Can Atheists be Moral? Can the Religious?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Can Atheists be Moral? Can the religious be moral?

I've heard the idea that atheists can't be moral, because physically, we're all just selfish apes, protecting and increasing our genes, and without some supernatural addition to this formula, good is not possible. The ape mother protects her child because that increases her genes. This act, the idea goes, is not moral, but selfish. Any time a human helps another human, this idea would apply.

I've also heard that religious people can't really be moral because whatever they do that is supposedly moral, they don't do it for its own sake, but for the reward. I've even heard that religious people can't be moral because their morality is unthinking. Random total obedience is morally neutral at best, so, the idea goes, if you're just blindly trusting somebody, even a powerful entity, that's not really morality.

Both of these ideas frankly seem to hold water so I'm curious if anyone can be moral.

[help3434]

That's a separate question from what I've been addressing. We can move there, but I want to make sure we are on the same page on what I've been talking about so far. I've claimed that (1) theism could give us objective morality. You seem to be agreeing with that here and then asking, but why think morality is objective.

I'm not sure I do, if you are talking about the actual us living in our reality. That is why I don't think it is a separate question.

I've also claimed that (2) atheism doesn't, if true, give us objective morality. Do you agree with that?

Again, it depends if you are talking us as we actually exist or if you allow for a hypothetical were we have a uniform and predictable nature. If we did I think it would make sense to call the morality that would arise out of that situation objective even if this nature didn't come from intelligent creator.

[The Tanager]

I'm not sure I do, if you are talking about the actual us living in our reality. That is why I don't think it is a separate question.

I mean, the rest of reality as it actually is, what would follow if (some forms of) theism were true? Would morality be objective? That seems clearly a separate question to me from: with the rest of reality as it actually is, is morality objective.

Again, it depends if you are talking us as we actually exist or if you allow for a hypothetical were we have a uniform and predictable nature. If we did I think it would make sense to call the morality that would arise out of that situation objective even if this nature didn't come from intelligent creator.

I don’t see how uniformity (which I think is the actual case) and predictability would make it make sense to say morality is objective. Why do you think that follows?

[help3434]

I mean, the rest of reality as it actually is, what would follow if (some forms of) theism were true? Would morality be objective?

How would some form of theism being true change the morality that arises between the interaction between our natures?

I don’t see how uniformity (which I think is the actual case) and predictability would make it make sense to say morality is objective. Why do you think that follows?

It would allow us to derive objective moral laws.

[The Tanager]

How would some form of theism being true change the morality that arises between the interaction between our natures?

Because God could give us a different nature than what we could get without an intentional agent behind our coming to be.

It would allow us to derive objective moral laws.

How would uniformity and predictability allow us to derive objective moral laws? Lay out the reasoning.

[help3434]

Because God could give us a different nature than what we could get without an intentional agent behind our coming to be.

I mean given the natures we have that we all can see and study, how does have a God behind the scenes fundamentally change the nature of our morality?

How would uniformity and predictability allow us to derive objective moral laws? Lay out the reasoning.

We would be able to figure out what is best for everybody, and at some level even for society.

[The Tanager]

I mean given the natures we have that we all can see and study, how does have a God behind the scenes fundamentally change the nature of our morality?

Sources have a lot to do with the effects. If God is the source of our moral nature, having a God fundamentally changes the nature of our morality. So, I'm not really sure what your point is here.

We would be able to figure out what is best for everybody, and at some level even for society.

There are different bests depending on what one’s goal is. You need a way to determine what goal should be pursued. Intentionality can produce what goal should be pursued. But atheistic worldviews don't believe in intentionality in our creation. So, what is the thing that produces what goal should be pursued?

[help3434]

Sources have a lot to do with the effects. If God is the source of our moral nature, having a God fundamentally changes the nature of our morality. So, I'm not really sure what your point is here.

We are already see the effects. The effects are our human natures and how they interact with each other. If I steal from my neighbor I have made his life harder, whether he was created by God or not, so where is this fundamental change in morality?

There are different bests depending on what one’s goal is. You need a way to determine what goal should be pursued. Intentionality can produce what goal should be pursued. But atheistic worldviews don't believe in intentionality in our creation. So, what is the thing that produces what goal should be pursued?

I hope that we can agree than not taking onto consideration the wellbeing of others all is no one's definition morality. Therefore a moral person would have the goal to help and not harm the wellbeing of others. In the possible world I am thinking of it would be possible to objectively derive how to do that, whether or not that possible world was created by an intentional being.

[The Tanager]

We are already see the effects. The effects are our human natures and how they interact with each other. If I steal from my neighbor I have made his life harder, whether he was created by God or not, so where is this fundamental change in morality?

It’s what follows from “making his life harder” that is different. If our nature has a moral law applied to it (like the law of physics, laws of logic, mathematical laws apply to it), then “making life harder” could lead away from our intended goal of “living morally” and is, therefore, objectively bad.

Without God, there is no intended goal because there is no intention behind our natures. “Making life harder” is bad for the goal you want, but other people have goals that are better served by making the lives of others harder. There are subjective goals desired and no objective standard to judge one as better than the other.

Now, subjective goals do exist on theism (at least the version I think is true), but there is that objective standard, the objective goal that can judge one person’s desire against another.

I hope that we can agree than not taking onto consideration the wellbeing of others all is no one's definition morality. Therefore a moral person would have the goal to help and not harm the wellbeing of others. In the possible world I am thinking of it would be possible to objectively derive how to do that, whether or not that possible world was created by an intentional being.

Have you ever heard of ethical egoism? It says that the moral action has nothing to do with the well-being of others. You ought to do what is best for you, whether someone else benefits or not. There are plenty of ethical egoists in the world (even if they don’t know that title or may try to say they follow a different morality). People often seek their well-being above all and at the cost of the well-being of other people.

I believe they are wrong (and not just different) for doing so, but I can only say that as an objectivist. And, as far as I can tell now, objectivism can only be true if God exists.

[nameless]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]
"Can Atheists be Moral? Can the religious be moral?"
~~~ Morality is judgmentalism; you judge (always with insufficient knowledge) if something/one is 'good' or 'bad' or 'evil', etc...
I find Atheists to be equally as judgmental as "the religious".
Bye the bye, you name a specific religion by naming Atheists, but then after the 'vs' there was religion in general, of which Atheists are a feature. The question seems skewed.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

Bye the bye, you name a specific religion by naming Atheists...

I see you've decided to dip your toe back into debate. Debate requires one to support one's claims with evidence sufficient to support those claims. Can you present any to support your claim above?


Tcg