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.

[The Tanager]

I have not seen any good grounding for objective morality if atheism is true. As far as I have been able to tell, under atheism, there is no true good/evil, but just different tastes like we have with ice cream flavors determined by our socio-biological evolution and it could have been different. We could have evolved like certain animals who forcibly copulate or kill their mates after sex. I'm not sure I would call an action like protecting one's child "selfish," but it still wouldn't be good or evil.

As for the religious people being moral (if theism is true), while some people are good for some reward or out of blind obedience, I don't think that is what motivates most of the Christians I know. We try to be good for its own sake because of the dignity of humans and our desire to see them experience goodness.

[Purple Knight]

I have not seen any good grounding for objective morality if atheism is true. As far as I have been able to tell, under atheism, there is no true good/evil, but just different tastes like we have with ice cream flavors determined by our socio-biological evolution and it could have been different. We could have evolved like certain animals who forcibly copulate or kill their mates after sex. I'm not sure I would call an action like protecting one's child "selfish," but it still wouldn't be good or evil.

I actually agree with this. I think you can get something that works a lot better, or something that's a lot fairer, and if you want I can elaborate, but I don't think you can objectively ground that "the best benefit to the most people is good" or "that which is fair is good." A lot of people I know look up to the clever, the savvy, and the deceitful. They're smarter, so they deserve what they can take, but punch them to try to get it back and that's WRONG WRONG WRONG. It seems silly to me and very obviously constructed to very artificially advantage their own preferred strategy and waste resources protecting scammers from retribution when everyone is better off if that retribution occurs. But how do I prove "anything is fair game except punching" is immoral? I can't.

The best I believe I can ground objectively is that people who don't want scamming, have a right to self-exclude and live where no scamming is the rule. (And I do this by the simple absence of any ability to prove they are wrong to do so. If you want to scam just go elsewhere.)

As for the religious people being moral (if theism is true), while some people are good for some reward or out of blind obedience, I don't think that is what motivates most of the Christians I know. We try to be good for its own sake because of the dignity of humans and our desire to see them experience goodness.

Then why can an atheist not do the same? Lots of them do. (However I disagree that this equals morality.)

I don't see the difference between, "I love humans and protect their dignity because I have decided they're worthy of love and protection," and "I love humans and protect their dignity because God has decided they're worthy of love and protection."

It reduces to the same thing because you have, after all, still decided, personally, that what God says is good.

While I agree with your reason atheists can't ground objective morality, I disagree with your reason religious people can be moral. It seems nobody can be moral, because what people want is a morality that is not only totally internally bolt-from-the-blue, but that also goes to some objective correctitude.

People want, "murder is wrong" but they're upset with, "because somebody said so," and they're also upset with, "because it just is," since that can't be grounded objectively. They want it to be both logical, and totally irrational.

[The Tanager]

The best I believe I can ground objectively is that people who don't want scamming, have a right to self-exclude and live where no scamming is the rule. (And I do this by the simple absence of any ability to prove they are wrong to do so. If you want to scam just go elsewhere.)

But wouldn’t it be more beneficial for them to scam those who think they are living in a self-excluded no-scamming zone?

Then why can an atheist not do the same? Lots of them do. (However I disagree that this equals morality.)

I don't see the difference between, "I love humans and protect their dignity because I have decided they're worthy of love and protection," and "I love humans and protect their dignity because God has decided they're worthy of love and protection."

It reduces to the same thing because you have, after all, still decided, personally, that what God says is good.

While I agree with your reason atheists can't ground objective morality, I disagree with your reason religious people can be moral. It seems nobody can be moral, because what people want is a morality that is not only totally internally bolt-from-the-blue, but that also goes to some objective correctitude.

People want, "murder is wrong" but they're upset with, "because somebody said so," and they're also upset with, "because it just is," since that can't be grounded objectively. They want it to be both logical, and totally irrational.

I think the difference is between having a creator make a thing a certain way and a non-creator want something to be true of that thing. I can say I want to play a game of football with that sledgehammer because I’ve decided it would be fun, but that doesn’t make it so. It has a nature that makes that a bad idea for it and me. While Charles Goodyear designed a ball with a specific nature and for a specific purpose that does actually make a game of football fun. Not because Goodyear says so, but because Goodyear made it that way.

[Purple Knight]

The best I believe I can ground objectively is that people who don't want scamming, have a right to self-exclude and live where no scamming is the rule. (And I do this by the simple absence of any ability to prove they are wrong to do so. If you want to scam just go elsewhere.)

But wouldn’t it be more beneficial for them to scam those who think they are living in a self-excluded no-scamming zone?

Maybe I should have said, if you want to scam while protected from consequences, go elsewhere. If morality is not objective, and you affirm your right to carry out your subjective morality on them and scam them, then they too can affirm their right to carry out their subjective morality on you, and punish you for scamming.

There is no objective morality means your morality does not apply to me. Just as you can scam me even if I say it's not okay, I can punish you even if you say it's not okay. The punishment is not just, because what you did was not against your morality, but it is also not immoral, since I'm permitted to act on my own morality. You can even punish me for punishing you unjustly, and that's not immoral either. The only thing you can't do is truthfully claim the moral high ground.

I think the difference is between having a creator make a thing a certain way and a non-creator want something to be true of that thing. I can say I want to play a game of football with that sledgehammer because I’ve decided it would be fun, but that doesn’t make it so. It has a nature that makes that a bad idea for it and me. While Charles Goodyear designed a ball with a specific nature and for a specific purpose that does actually make a game of football fun. Not because Goodyear says so, but because Goodyear made it that way.

But since what is fun for you is still up to you, you don't have to care what Charles Goodyear has to say about it. You can like throwing that perfect spiral, and while I admit that you'd seem foolish if you liked attempting to throw a sledgehammer to a receiver without injuring him, just as much... you have as much, or more, say, in what is fun to you, as Charles Goodyear does. And most people who believe in freedom and rights would say that a law against playing football with your fellows of like mind, with whatever ball you like, would be immoral.

People might start making laws against the sledgehammer, if it hurt a lot of people. But they wouldn't make laws against a suboptimal ball that is presumably harmless. That would be counterproductive because we don't really know what the optimal is, unless we let people try things besides what is currently considered optimal.

Your point is well-taken generally though, except in the case that the wanting makes that thing true, as with subjective enjoyment. You can say morality is not one of those things and it matters to Bob what Ronnie does to him, but if Ronnie and those who think like him want to be away from Bob's unreasonable restrictions on their actions, I simply don't see how God has any say. He designed one optimal; they found another. In most cases I imagine that the Ronnies would find that their world sucked, but as a counter-example I think the non-scammy people would be happier.

[The Tanager]

Maybe I should have said, if you want to scam while protected from consequences, go elsewhere. If morality is not objective, and you affirm your right to carry out your subjective morality on them and scam them, then they too can affirm their right to carry out their subjective morality on you, and punish you for scamming.

There is no objective morality means your morality does not apply to me. Just as you can scam me even if I say it's not okay, I can punish you even if you say it's not okay. The punishment is not just, because what you did was not against your morality, but it is also not immoral, since I'm permitted to act on my own morality. You can even punish me for punishing you unjustly, and that's not immoral either. The only thing you can't do is truthfully claim the moral high ground.

I absolutely agree. It all becomes about who has the most power and what they want to do with that power. If all the pistachio ice cream haters banded together and wanted to rough up those who like pistachio ice cream, then that happens. That is morality on atheism; enforcing one’s tastes on others simply because they can, whether that is stealing from them or agreeing not to scam each other.

But since what is fun for you is still up to you, you don't have to care what Charles Goodyear has to say about it. You can like throwing that perfect spiral, and while I admit that you'd seem foolish if you liked attempting to throw a sledgehammer to a receiver without injuring him, just as much... you have as much, or more, say, in what is fun to you, as Charles Goodyear does.

Yes, I can choose to do something different, but I don’t get to decide if it is good or harmful; that comes from the nature of the objects/events involved. Throwing a sledgehammer will cause harm no matter if I want it to be harmless and fun. Using it for a purpose it wasn’t made for causes objective harm because of its nature, not because of a subjective wish I have that I can call “fun”. That’s my point.

People might start making laws against the sledgehammer, if it hurt a lot of people. But they wouldn't make laws against a suboptimal ball that is presumably harmless. That would be counterproductive because we don't really know what the optimal is, unless we let people try things besides what is currently considered optimal.

Two points here. One, there may not always be one “optimal” aspect, there could be a variety of things that are good. Soccer is complex enough that different balls work well within the game, maybe for different reasons; none is necessarily the optimal ball. Life is complex as well, where many things can all be equally good for the way human nature is. Two, with classical theism we have an omniscient creator who knows if there is an optimal and what that would be.

Your point is well-taken generally though, except in the case that the wanting makes that thing true, as with subjective enjoyment. You can say morality is not one of those things and it matters to Bob what Ronnie does to him, but if Ronnie and those who think like him want to be away from Bob's unreasonable restrictions on their actions, I simply don't see how God has any say. He designed one optimal; they found another. In most cases I imagine that the Ronnies would find that their world sucked, but as a counter-example I think the non-scammy people would be happier.

I’m not sure the wanting is ever what makes something true. We think a lot of things will bring us joy that we sooner or later discover actually don’t. Yes, they brought a bit of joy in one way, but overall didn’t. Perhaps that is a sign that there is an objective enjoyment we are chasing all along.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

I think all abled humans (regardless of their personal positions) can be moral agents. They can follow a simply concept as a measure on how to respond to any given situation that comes their way.

One can follow the moral that
Anything being carried out against a person without their consent is wrong and those doing such, signal that they give consent to being punished as a result of their wrong-doing.
without having to declare to be either a theist or an atheist and without having to argue whether the moral is sourced in the objective or the subjective.

They can also follow such a moral, even if they are outnumbered and unable to actually punish those who practice wrongdoing.

[Purple Knight]

I absolutely agree. It all becomes about who has the most power and what they want to do with that power. If all the pistachio ice cream haters banded together and wanted to rough up those who like pistachio ice cream, then that happens. That is morality on atheism; enforcing one’s tastes on others simply because they can, whether that is stealing from them or agreeing not to scam each other.

Yes, I can choose to do something different, but I don’t get to decide if it is good or harmful; that comes from the nature of the objects/events involved. Throwing a sledgehammer will cause harm no matter if I want it to be harmless and fun. Using it for a purpose it wasn’t made for causes objective harm because of its nature, not because of a subjective wish I have that I can call “fun”. That’s my point.

Well, look at how many people get injured in American football. But people like it and agree to play it. The tastes/harm thing comes into play when we agree what harms we will tolerate in pursuit of a greater benefit. For example, people on the side of free speech are fine with personally being insulted sometimes - even though that's harm - because they think the benefit of having a more robust marketplace of ideas is worth it, and I agree with them.

No one says, no harm is tolerable. No one says every harm is tolerable. And it's a pure value judgment whether allowing any harm is worth it.

Two points here. One, there may not always be one “optimal” aspect, there could be a variety of things that are good. Soccer is complex enough that different balls work well within the game, maybe for different reasons; none is necessarily the optimal ball. Life is complex as well, where many things can all be equally good for the way human nature is. Two, with classical theism we have an omniscient creator who knows if there is an optimal and what that would be.

No, he can't know. God doesn't know my optimal because I have free will and I get to decide my optimal. I get to decide for myself whether this harm is tolerable in pursuit of a greater benefit, and that one maybe isn't, or I don't even want that other benefit in the first place. I would choose to be mashed with a sledgehammer over being morally castigated. The latter hurts me worse. You may not feel that way. To you, someone telling you wrong wrong evil selfish selfish selfish might not be a big deal. It's a big deal to me.

I’m not sure the wanting is ever what makes something true. We think a lot of things will bring us joy that we sooner or later discover actually don’t. Yes, they brought a bit of joy in one way, but overall didn’t. Perhaps that is a sign that there is an objective enjoyment we are chasing all along.

I agree there are cases like that, but it is also true that different people have different tastes and thrive in different situations. Some things I have thought I wanted didn't make me happy, but others have.

I think all abled humans (regardless of their personal positions) can be moral agents. They can follow a simply concept as a measure on how to respond to any given situation that comes their way.

It won't be objective but that doesn't make it meaningless. It might be meaningless to someone outside their own head and seem arbitrary but frankly you can tell if someone's morals are conveniently constructed on the spot to provide them the greatest advantage, then revised with exceptions whenever needed (because every situation is different and the context is all that matters) or whether they will sometimes endure disadvantage for the sake of following their own personal code.

One can follow the moral that
Anything being carried out against a person without their consent is wrong and those doing such, signal that they give consent to being punished as a result of their wrong-doing.
without having to declare to be either a theist or an atheist and without having to argue whether the moral is sourced in the objective or the subjective.

They can also follow such a moral, even if they are outnumbered and unable to actually punish those who practice wrongdoing.

I don't like this moral because Libertarians will come in and affirm their right to lie about giving consent. They will say, "Yes of course I agree that if I murder I will be punished," get into the society that is safer from lack of murdering, then say, "Aha, I was lying when I gave that consent, I withdraw said consent, I have a right to lie it is just freedom of speech, so too bad you can't punish me." (They may not do it with murder but they will for other things they consider not to be aggression.)

[William]

I don't like this moral because Libertarians will come in and affirm their right to lie about giving consent. They will say, "Yes of course I agree that if I murder I will be punished," get into the society that is safer from lack of murdering, then say, "Aha, I was lying when I gave that consent, I withdraw said consent, I have a right to lie it is just freedom of speech, so too bad you can't punish me." (They may not do it with murder but they will for other things they consider not to be aggression.)

I am not arguing for what is not liked. If you don't like the moral because you don't agree with it, then fine. If you don't like it because others can abuse it, even if you do not, so won't follow it, what moral would you follow, and would it reflect the same as the one above that you don't like?

[The Tanager]

Well, look at how many people get injured in American football. But people like it and agree to play it. The tastes/harm thing comes into play when we agree what harms we will tolerate in pursuit of a greater benefit. For example, people on the side of free speech are fine with personally being insulted sometimes - even though that's harm - because they think the benefit of having a more robust marketplace of ideas is worth it, and I agree with them.

No one says, no harm is tolerable. No one says every harm is tolerable. And it's a pure value judgment whether allowing any harm is worth it.

I agree. I didn’t mean to sound like I was saying any harm is bad; I was meaning it in an overall balance kind of sense. But the value judgments are either subjective or objectively right/wrong. What I don’t get is the disconnect between people who say they believe morality is subjective, but act like it is objective. I understand someone liking free speech, like they like chocolate ice cream, but then they condemn governments that don’t allow free speech and don’t condemn people who like pistachio ice cream. It makes emotional sense, but not rational sense to me.

No, he can't know. God doesn't know my optimal because I have free will and I get to decide my optimal.

Why does having free will allow us to decide what is our optimal? If a car was given free will, why would that decide what is optimal for the car rather than how it was made and what it was made to do? Why would free will give the car the ability to decide its optimal involves pouring orange juice into the gas tank? It’s optimal is still decided by its design (nature and purpose), not it’s own will. Having a free will allows it to go against its design and face the natural consequences, but not decide what is best for it.

I get to decide for myself whether this harm is tolerable in pursuit of a greater benefit, and that one maybe isn't, or I don't even want that other benefit in the first place.

In pursuit of a currently perceived greater benefit, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually a greater benefit or that you will end up liking your choice. The car may think it wants to sit in a field, but it’s not going to truly be happy because it was made for something else. If that is part of its nature, it’s going to be a desire unfulfilled and will eventually rear itself in frustration.

I would choose to be mashed with a sledgehammer over being morally castigated. The latter hurts me worse. You may not feel that way. To you, someone telling you wrong wrong evil selfish selfish selfish might not be a big deal. It's a big deal to me.

Let me make sure I’m understanding you. Why do you hate being told X is selfish and will end up leading to frustration and not the happiness you really want? Or did you mean something else?

I agree there are cases like that, but it is also true that different people have different tastes and thrive in different situations. Some things I have thought I wanted didn't make me happy, but others have.

Objective morality allows for differences like becoming an artist or an athlete or a caregiver, etc. It just says that, for example, murdering this person for money may seem like it will bring you joy and feel like that for a moment or two, but that you would have had more or deeper joy if you didn’t make that choice whether you are an artist, athlete, or caregiver.