Philosophy question to an Atheistic worldview?

Question

Atheists, looking for a rational explanation on morals?

Do you believe morals are true? and why?

As I understand it, all Atheists have morals (that is not my question) but I do not see a reason, in an Atheistic worldview, to say that morals are true.

Can we say that objectively one action actually has a value to it that differs from another? Where does this value come from?

I know you have morals, I just don't think your worldview seems to support them in any degree other than that they work. Of coarse the fact that they work is of no independent value.

I hope I am understandable here.

In an Atheistic worldview can morals actually be independently true? Or are they just social constructs in which case guilt is an illusion and torturing babies for fun is the same as smelling daisies, morally speaking?

I have never heard this issue addressed by an Atheist, looking for your honest thoughts on it, not trying to attack you but want to have clarity on what you believe

Answer 1

Try Here http://www.click-pusher.com

Answer 2

Read Atlas Shrugged or at least John Galt's speech that is taken out of the book.

Answer 3

You seem to have quite a few questions...Which one would you like to start with?

Answer 4

Morals are relative, everyone should realize this. The reason agnostics and atheists act like they have morals is because of personal preference. Yes, technically there's nothing 'wrong' with torture, since right and wrong don't exist, but I have no desire to do it and I don't want others in society to do it either, it's not a society I want to live in. I don't like to hurt people, so I don't, I don't like it when others hurt people so I'm against that. It's really that simple.

Answer 5

Morality to me is a bunch of internalized norms of our social environment and a conscious choice not to deviate from those to any meaningful degree. It's the same for religious people only they are, in my opinion, confused about the source of those norms. I chose to remain moral to a degree as I see morality to be essential to harmonious and efficient existence.  

Answer 6

The Golden Rule requires no concept of God, only of Self.

Answer 7

In one form or fashion I write about this everyday in my international blog. I even keep a quote on the subject in a block of text in the left hand column.

Morals can be very objectified if one wants to make them so, and since atheists have no higher "power" than themselves, e.g., no god on which to fall back to for forgiveness, we must make our own morals as objective as possible.

Answer 8

in a way without sounding big headed atheists are better because we JUST have morals

people of religion are going it for god, so they can be granted with eternal life

i have moral values because i would like to think its the way i was raised

there doesn't have to be a reason for doing something.

might be instinct? ever thought about that?

anyway I'm rambling

idk

religion/atheism arguments will never end

as long as one person believes in any god the religion will continue

maybe i need to see god, i know that's testing your lord but i think i ACTUALLY need a religious experience to open my eyes

and the baby bit is that a dig towards atheists views on abortion? because i find it totally wrong however if you ban it then there will be illegal procedures that will cause death

i think the world is adapting without religion and in the future when we are visited by extraterrestrial life religion will become obsolete, unless they have similar religious views

Answer 9

huh?

Answer 10

morality is based on the results of actions as far as science and knowledge can predict. it is logically based. there is a difference between killing a fly and a human being, because of the mental capacities of flies. because essentially killing a fly doesn't hurt anyone that has the mental capabilities to be aware that they are perceiving. killing a human being ends a self aware life, and hurts all those that would miss them, also if you can kill another, then your life is in danger of being taken away.

so i don't think there would be much more than "work for society", but we would need to agree on exactly what that means. the laws we have, i don't think are necessarily the most moral. but they might work the best for instance, for a capitalist society. so to me, laws and morality differ greatly.

morality is the results of actions, the more you know, the better you can know or predict the results of actions, the farther in the future you can predict the results. "the only evil is ignorance" i think plato said that, maybe aristotle or socrates. so in the end man is limited in their ability to act morally since our knowledge is limited, and the only way we can improve our morality, is to improve what we know, and the only way we can improve what we know is through science.

so from my perspective, religion is actually preventative on increasing knowledge, and therefore is in a sense immoral, though, many of the ideals proposed as good in religion are consist to those conclusions you would need to arrive to when considering the actions logically.

a mind that is convinced it begins by being right, and is not willing to admit or consider it may be wrong, is a mind incapable of learning. a mind that wishes to be wrong, and searches to be wrong, and will not believe it is right until it has seen very strong, or conclusive, perhaps seemingly conclusive evidence, and even then if finding conflicting perhaps more conclusive evidence describing otherwise, is a mind that will constantly be learning, that will accumulate much knowledge, that will perceive the results of actions with more clarity, in more detail. this mind is more moral than the first. morality is knowledge.

i believe all do what they believe is right. always. but some have twisted views of what right is, like hitler. they are miseducated.

that's why in your religion, it makes sense to say, forgive them father, they know not what they do. that is why god is said to forgive, that is why every man sins.



i think your morals came from jesus, not god, though we could debate that forever.

but i am sure jesus derived all his morals this way. but spread them under the guise of god. and then later other people just assume the conclusions he would have arrived at, things like g*y marriage being illegal and abortion.

certainly you would think me wrong, and you right, though since you belong to religion and i do not, what i am certain of is that your set of knowledge and beliefs comes from your religion, and thus cannot be changing, however mine began completely unsure, unsure about religion, my primary school was catholic, i was unsure about everything and i think as i do now, from much scrutiny, from learning in every field, without limitations imposed on me by what would be my beliefs. so then the odds it seems, would be in my favor.

Answer 11

I understand your question and I don't know the answer.Morality is Man's relationship with fellow human beings and perhaps with other living things.Religion is about Man's relationship with God.How are these two related?It is a complex question.

Answer 12

Morality is subjective, just like any other matter of opinion, so of course there can't be an objective basis to it (in the same way that you can't say that vanilla ice cream is objectively nicer than strawberry ice cream).  Email me if you have any questions.

Answer 13

Well, where to start, where to start...

First off, what I've read of the answers so far:

Alecto13 (and the guy asking the question here): to state that there is one 'true moral' is absurd from a purely atheistic point of view, because atheism doesn't contain any morals. It is almost as absurd as asking what morals theistic people have. As you already said in your Edit. It does, however, answer the question, so I'll leave it in.

stevestevester2. I'd give you a thumbs up if I could (seems I have to be lvl2 <.<) I must, however, correct the

"Morality is not derivative of theological existence. This might be difficult for you to understand, but the nonexistence of a deity doesn't make sentient beings automatically devolve into animals or "baby torturers.""

bit. From almost any theistic point of view, morals do derive from one or more dieties. Since the questioner seems to be a christian, his question, while ignorant, is valid, because if his view of life is the right one, then we really would be child molesters the whole bunch of us. Unless some god made us with a buildt-in moral compas. Which raises the question why we aren't all christians? which raises the question of the devil... and so on and so forth. Anywho, that is another line of thought. The point is that, from a certain christian view, his question is valid, however ludicris it is to the rest of us.

He might as well be a santa- follower wondering why all the kids who doesn't believe in santa still gets present every christmass...

Answer 14

morals are not independently true in the sense you seem to be alluding to.

they do "work" for society, and that is why we have them; either from our own human logic (unlikely) or because our chromosomes have mutated to provide us with a conscience, thereby sustaining our species (likely).

the existence of god, in my opinion, is extremely unlikely; but i commend religion for giving humanity organized morals and encouraging them. the morals were already there in our genes; but due to conflicting animal instincts, many need imagined authority to encourage adherence.

why would we need value for morals beyond that which profits society, our survival as a species, and our own mental health?

those are reason enough.

Answer 15

Do you really think your morals came from your religion and that the lack of religion would actually lead one to be unable to distinguish between killing babies and smelling daisies? Of course religion teaches you good behavior (most religions), but that's still not where you got your morals. They are innately yours.

Answer 16

This question is ridiculous. Atheism is accompanied by humanism or another moral code.

"Do you believe morals are true" - This is incoherent.

Morality is not derivative of theological existence. This might be difficult for you to understand, but the nonexistence of a deity doesn't make sentient beings automatically devolve into animals or "baby torturers."

Dear YAHOO ANSWERS,

Do your own research before simply posting ignorant questions on this site and lowering everyone's intelligence.

All the best,

_________

(EDIT: Question written by "Intelligent Beliefs," a youth pastor.

Here is a question for you: Why is religion so threatened by atheism? Atheism is not a kindred spirit of Satanic worship; atheists don't even ask that others accept their metaphysical worldview.

Jesus preached - he didn't coax others into religion through fear and sophistry.)

Answer 17

For me, morals cannot be independently true unless they stem from the only independently true moral, which is do not trespass on others' ability to live their lives how they want to.

Edit: The guy below me (stevestevester2), however, is right.  This is from a secular humanist point of view.  Atheism defines no morals, and a question relating morals to atheism is ridiculous.

Answer 18

Morals are commonsense.  Not a good idea to steal. Usually not a good idea to kill - certainly not in cold blood.  Probably shouldn't sleep with your neighbors wife, as that is a good way to get killed. ETC. ETC.

But as for there being some universal set of morals? No. Not one bit.  They are entirely a social construct.  

The cold hard reality is that you are correct in saying : "Or are they just social constructs in which case guilt is an illusion and torturing babies for fun is the same as smelling daisies, morally speaking?"

So, objectively speaking, no one action does have a "value" that differs from any other action.  

As you say, not other than the fact that one may work out better than the other.

Answer 19

i suppose killing babies and smelling daisies would be the simplistic way to describe the velues of an atheist looking onto this world. BUT

just because an atheist doesn't believe in a higher being, doesn't mean they don't believe in people.

sure a family dinner will pray to god and thank him for their meal. but atheists would thank their mothers for cooking (or fathers). the value comes from interaction with humans and the belief in them instead of a higher being.

i believe...i think i understand your question?

Answer 20

An ethical system is a system of values.  What is more important than what.  Any ethical system works this way, if you look closely at them.

For example, most people would agree that it's not a good idea to steal things.  But if you ask whether it's okay to steal a loaf of bread to save a child from starving to death, the question becomes much harder.  The life of an innocent is a valuable thing to most people... perhaps valuable enough to make it worth violating the ethic of property in order to preserve the ethic of life.

And since any two ethics might ultimately become opposed in one way or another, a comprehensive system needs to tell you which to choose.  So all the values end up ranked in one way or another.

This leads us to the question of value.  I would hope that it almost goes without saying that there are many values that are not universal.  I happen to like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla, but I am sure there are many who feel differently.  Indeed, if all our values were identical, it would be impossible to conduct business in a manner where both sides profit.  So at least some values are subjective and personal, and the entirety of an ethical system is equally subjective and personal.  I don't think much of anyone would disagree with anything up to this point.

The only part where theists tend to get in a tussle with atheists is over the question of whether there are any values which are NOT subjective and personal.  Ones that are decreed important by some external or universal force, be it natural or divine.  Even in this there is less dispute than you might suspect.  Most theists, for example, will concede that even if life (for example) is important to the divine, there are any number of humans who decide not to heed that particular suggestion.  And your typical evolutionist would suggest that forces of nature tend to create in each species a desire for species survival if not individual survival (those which don't have such an interest tend to be wiped out, after all).

So as briefly as possible, yes, even an atheist might recognise some values as pretty much universal and caused by universal forces.  Let us not downplay either the effects of society and psychology, both of which might be boiled down to scientific means as well.  Beyond that, yes, I think most would just say it's a matter of preference... but since they prefer to have the code they do, I think most would also argue that they adhere all the better to it.

My take, for what it's worth.  Peace.

Answer 21

This is a great question.

I don't believe morals are faith-specific either.

They are a subjective foundation of rules for life that each person creates based on experience and teachings of others.

I'm not entirely sure I consider myself an Atheist, but I'm not very religious and don't really believe in everything religion has tried to teach me.

But aside from the fact that morals work for society, they also work for us personally.  Morals are true in the sense that they are true to the individual, and as individuals, we know it benefits us and makes us happy to be around other individuals with similar morals.

Torturing babies brings with it an inherent guilt any normal person would experience even if they were never taught any specific faith or religion.  Its human emotion and intelligence, not faith, that people tend to build their morals around.  

I hope that helps to answer your question.

Answer 22

In order to live, we must act.

In order to act, we must make decisions.

In order to make decisions, we must have a code of values guiding these decisions.

To have a code is not a choice; the only choice we have is to base that code on reason and reality, or to base it on whatever undigested slogans or half-remembered bad advice pops into our heads whenever we need to make a decision.

People can physically survive on the latter. However, people are being of conceptual consciousness; using the power of minds is the reason why survived in a world with animals faster and more powerful than we are. To realize that level of cognitive potential requires more than merely coasting through life and it has a reward: a specific conscious state. I will elaborate on this a bit later, as it will become more clear.

Values are things that we would be willing to act to gain or to keep. A value is not necessarily intrinsic to objects themselves, nor are they subjective and arbitrary. "Goodness" in a value depends on a measure of that value relative to some aspect of reality. Because we must remain alive to pursue values at all, it holds that, the more a value supports our lives, the better that value is.

Ultimately, the self is the ultimate ethical purpose. However, this does not necessite ignoring people and sacrificing others to yourself. Indeed, holding specific individuals as values (such as, for example, I do with my wife) does much more for your life than doing without those people.

A "virtue" is a behavior by which a person will gain or keep a value. They are guidelines about how to act. Some virtues (I won't list them all here) are:

-Productivity. constantly working towards your values. This doesn't mean not to rest; indeed, resting is necessary to have enough energy to work towards what you are trying to achieve. Rather, you should always be working towards your goals. Mindlessly spending time on things unimportant to you really is ultimately a waste.

-Honesty. To identify reality clearly so that you can make wise decisions accordingly. Honesty with others allows trust to flow between you and others, allowing you to work together to further your values.

-Integrity. This means not divorcing your mind from reality. If you believe that acting in a certain way is right, then you take those actions, even if the people around you might harbor disagreement.

The outcome, following this system, is the achievement and maintainence of the values you live by. The conscious state achieved by doing so? Happiness. By happiness, I don't mean mindless diversion, but the content peace of mind that comes from always knowing that everything you desire is in your reach, and that the people you hold dearest are being taken care of to the best of your ability.

Answer 23

How on earth can something be called 'good' or 'bad' unless there is an ultimate code against which to measure it?

I don't believe anyone ever said morals did not 'predate religion'.  The ultimate code could've easily been around before religion.

Unless there is an ultimate code, then everything is fluid.   I believe you are absolutely correct in stating that, in the absence of said code,  no action is and less good or bad than another.

It's interesting that the atheists out here seem to think morals "just are".   How odd that when one says God "just is", they are met with derision and ridicule.

I am eager to see the responses here.

---- added ----

Wow.   Even some Ayn Rand thrown in.    Again, it's interesting that people simply throw around words/concepts such as "values", "morals" and "sentient beings".   "Sentient beings"???  From where do such beings originate?

This is the first question I've seen where atheists have started throwing around concepts and expect readers to "just believe".    I thought they were pretty set on what science proves.

And why does one individual state that Christians think of themselves as "moral"?  Once again, the populace is confused.   Only deluded Christians think of themselves in such terms.  A concept of Christianity is that ultimate morality exists and has always existed.

That said, I read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and many of the articles were quite interesting.  However, she mentions concepts such as honesty, integrity, productivity as though they have no place in a society that believes in a higher power.

Answer 24

Yes, based on experience I believe morals are true, but I cannot prove or disprove this, so far I have never read or talk to an atheist who asserts he or she knows where or morals come from, however there are some scientific theories out there.

If you don't a reason to an atheist having morals that because you think that morality is dependent on religion, so I don't think there's anything we can say to you about this unless you start considering other possibilities, the other problem is that you're asking atheist to explain something that science hasn't fully explained yet, which doesn't seem fair to me.

"Can we say that objectively one action actually has a value to it that differs from another? Where does this value come from?"

Again, we believe that it comes from humans themselves, but science still doesn't fully understand morality so how are we supposed to answer this question for you?

"In an Atheistic worldview can morals actually be independently true? Or are they just social constructs in which case guilt is an illusion and torturing babies for fun is the same as smelling daisies, morally speaking?"

No, they're human morals, because, we're......humans. Think about this, most people in the US think that killing a dog and eating it is an cruel act but they don't feel the same way about pigs, why? Because we care about dogs, they're our pets, and humans find them cute because they resemble human babies, pigs are ugly and very tasty so we don't really care much about them. In this case, we feel in a certain way about because we're humans, if we were evolved roaches we probably wouldn't care much about dogs.

They're a lot of thinkers on this issue, do a search on youtube and google video and you'll find several videos.

The whole thing about God sounds pretty but I don't know where you got all that from if you say that morals didn't come from religion but from God, then we would get into the personal God without religion debate, which I don't really want to.

Answer 25

What do you mean by true?  Because morals exist of course.  Evolution has shown that a group that will act for the collective good will have an advantage genetically over one that acts only for the betterment of the individuals.

What do you mean by "the fact that they work is of no independent value?"  Things that work exist because they work.  If they had no use and no value, they would be simply superstition, like when people say Bless you after a sneeze.  The soul isn't really going to pop out of the body and ping around the room like a balloon letting out the air.  Plus,  one rarely says to the person who give the blessing, "Are you a believer?"  They usually say, "Thanks" and then get on with their business.

If your belief in a deity gives you comfort in times of stress, why would an atheist want to deprive you of it?  That would be cruel and immoral.

Answer 26

You say that morals come from God and that they don't come from religion.  So that sounds as if you would agree that they don't come from BELIEF in God, but from the EXPERIENCE of God.  Or, to put it another way, from being in touch with, in a state of unity with, what is godly, holy, and righteous within oneself.  They come from having a loving heart.   Moral behavior flows from love.  And an atheist is just as capable of love as a theist.  The only difference is that one calls it God, the other doesn't.  But it doesn't matter what you call it, only that you have it.