Theists claim that their gods are the source of all morality and equate atheism with immorality or amorality. Obviously we atheists are exempt from the 10 Commandments. I covet my neighbor's car (but not his wife), and I will slaughter his dog if it doesn't stop barking. But I do like the Golden Rule, as defined by Confucius and Seneca, among many others, and later plagiarized by Jesus (or those who fictionalized him in the gospels). I also agree with the concept of "paying it forward."
So what are the foundations of atheist morality? Are there only individual codes, or are there certain fundamental rules that we all share? Are our moral foundations weaker or stronger than those of the god-ridden? I would suggest that there is a positive correlation between rejection of theism and a strong sense of morality. What do others think?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Its hardly a code....... and they may not suit everybody........
but personally I've always found the works of Marcus Aurelius to be useful in this sphere...
a couple of random quotes...by way of illustration.....
"If it is not right do not do it;
if it is not true do not say it."
Marcus Aurelius
"Everything that exists is in a manner the seed of that which will be."
Marcus Aurelius
"The art of living is more like wrestling than dancing."
Marcus Aurelius
link:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/marcus_aurelius.html
We have hashed this out over and over again on this forum alone. Morality is a byproduct of the society.
Well I'm new here, so it's a first for me. I'm sorry to bring it up again, but I think it's an issue that still needs to be reexamined and rethought from time to time while theists continue to claim a monopoly on morality.
I would also dispute your statement that "morality is a by-product of the society." That suggests that morality comes from an external source, which is not that different from saying it comes from god(s). As Margaret Thatcher once said, "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families." Individuals and families create morals. Societies create mores. Religion creates morons.
Altruism is a component of evolution, actually...and since we're all products of evolution, we all have a 'built in' radar if you will, that tells us right from wrong.
al·tru·ism
ˈaltro͞oˌizəm/
noun
the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others
Notice the "belief in" part of the definition? Unless I am sadly, sorly mistaken, I don't think scientific theories work off of beliefs.
If the theory explains why we have the belief, then it is fine.
I don't think it's a belief, it could be a theory, evolution is a theory, and altruism is thought to have been part of the development within evolution. All species exhibit altruistic qualities, even insects. Altruism isn't entire selfless, the more you look into it, but it can be explained as to why we as humans inherently know right from wrong. Of course, as a theist, I believe that God had a hand in it. lol :)
1) Evolution is no longer a theory. DNA has proven evolution beyond question.
http://eveloce.scienceblog.com/16/dna-proves-evoution/
2) Morals come from society. What is acceptable by the society make up the morality of said society.
http://atheist-faq.com/where-does-morality-come-from-if-not-god
Take the example of murder. Instinct would guide people away from murder unless it was necessary for self-preservation but in our present day society. We accept murder as a norm in many ways. Execution is murder by the state, yet it is legal in many states. The death certificate of an executed person reads "Cause of death: Murder by the state of blah blah blah."
Morality is dynamic, ever changing. It cannot be defined with distinct clarity. It cannot be hijacked by religious zealots. It is subjective, but it is dictated by society.
"What is acceptable by the society make up the morality of said society."
That's a bit bleak. Societies and states can define legality, but they can't define morality. Even in US states were the death penalty still exists, there are plenty of protestors, both religious and non-religious, who abhor judicial murder. Those people have personal moral positions that are independent from their societies.
"Morality is dynamic, ever changing."
I would argue that if it's dynamic and ever changing, it's not morality. It's something different.
@Algebe: ""Morality is dynamic, ever changing."
I would argue that if it's dynamic and ever changing, it's not morality. It's something different."
And yet, things which where not accepted 50-100 years ago are becoming, albeit slowly, moral acts and positions. If that doesn't show morality is dynamic to some degree, I don't know what will.
I think we all draw from the same sources, only that the religious conservatives are confused as to where those sources come from. Moreover, their doctrines--if not cherry-picked--add a certain pollution. I've heard it said that atheists are on par with moderate religious people while conservatives are a notch below.
Making a god the source of morality gives us the ultimate relative morality! What would be the point of saying that God is good if he is the standard of goodness? A morality that doesn't relate to human needs is of no use to us.
Our source for morality is the same as theists. If you take into account there being no gods then all morality is human morality. You either take responsibilty for your moral philosophy or you attribute the same to a mythical being. One can also abdicate responsibility for a secular moral code if one prefers subjection under authoritarian rule.
I think that Deidre is spot on by saying "Altruism is a component of evolution".
Altruism can be seen among various different life forms.
Richard Dawkins goes in to details in "The Selfish Gene", where he explains how it can become a very successful strategy. (Get the 30th anniversary edition from 2006, it has additions and rebuttals to critique, etc.)
Personally, I think that once humans started building societies, altruism was the basis for what we today call morality.
Perhaps.