Atheistic Morals & Ethics: An oxymoron?

[hellas1]

Hi everyone,

I was thinking about something interesting:

I've yet to see an "Atheist's Consortium" or some sort of gathering which nailed down a common Atheistic worldview in regards to ethics & morals.

I will also say that many, not all, Atheists try to be "good" people who largely base their actions upon the Christian theological framework, albeit subconsciously or consciously.

Most Atheists that I know or am aware of hold a humanistic worldview which makes humans the most evolved thing on this planet.

I submit this:

The Atheistic position on morals & ethics is NOT viable.
Why?
Human moral/ethical inconsistency which is based on fluctuating emotionalism coupled with a metaphysic which is underscored by nihilism.

Let me iterate something more to think about:
Humanism is not necessarily Atheism but the converse is true.

This is a fact that many Atheists seem to overlook consistently........

hellas1.5

[Eofor]

How do atheists base their morals on the Christian theological framework? We don't believe that the Abrahamic God, or any gods period, exist.
And there is no common atheistic worldview beyond our lack of belief. We each have our own opinions and I don't speak for all the atheists on this board, merely myself.
Also, atheism is underscored by nihilism? Really?

[Claudius Gothicus]

Why is it religious people continue to believe that our modern crystallized moral codes(Law) are completely based on their outlook of society.

Our modern Law System is the product of Natural and Positive Right, basically a liberal invention.

[DaniCatBurger]

Our modern Law System is the product of Natural and Positive Right, basically a liberal invention.

It is indeed.

Because morals and ethics are a human creation realistically independent of and unrelated to the concept of a god.

1. Ethics related to public spaces deserve to be secular.
2. Religious Ethics can be private.
3. Public spaces require fairness and non discriminatory outlooks as ethical ends, though.
4. Private Ethics may include discriminatory aspects.
5. Ergo it would be unfair to expect from private Ethics fairness because private Ethics consist in particular social metaphors.*
6. Ergo it would also be unfair to expect the Ethics related to public spaces to be based on particular social metaphors.

*the righteous, the faithful, the believer, the church, the holy community, the hadji, the family, etc.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Because morals and ethics are a human creation realistically independent of and unrelated to the concept of a god.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Without a doubt the worst argued OP that I've seen all week.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'll try to explain this chief:

My morals and ethics are based off of something called consent.

Basically if all parties agree to something it's okay and if they don't its not.

Then certain specific circumstances are given in which the additional condition that a party is not fit to give consent at that time is applied. This applies to children, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated, etc.

I always like using rape as my example of immorality so for example if a woman says no, it's rape (unless it's very clear she means yes.) If a child says yes it's still rape. If a mentally disabled person says yes its probably rape (depending on the severity of the condition and such) and if a girl is really drunk it's probably date rape.

How severe those crimes are is up to the public consensus, but there is clearly some sort of trespass occurring.

The highest authority is the individual, then their family, then society.

[Visna]

I was thinking about something interesting:

I've yet to see an "Atheist's Consortium" or some sort of gathering which nailed down a common Atheistic worldview in regards to ethics & morals.

No, it's not interesting, it's actually pretty stupid.
There is no universal uniting figure in atheism, since the only thing uniting atheists is the lack of belief in a deity. Or multiple ones for that matter. So you can have atheists who believe in the healing power of crystals, atheists who while not believing in a deity still believe we have a soul for example and on to atheists who don't believe anything other than what is measureable and can hold up to scientific scrutiny. The notion that they should have a convention to define their universal ethics and morals is absurd.

I will also say that many, not all, Atheists try to be "good" people who largely base their actions upon the Christian theological framework, albeit subconsciously or consciously.

Which is what exactly?

Most Atheists that I know or am aware of hold a humanistic worldview which makes humans the most evolved thing on this planet.

Then those atheists are wrong or you are misunderstanding them. There is no "most evolved thing". The idea that evolution is about some form of ladder, a ranking system for all living creatures with humans at the top is deranged.

I submit this:

The Atheistic position on morals & ethics is NOT viable.
Why?
Human moral/ethical inconsistency which is based on fluctuating emotionalism coupled with a metaphysic which is underscored by nihilism.

Let me iterate something more to think about:
Humanism is not necessarily Atheism but the converse is true.

This is a fact that many Atheists seem to overlook consistently........

hellas1.5

Maybe it's because it's not a fact.

[Khassaki]

I will also say that many, not all, Atheists try to be "good" people who largely base their actions upon the Christian theological framework, albeit subconsciously or consciously.

So? I'm sure I would not have a problem with 80% of the laws a particular mainstream religion comes up with. Religion is not evil and neither is atheism. They are views that colour the way people chose to see the universe and the rules they live their lives by.

My moral compass hasn't changed at from when I was a catholic to my current views as a atheist. Some of the finest people I have known have been theists of some description. As long as they don't espouse their religious views I keep mine to myself as well. I value their opinion and trust their judgement on many things.

[Ancient Aliens]

How do atheists base their morals on the Christian theological framework? We don't believe that the Abrahamic God, or any gods period, exist.

He is right on this point. A majority of atheists indeed do base their morals on Christian moral code.

For example:

-Do you think human beings have intrinsic value?
-Do you believe in good and evil?
-Do you believe in right and wrong?

These beliefs are residual of Christian moral code. True rejection of theology means a rejection of the values that were forced upon us by theologians. This is where Neitzchean philosophy comes into play; advocating the removal of antiquated moral code and the formation of new moral code.

What the OP fails to realize, though, is that all atheists are not in fact "all humanists". I think human beings and their actions are intrinsically worthless. I believe that good, evil, right, and wrong are abstract creations of society, and are only as real as we make them. The OP should consider the fact that each person, including atheists, are different, as are their philosophies.

[Eofor]

He is right on this point. A majority of atheists indeed do base their morals on Christian moral code.

For example:

-Do you think human beings have intrinsic value?
-Do you believe in good and evil?
-Do you believe in right and wrong?

These beliefs are residual of Christian moral code. True rejection of theology means a rejection of the values that were forced upon us by theologians. This is where Neitzchean philosophy comes into play; advocating the removal of antiquated moral code and the formation of new moral code.

What the OP fails to realize, though, is that all atheists are not in fact "all humanists". I think human beings and their actions are intrinsically worthless. I believe that good, evil, right, and wrong are abstract creations of society, and are only as real as we make them. The OP should consider the fact that each person, including atheists, are different, as are their philosophies.

No they aren't. Good and evil, right and wrong, all cultures have a sense of those regardless of their religion. And what is good/right or evil/wrong can be entirely subjective.

[Ancient Aliens]

No they aren't. Good and evil, right and wrong, all cultures have a sense of those regardless of their religion. And what is good/right or evil/wrong can be entirely subjective.

That was exactly my point. Christians subjectively accept the existence of good, evil, right, and wrong. Most 'atheists' do this as well, from where do you believe they absorbed this belief this from?

[Eofor]

That was exactly my point. Christians subjectively accept the existence of good, evil, right, and wrong. Most 'atheists' do this as well, from where do you believe they absorbed this belief this from?

I got a lot of what I consider right and wrong from my parents, both of whom are Christian but neither of whom draw their opinions of what is right or wrong exclusively from the Bible. Of course there are Christians who do things like raping and using children as soldiers, which I'm sure everyone here agrees is wrong regardless of religion.
And, of course, that doesn't explain what atheists from non-Christian countries, say Japan for example, think or what their morals are/where they come from.
Also, I like how you put atheists in quotation marks, implying that they're actually secretly Christian or something.

[Taiji]

That was exactly my point. Christians subjectively accept the existence of good, evil, right, and wrong. Most 'atheists' do this as well, from where do you believe they absorbed this belief this from?

Which 'they'? The Christians or the atheists?

Personally I think Christians probably nicked it from other theists who had previously picked it up from atheists. I'd imagine the idea that something is good and something else is bad predates religion and theism. In fact there's probably a pig out there with a concept of good and evil. It probably predates conscious thought, it's so basic (and flawed) a model.

[Exarch]

this ought to explain it better than anything else

the notion that human beings require a set of 'divinely inspired' ie bronze age mandated rules in order to be upright moral beings is absurd

[Sphere]

Atheism is itself amoral.

But for the rest of my point I'll employ the far more elegant Bertrand Russell ...

That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's salvation henceforth be safely built.

In short we cannot build a viable system of morality that is independent from reality.

[XIII]

In short we cannot build a viable system of morality that is independent from reality.

Or independent of God. All such moral structures are doomed to failure because of the lack of a foundation to anchor them on. Best just cease calling them moral and just call them out for what they are: arbitrary descriptions of taste.

[Tankbuster]

Or independent of God. All such moral structures are doomed to failure because of the lack of a foundation to anchor them on. Best just cease calling them moral and just call them out for what they are: arbitrary descriptions of taste.

It's no more or less arbitrary than our perceptions of physical health. The same criteria you use to decide that moral structures don't have "a foundation" can be applied in just the same way to our "health structures".

The kind of religious believers that insist that morality can only be objective if it comes from a God, somehow have no problem accepting the concept of physical health without it coming from God.
Both those concepts are - though theoretically arbitrary - quite easy to establish from a rationality-based point of view, given some very basic assumptions. Nobody objects to such simple assumptions when we base medicine upon it, or science, but somehow when we are talking about morality, every assumption needs to be subjected to the sort of hyper-skepticism that no human system could ever survive. That makes no sense.

If anything I would argue that the fact that humans ground their morality in terms of well-being is more solid than the ideas on which we ground science or medicine.

[XIII]

It's no more or less arbitrary than our perceptions of physical health. The same criteria you use to decide that moral structures don't have "a foundation" can be applied in just the same way to our "health structures".

This merits a bit more elaboration. Explain how exactly morality is analogous to physical health?

[Tankbuster]

This merits a bit more elaboration. Explain how exactly morality is analogous to physical health?

I'm asking how you are going to define the purpose of medicine in a way that is any more objective than morality. You object to the later and call it an "arbitrary description", so my question is whether or not you view the concept of health as an "arbitrary description" as well.

In other words, if someone is vomiting all the time and will die before he is 45, what is the process you use to determine whether or not this person is healthy?
I imagine the justification you use is going to be a mixture of simple assumptions and values ("Someone who dies at a very early age is unhealthy") and a knowledge of biology ("Vomiting is not the purpose of the human body and it's not its normal state of operation"). Morality can work the same way.

Is it objective in the sense that nobody could reject it? No, nothing is.
But it is objective in the sense that it offers a framework of simple (and complex) criteria whereby some actions can be said to be more moral than others. Morality is objective in precisely the way medicine is, and subjective in just the same way.