Is morality an illusion?

[olavisjo]

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to an atheist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be favorable to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

[McCulloch]

Where did you get the idea that there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way for an atheist?

If I feel an obligation to behave in the right way, then is that not morality? If you feel an behave in the right way because you have been told that an omnipotent God will be sad, angry or punish you if you do the wrong things, can that really be called morality?

[Solon]

If I feel an obligation to behave in the right way, then is that not morality? If you feel an behave in the right way because you have been told that an omnipotent God will be sad, angry or punish you if you do the wrong things, can that really be called morality?

I believe what you describe here, McCulloch, would be "moral" behavior motivated by coercion, the threat of eternal punishment, the displeasure of a supreme being, unfavorable crops, etc. When one gains things through coercion, this is generally referred to as extortion. Whatever obligation is felt, the "right things" are not done because they are good in themselves, but rather to ward off a threat or gain an advantage (bribery rather than extortion). They may be moral in the sense that they are habitual or customary from the Latin mors. Ethics can similarly be understood as it comes from the Greek word with a nearly identical meaning of habit or custom.

Morals do exist in reality since we can see habits and customs, manners in which people consistently act towards one another. (The same for ethics) People disagree on what constitutes proper or "right" morals. This is orthodoxy for each group; literally the right/correct (orthos) opinions (doxa) or correct according to opinion alternately.

Atheism itself does not provide any direct commentary of morality, only on the belief in a god or gods. There are logical necessities that flollow from this position Atheism and divine command theory are mutually exclusive for instance, however it does not necessarily follow from atheism that there is no morality at all or that nothing is logically necessary. That would depend on what other beliefs are held by each individual as being true.

[olavisjo]

Where did you get the idea that there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way for an atheist?

If I feel an obligation to behave in the right way, then is that not morality? If you feel an behave in the right way because you have been told that an omnipotent God will be sad, angry or punish you if you do the wrong things, can that really be called morality?

It is possible for you to feel an obligation, but that does not mean that there really is an obligation. It is the same as I can feel that there is a God, but that does not mean that there really is a God.
As hard as I try, I can find no good reason why an atheist "should" feel the obligation, although many do feel it, but it is only an illusion left over from millions of years of evolution, it may benefit the species in the long run, but now it only serves to limit your options.

Morals do exist in reality since we can see habits and customs, manners in which people consistently act towards one another.

Yes, morals certainly do exist, and I have to say more often than not atheist morals are very good. But, what I am asking is why should anyone be obligated to follow those morals? I have never heard a good answer to that question from an atheist.

[Solon]

Morals do exist in reality since we can see habits and customs, manners in which people consistently act towards one another.

Yes, morals certainly do exist, and I have to say more often than not atheist morals are very good.

I find the above statement problematic, and possibly the root cause of the question you have raised. What are atheist morals? This, I believe, is like referring to brunette morals or cheese-head morals. The adjectival descriptor does not make reference to a group with any unified moral system. There are no atheist morals, but there are atheists who ascribe to a particular moral system. Two atheists who have identical or similar morals is not because they are both atheists, but rather because they are both also something else besides which is the source of their morals. In order to discover why atheists, or those who feel an obligation to a particular set of morals at any rate, believe what they do you would have to ask each one individually the same you would need to do for brunettes or Packers fans. All I can say is that morals exist under some definition of the word and people, some of them atheists, follow particular sets of morals.

But, what I am asking is why should anyone be obligated to follow those morals? I have never heard a good answer to that question from an atheist.

Each atheist would have a different answer to that, or no answer or say that no one ought to do anything in particular. Their being an atheist will not drive a particular answer, it will only prevent answers that call upon the will or existence of a deity to impel behavior.

Personally I don't know that anyone ought to follow any particular set of morals. Possibly expediency or out of a common social goal, but that is up to individuals who decide to be a part of a group to determine. I hold myself to a particular set of rules for my conduct regard others and in general, I don't feel obligated by any outside force, and I do not feel the need to make others feel obligated to follow my rules of conduct. I tend to only care when another's morals drive them to attempt harm to other individuals or to the community at large. I wouldn't even require them to cease believing in their morals, but I would not put up with them remaining where they seek to do harm.

[olavisjo]

Yes, morals certainly do exist, and I have to say more often than not atheist morals are very good.

I find the above statement problematic, and possibly the root cause of the question you have raised. What are atheist morals?

I was not trying to say that atheists have any different or no morals, I was just saying that we do not need to believe in a deity to be moral. We are all moral when we want to be, the problem is that there is nothing to compel us to be moral when we don't want to be.

Personally I don't know that anyone ought to follow any particular set of morals.

I think that you and I agree on that one, there is no reason that anyone ought to follow any set of morals, other than the existence of a deity to impel behavior.

[Solon]

I was not trying to say that atheists have any different or no morals, I was just saying that we do not need to believe in a deity to be moral. We are all moral when we want to be, the problem is that there is nothing to compel us to be moral when we don't want to be.

There is nothing that compels us to obey habit or custom unless we choose to? Assuming free will exists, nothing forces us to act in any particular way at all.

I think that you and I agree on that one, there is no reason that anyone ought to follow any set of morals, other than the existence of a deity to impel behavior.

I think you misunderstand me. I personally do not have anything outside of myself to compel me to my specific personal morals, but you could say it is in my nature or a part of my identity that I act as I do. My morals are tied to my sense of identity. Not everyone has this as a reason for following a particular set of morals, it is simply my reason for why I ought to act in a certain way.

I don't know that the existence of a deity would compel behavior unless one also believed in such a deity and decided it was a good idea to follow that deity. Some may have believed in Ahriman, an "evil" deity, and still not thought it a good idea to act as he would have them act. Others may believe a variety of deities exist and only worship and follow some of them. I am saying people choose a reason for them to behave according to some set of morals, they may choose the belief that a deity exists or something else. Atheists, by definition cannot have that particular reason, but belief in a deity compels no more than belief in something else. In the end it is still simply one's belief, regardless of what actually is, that drives behavior.

[olavisjo]

Atheists, by definition cannot have that particular reason, but belief in a deity compels no more than belief in something else. In the end it is still simply one's belief, regardless of what actually is, that drives behavior.

Again, let me say that I was not looking for what drives behaviour, but rather what compels behavior. In atheism there is nothing. But if God does exist, he would have to power to compel us to do and say exactly what he desires, even if we feel that God is "evil". So my point is that morality is obligatory only if it will be enforced absolutely.
Human law enforcement has a limited ability to make us behave, as we can escape it by stealth, but an omniscient and omnipotent God has the ability to make sure that we will eventually "pay" for all our transgressions against his morality.
If there were no God, then there would be no debt to be paid for immoral behaviour as long as we get away with it undetected, if there is no debt then there is no compulsive morality.

[byofrcs]

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to an atheist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be favorable to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to a theist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the theist will redefine morality as righteous and sinful behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be righteous to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should a theist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

(ps: Note to theists: please use just ONE bullet on yourself i.e. please avoid using aircraft, plastic explosives strapped to your body, fertiliser bombs in trucks and any other way that causes giblets of other people to go flying.)

[Solon]

Again, let me say that I was not looking for what drives behavior, but rather what compels behavior.

People can feel a compulsion based upon belief, however you seem to mean compulsion in that their minds or bodies are forcibly taken over by some power.

In atheism there is nothing.

In atheism? Atheism is not some monolithic set of beliefs or society, it is a single belief that may be held for a variety of reasons. However there could still be something to "compel" moral behavior.

But if God does exist, he would have to power to compel us to do and say exactly what he desires, even if we feel that God is "evil". So my point is that morality is obligatory only if it will be enforced absolutely.

At that point it is not moral behavior, as the actor is merely a meat puppet for another being. Without choice there cannot be moral action, for otherwise the actions are God's and not the actor's. If a god takes control of someone's body against their will and forces them to give away all their money to the poor, that is hardly a moral action on the part of the victim of control. The instant a theoretical "higher being" took such action all possibility of moral agency on the part of a mortal is erased.

Human law enforcement has a limited ability to make us behave, as we can escape it by stealth, but an omniscient and omnipotent God has the ability to make sure that we will eventually "pay" for all our transgressions against his morality.
If there were no God, then there would be no debt to be paid for immoral behavior as long as we get away with it undetected, if there is no debt then there is no compulsive morality.

This is a different argument than compulsion in this life, this is extorting preferred behavior through the threat of violence in the "afterlife". This is not exclusive to theists. Imagine a Buddhist atheist who does not believe in a god, but believes that the universe is naturally arranged such that those who do not act morally in this life are destined to repeat it in a lower form until they finally live a moral life. There is not god involved and yet the same threat of inescapable punishment remains.

If there is a god who forces us to act against our wills in this life, it is not moral since we are not choosing the action. The actions have no moral content for us. If the preferred moral behavior is enforced by the threat of violence or punishment then it is extortion, or at least nothing more than the same deterrence used by human law enforcement, but more efficient. The effect is limited by the lack of overt interaction with society at large by the deity to make his presence and will known beyond the shadow of all doubt for all people.