NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not personally atheistic or agnostic, but this is a poll out of curiosity for what moral and ethical philosophies are held by some of the atheists and agnostics here. I am not experienced with a lot of moral codes outside of religion other than humanism, so if I leave many out then just inform me of what they are.

I myself am spiritual but do not identify with any particular religion. I believe in inherent goodness which is often said to be an ignorant belief, but I believe in the soul and all that other good stuff. But thats not to debate here, what I am curious about is the moral and ethical coddes of atheists and agnostics.

'Morality' and 'morals' are just religious concepts and therefore as a nontheist, I have no morals because I am not religious. However, this doesn't mean I'm a bad person. It just means I am amoral. I follow the law and lash out when the law isn't fair. I use the laws of my country and the common sense and wisdom that was passed down to me from older people I know to guide me.

Just because someone doesn't believe in a God, doesn't mean that they don't have a moral code. After all, most moral codes, whether religious or not, are really based on common sense.

I don't see what one's theological belief has to do with ethics.

I am not personally atheistic or agnostic, but this is a poll out of curiosity for what moral and ethical philosophies are held by some of the atheists and agnostics here. I am not experienced with a lot of moral codes outside of religion other than humanism, so if I leave many out then just inform me of what they are.So if you know of humanism, what else do you need?

Not trying to say atheists or agnostics have no moral code or ethics, simply trying to gauge with poll beliefs on moral code and ethics atheists and agnostics have on here. Usually religious people at least lip profess to a personal moral code, and ethics as well as saying it is needed for society. Atheists and agnostics tend to have more wider views on what moral code, and ethics they have, and what society needs in the way of ethics and morality.

As an atheist, I have no morals, ethics, and in fact black ichor runs through my blood. Speaking of blood, I enjoy that of human babies. Especially Christian ones.

:p

As an atheist, I have no morals, ethics, and in fact black ichor runs through my blood. Speaking of blood, I enjoy that of human babies. Especially Christian ones.

:p

I reserve baby blood for my Atheist Lord and Master, Satan.

Even though I don't believe he exists, so I'm not sure how that works.

As an atheist, I have no morals, ethics, and in fact black ichor runs through my blood. Speaking of blood, I enjoy that of human babies. Especially Christian ones.

:p

Funny, I am just spiritual and do not identify with any organized religion so the jokes don't bother me, lol, but wanted some real discussion on the ethics, and morals of atheists here. Like I said, religious people generally at least lip profess their beliefs in a moral code and ethics. Often times atheists, and agnostics have more independent wider views of this.

So I'm just going to copy from the last thread on ethics:

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.

I'm an agnostic.

But I do have moral and ethic codes.

They are very similar as the christian ones, except it is not based on religion or based on it.

My base line is: don't do to others, if you can't stand that they are doing it to you.

But sure my ethics are not 100% the same as the christian ones.

I am for abortion, euthanasia.
But I do not force people to think the same. I will not kill doctors that are anti abortion by instance. :)

For me abortion is not the same as killing a person. But that won’t say I support abortion all the time. It shouldn't perform when you are over 3 months of pregnancy. Sorry you had time enough to think about the result.

I am pro euthanasia. Why should one life in enormous pains for a few weeks/months and even years, if you don't want to?

Sure, I think there's protection needed. Some people, by character or situation could be influenced too much. We should protect that one.

I do not kill or steal. I try not to harm people a lot (sure I sometimes do).

But in the end, respect my opinion and if you don't, I still will respect yours. And yes I will joke about it, in some situations.

People are taking themselves too serious. A smile can save the day. :)

i dont have a personal moral code. i just do what seems right.

I'm agnostic.

Ethics: Don't impose your will on others. Don't interfere with rational endeavour. Keep a rational moral code.
Morals: Use your best judgement. Invest your efforts into the good of humanity, in whatever way possible. If neccesary, make peace with the establishment, but don't abandon your ideals.

'Morality' and 'morals' are just religious concepts

Thats not true.

Thats not true.

While it make not be true for you, it's true for me. I didn't say it was the absolute truth, but in my opinion, it's true for me.

Does "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" count as a moral code?

"Believe that moralty is subjective but basic moral code and ethics needed for order"

I myself place nature highly, and above all I admire and respect bird life, particularly raptors, so my ethics in any given situation are to first consider anything avian related, then anything that could affect avians indirectly, then anything that could lead to the aiding of someone who is a detriment to wild birds or could enable someone to be a detriment to wild birds, then from there on it moves down to myself, my family, my friends, every other person, etc.

Above all this though, is Richard, my boyfriend, for whom I'd sacrifice anything.. even my most cherished of beliefs.

"Believe that moralty is subjective but basic moral code and ethics needed for order"

i'm atheist... i do not proclaim to know the truth about god/spirituality (so i would be agnostic in that sense) but i take it as a choice of faith that there is no god

as far as morals and ethics are concerned i would be classed as an egoist: i will not abstain from hurting someone for my personal benefit (except if i had an overarching reason not to... like being in love) and will not really go out of my way to help, but if it is not too much trouble i'll help and do as much of what society classes as good as possible - that way i keep both myself and other people happy (and to be cynical about it this is also quite self serving... after all if you don't show a bit of good will every once in a while you tend to be cast out :p)

I believe that there is a biological mechanism that ensures we can live as (relatively) peaceful social creatures.

It is not as if humans could not be social prior to rational moral or religious thought.

My inherent agnosos supplies me with a moral code: do no harm.

Err generally, I just try to be nice to people and help them out. I don't really think I have a fixed "moral code" and my ethics are basically around trying to keep down violence and that kind of lark.

i think that the prophesies made, recorded, and executed, along with all the wonderful things like bunnies and rainbows, is plenty of evidence of God. I say this not facetiously, but things like love, how cute babies are.
if you want to call God a concept, how has he persisted throughout all time, as easy to hold in your hand as a whisper.

I consider myself a Atheist with a set of ethics following closely to humanism, but when you think about humanism, you always tend to get back to the same question 'What defines what is right and what is wrong?'

So basically, I find all forms of murder, abuse (including sexual and racial), and many other things which I consider obvious breaches in human rights, wrong. After all, I see people as more or less the same, with the same rights and same needs...but I watch out for those I care about first before someone in a distant land suffering under someone else. I guess it's just my nature. That makes me an evil atheist.

I guess I simply reject the absurd idea of a supreme creator who 'cares' about us and 'loves' us yet damns us to hell if we screw up, but rewards us in a fairy tale afterlife if we give some of his human subjects a little money and loyalty. Besides, science, philosiphy, etc. has offered much more in terms of betterment of human nature than some old world god(s).

I don't have a "moral code" so much as a formula for an optimal world, probably would be described as utilitarian. It goes along the lines of:
The goodness of an action is equal to the sum of the resulting ("strength" of happiness * duration of happiness) for each person affected.

But it's not like you can calculate amount of happiness, so it's just a rough guide.

While not strictly an atheist/agnostic (I identify as theologically noncognitivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)) I'll still answer.

I have no personal "moral" philosophy because I do not believe morality exists. "Right" and "wrong" are arbitrary distinctions we, as thinking, sapient beings, have enforced upon the world. Without our intervention and apparent need to make things orderly, there's no such thing as morality. It is simply a creation of humanity. There is no such thing as good. There is no such thing as evil.

Things are merely desirable or undesirable, from the point of view of a sapient being. Sapience grants us the right to label things as such. Infringing upon this sapience is undesirable, therefore things like genocide, murder or even stealing are undesirable. We often desire ways to express how strongly we feel about these labels, so invent words like "immoral" or "evil" rather than undesirable. Genocide (or anything else) is not intrinsically undesirable, and vice versa.

Anything that doesn't infringe upon the sapience/existence/comfort of a sapient being is desirable. Anything else is undesirable.

It makes a lot more sense in my head, and I've tried explaining it a few times with varying degrees of success. This is probably not the clearest way to do so.

While not strictly an atheist/agnostic (I identify as theologically noncognitivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism)) I'll still answer.

I have no personal "moral" philosophy because I do not believe morality exists. "Right" and "wrong" are arbitrary distinctions we, as thinking, sapient beings, have enforced upon the world. Without our intervention and apparent need to make things orderly, there's no such thing as morality. It is simply a creation of humanity. There is no such thing as good. There is no such thing as evil.

Things are merely desirable or undesirable, from the point of view of a sapient being. Sapience grants us the right to label things as such. Infringing upon this sapience is undesirable, therefore things like genocide, murder or even stealing are undesirable. We often desire ways to express how strongly wefeel about these labels, so invent words like "immoral" or "evil" rather than undesirable. Genocide (or anything else) are not intrinsicly undesirable, and vice versa.

Anything that doesn't infringe upon the sapience/existence/comfort of a sapient being is desirable. Anything else is undesirable.

It makes a lot more sense in my head, and I've tried explaining it a few times with varying degrees of success. This is probably not the clearest way to do so.
I can understand what you mean, even if I don't agree with it.

I think morality is subjective. I do think that most people believe that murder, rape, child molestation, etc. are wrong, but it's not that black and white for most things. Some people are pro-choice, some are pro-life, some are against same sex marriages, some support them, etc.

I am an agnostic, and i believe in do unto others. I don't believe in it due to religious principles though, it's just common sense. I don't want people to hurt me, so i don't hurt them, i don't want people to steal from me, so i don't steal, i don't want people to lie to me, so i don't lie to them, or at least i try not to. I also believe in live and let live. As long as you do your best not to hurt others, you should be able to live your life as you see fit.

We can't completely avoid causing pain, sometimes even our best intentions hurt. Obviously we shouldn't abuse people, or drink and drive or do anything that we know will cause pain when we don't have to, but sometimes pain is necessary. We may have to break up with someone for instance, even though we know that will hurt them. We may also have to end up causing physical pain as our only way to defend ourselves, though i think that should be avoided if it can be.

I just wanted to be specific about that.

Common sense, not morals.

Atheism does not define my moral values.

How can an avowed belief in no God define my morals? My morals don't come from not believing in God.

If I had an affirmed belief in nihilsm then my moral code would be fairly clear but philosophically I'm more of a Camus-style existentialist; perhaps my moral code derives from that. Perhaps not.

Meh. This was meant to be more important/sensical then it turned out...:(

Common sense, not morals.
Alas, common sense is not so common.

My two morals:
1) No violent behaviour towards other (joking punches in the shoulder, etc are OK)
2) No downloading Smiths' songs.

Just because someone doesn't believe in a God, doesn't mean that they don't have a moral code. After all, most moral codes, whether religious or not, are really based on common sense.

Sadly, as true as you are, you might have a hard time convincing religious folk of this.

While it make not be true for you, it's true for me. I didn't say it was the absolute truth, but in my opinion, it's true for me.

well you can believe an elephant is a small white furry animal that weighs a few ounces., and that can be "true for you".

It doesn't mean it's actually, you know, true.