Can atheistic morality exist?

[Bovril]

It's very easy for religious people to ground there morality in their objectivist veiw of the world, but can Atheists do the same? Is it possible for those of us who don't believe in God to have a meaningful morality, and how do we ground that morality?


Here are my thoughts:
For the atheist, morality must be humanistic rather than metaphysical. What I mean by this is that rather than talking in terms of cosmic moral laws, we must discuss morality in as much as it is inherant in the human condition. But what is the human condition, and what part of it is morality grounded in?
The human condition is the shared state of being that results from our genetic natures as mediated through the conditions under which humans live.
Psychology and anthropology have shown that humans the world over have moral systems, rationalised in all sorts of different ways, (and these systems are adhered to by all but a few deviants and sociopaths) but including many of the same sorts of features such as solidarity and compasion.
The study of moral psychology can, then, provide not only atheists, but all humanity with a useful grounding for their morality, and the institutions that are built upon it.

[snuggans]

we can rudely say we're being moral to improve our character, not just to get on 'His' good graces!

but that would be being unfair to religious people.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ugh... I don't know whether to express my opinion on this thread's question or whether to just post an image of a steaming hot turd.

[snuggans]

Ugh... I don't know whether to express my opinion on this thread's question or whether to just post an image of a steaming hot turd.

yuo are teh cool beanz man

[Bovril]

Ugh... I don't know whether to express my opinion on this thread's question or whether to just post an image of a steaming hot turd.

I don't understand why you would feel an urge to do the later. Latent copraphilia maybe?

Seriously though, what are your opinions?

[snuggans]

I don't understand why you would feel an urge to do the later. Latent copraphilia maybe?

hahahahahahahahah

[Dayman]

Of course it can, and it does.

[HopliteElite]

It would be foolish to believe that atheistic morality doesn't exist. Atheists, for the most part, adhere to the golden rule and most of the ten commandments that are actually relevent to the times, such as don't steal, kill, etc... We just don't feel the need to add God to the equation because we can regulate our own behavior without needing the fear of hell or expectation of heaven. Religious people are weak in that they do need these cheap motivators to behave. Atheists behave because we know that when humans work together and do not destroy each other, we become stronger as an animal. It's all just a matter of motivation and both the religious and atheistic have motivation to behave and be moral, just different motivation.

[RusskiSoldat]

Yes it does but it stems from humanistic beliefs and has a lot more variety.

[Mansa musa]

Yes it does but it stems from humanistic beliefs and has a lot more variety.

humanistic beliefs stems from religion

[Dayman]

humanistic beliefs stems from religion

Which stem from humanity, since all religions are man-made.

[Dayman]

There are a lot of different moralities though, and atheists, and I would assume most people in general realize that they are objective, except for a few basic things.

[RusskiSoldat]

humanistic beliefs stems from religion

Atheists cut out the religious aspect of it.
A lot of religious rules make perfect sense to most people anyway, so atheists adopt those while not adopting views they don't like.

[Mansa musa]

Atheists cut out the religious aspect of it.
A lot of religious rules make perfect sense to most people anyway, so atheists adopt those while not adopting views they don't like.

just sounds like some short cut to get out of church to me

:hmmm:

[Dayman]

just sounds like some short cut to get out of church to me

:hmmm:

That's the same argument my friend's mom used when my friend declared his agnosticism.

Why would I go to church when I, and many others like me, find the idea of God ridiculously false?

[Da Skinna]

I would turn it around and say. If we are religious, we hopefully have also an ethical conduct. Many people are not religious, although they are very moral. We can say therefore, hopefully religious persons have an understanding of ethics, which would include the readiness to reflect the consequences of actions and the willingness to take the responsibility. Therefore, hopefully non-religious persons show the same eager and the same will to realize the ethical intentions as their religious brothers and sisters are expected to do. So that at the end, everyone with or without a religious orientation shows the same uncorrupted ethical conduct.

The problem with what you're saying though is that people with religion do not have the same corruption of ethics as those who don't have religion and may not even have an ethical conduct.

Ethics and morality to a non-religious person is something that's brought about independently is it not? Religion provides ethics, and as much as it is left to interpretation, religion corrupts ethics further than no religion.

A businessman without ethics screws over customers. A clergyman with ethics burns people at the stake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Skinna
The problem with what you're saying though is that people with religion do not have the same corruption of ethics as those who don't have religion and may not even have an ethical conduct.

Indeed, if I would say that people with religion did have a less corrupted ethic, this has eventually to be called a rather problematic position in a debate about ethics. - The word 'corrupted' came me to mind after I had written the post. The '(un)corrupted' was thought to say, that if someone religious realizes ethical goals, it can show just the same perfect conduct of ethics as if someone non-religious, or not-so religious realizes ethical goals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Skinna
Ethics and morality to a non-religious person is something that's brought about independently is it not? Religion provides ethics, and as much as it is left to interpretation, religion corrupts ethics further than no religion.

Yes, we have reason to assume that ethics and morality can have a setting independently of religion. It is also acceptable to think that religion provides ethics. Problematic however is the assumption that religion corrupted ethics, or that a religious ethic might be less perfect than an ethic without a religious setting. Ethics are what we are ought to do and then also do. Relgion provides an explanations why we ought to do and a descriptions of what we are ought to do or eventually not. A 'secular' ethic will infact also try to rationalize (to explain why) the ethical subject should decide in a certain fashion and not in another. The initial situation is for both the same, I would think. A religious person, whose ethical subject is his invisible alter ego (God) or a non-religious, or not-so religious person, whose ethical subject is realized in an autonomous setting are both in the situation to do what is ethical desirable. The difference is eventually, that the explanation for deeds is more rational in one case than in the other or just rational in very specific sense.

Yes, we have reason to assume that ethics and morality can have a setting independently of religion. It is also acceptable to think that religion provides ethics. Problematic however is the assumption that religion corrupted ethics, or that a religious ethic might be less perfect than an ethic without a religious setting. Ethics are what we are ought to do and then also do. Relgion provides an explanations why we ought to do and a descriptions of what we are ought to do or eventually not. A 'secular' ethic will infact also try to rationalize (to explain why) the ethical subject should decide in a certain fashion and not in another. The initial situation is for both the same, I would think. A religious person, whose ethical subject is his invisible alter ego (God) or a non-religious, or not-so religious person, whose ethical subject is realized in an autonomous setting are both in the situation to do what is ethical desirable. The difference is eventually, that the explanation for deeds is more rational in one case than in the other or just rational in very specific sense.

Ethics is based on first, self-preservation, then secondly the preservation of others. Survival instinct. To hurt someone else is bad ethics, or really a lack of ethics. Causing no harm to others indicates a code of ethics.

Religion entails this, Jesus entailed it in "do unto others what blah blah blah". Of course, that is overlooked anyways in favor of Old Testament rulings, but it remains the same, religion is supposed to encompass the deeper meaning of life, the concept of a higher power, God, and how we live our lives according to how He would like. This is where ethics comes in. For a society to work in the worship of God, there needs to be some form of ethical conduct.

I could go as far as to say that ethical conduct was deliberately put in as a way to show people that even the Almighty Higher Authority, the spiritual one, God, demands an ethic for people to live by. I could go as far as to say that in order to control the population properly for the proper worship of the one god, an unwritten code of laws had to be in place, and these were them. Code of Hammurabi, our Constitutions, Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms are all based on an ethic.

I could go further and say Jesus saw that people believed in God so fervently yet had no ethics. He practiced what he preached, believing there to be value in every human life. He wasn't a hypocrite about it, which is what people in religion have and continue to do to this day.

So how does religion corrupt ethics? It is acceptable to think that because one believes in God, it is apparent they are good people, it is presumable they are good people. Not true. The simple belief in a religion does not equate to a moral, ethical conduct. Because nobody ever accepts all teachings from religion in everyday life, leaving out some for convenience, necessity, or in favor of other teachings.

It is ethics and an independent epiphany of how we go about our lives that establish if we are moral or ethical. Religions only work under the presumption of it. And I shouldn't have to elaborate what kinds of detrimental instances religion has been for mankind.


EDIT: From the Interesting Criticism of Zionism thread. Relevant coincidence.

[Mansa musa]

so tell me. what do you believe? you believe in religious morality that supposedly came from god but you don't actually believe in god? that's like eating an ice cream cone without eating the cone isn't it?

[The Prophet]

so tell me. what do you believe? you believe in religious morality that supposedly came from god but you don't actually believe in god? that's like eating an ice cream cone without eating the cone isn't it?

You level has unreason has sunk to a new low. Please read a book on logic or something!

[Da Skinna]

so tell me. what do you believe? you believe in religious morality that supposedly came from god but you don't actually believe in god? that's like eating an ice cream cone without eating the cone isn't it?

Morality doesn't just come from religion, read my above post, it applies.

[Dayman]

so tell me. what do you believe? you believe in religious morality that supposedly came from god but you don't actually believe in god? that's like eating an ice cream cone without eating the cone isn't it?

I don't believe morality comes form any gods.

It comes from people, and institutions made up by people who claim it to be from gods.