to force any belief upon any other sentient being--including offspring--nor does a sentient being have the right to legislate such restrictions. Examples of restrictions that cannot be forced upon others are:
Belief that any god other than one's own is false and cannot be worshipped.
Belief that homosexual activity is wrong and must be disallowed.
Belief that eating a specific food is wrong and must be disallowed.

6. The sentient being has a full right to display love and affection to any other consenting sentient being they please, be they of the same or opposing gender, the same or opposing race and/or species, be they relatives, or any other such criteria, and may display such affection in whatever manner they wish--up to and including marriage--, so long as the other sentient being consents. A sentient being may not express affection towards another sentient being who does not consent.

7. A sentient being who commits a crime will only be deprived of the rights necessary to restrict them from committing the crime again. The sentient being who commits a crime should be given the opportunity to be rehabilitated, to learn new jobs skills and whatever else is required to allow them to eliminate any reason to commit a crime and allow them to continue living as per their rights.

8. A sentient being who possess a mental illness that may cause them to harm others, such as psychopathy, sociopathy, and others, may only be restrained and restricted rights-wise in the manner necessary to prevent them from harming others, and must otherwise be treated as a full sentient being. Said sentient being with a mental illness has full rights to be cured if such a cure is available.

So, there you have it...my philisophical viewpoint on it all. I will conclude by saying that, as an athiest, I feel that due to its rarity sentient life must be protected and cannot be extinguished except in the most dire of circumstances with absolutely no alternative whatsoever, and even then only reluctantly, and only if it can save more lives from being harmed. Once a sentient life is extinguished, it is gone. There is no afterlife to go to, no God or gods to comfort them, and as such, we must not allow it to vanish if we can avoid it.