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]

They don't need to believe in universal purpose or intentions to objectively verify what acts are optimal according to human nature.

Then please explain how it works, because I've yet to see how it does.

[Purple Knight]

Why does it seem this way to you? What divides people into good and bad in the first place?

Having a good heart I would say. Actions are meaningless. If one person kills baby Hitler to save the world, and another person does it just wanting to kill a baby, the first person is good and the latter one, evil. Am I wrong?

You don’t do things like abuse children, steal, murder, etc. simply because you want “good” people to stop harassing you?

For some of those things I have secondary reasons. Actually, for all of the things you mention, with possibly the exception of murder, I think it makes society a batter place if we all follow those directives, which is a good reason to follow them, and to want others to follow them to the point of making sacrifices to make those things into laws which will be enforced. But the fact that I can't just refrain from them out of the goodness of my heart for no reason other than it being moral, is pretty disgusting to most people. But from where I sit, it's like this: Suppose I told you standing on one leg while playing the harmonica was immoral. Why? Well, it just is. Morality needs no explanation. It's about being moral, not making anyone better off. Now imagine you're the only one who doesn't see this harmonica thing as obvious and everyone else does. That's how it is to me.

There's no way a person can start out evil and become good, because motives matter. And any motive that comes from selfishness (which the motive for any act done by an evil person will come from) makes the act evil.

Motives can change.

Maybe, but that doesn't address the idea that if an act comes from an evil person it must have a selfish motivation and is therefore a selfish act. Motives might change if valuations change. We give up on things that end up being a greater pain than we expected and try new things. But people can't change from evil to good. If you start out selfish, anything you want to do has a selfish motivation, so no matter how much a selfish person might want to become unselfish, he cannot. He can acquire a different motive for wanting to be unselfish, but that too is coming from a selfish place if it comes from a selfish person.

Yes, we have free will to do what we want with what we are given. As the avocado goes, what exactly do you mean there, say, with the avocado of murder? That God bakes in the person’s desire to murder or that God bakes in a desire to not murder?

It's at least a possibility that God has made some people with a true desire to murder because he wants them to put orange juice in their gas tanks to prove they're human. Oh, I want to do this thing that is clearly wrong. I choose not to.

I think that's a really good example because nobody tries to explain why homosexuality is wrong. What if it really is hurting people, just in a way that's not direct, and by not prohibiting the act, or punishing it, we're all just passing the buck?

Would prohibiting and punishing anything really keep it from happening? If morality is about motives, then forced action isn’t really helping anyone.

It depends on the act and whether it's really hurting people. It doesn't make the forced person moral, you're right, but depending on the act and how it's hurting people, it might help others. That's why we prohibit theft and murder. One example that might apply here is the spread of AIDS. Bisexual men get it from men and pass it to straight women. This (well, and needles) is the bulk of how the disease continues. And while people can choose not to use needles, women can't choose to have sex with only straight men, or be monogamous, because men will lie. We already prohibit many other innocent acts that are not harmful in and of themselves but are likely to cause destruction down the line, like drinking and driving. "But, I won't have an accident," might be a true claim for some. But we can't know, so we prohibit.

I think it’s impossible for us to test. First, not all suffering (if that includes any discomfort) is bad. Second, I don’t see how we could judge whether that person is truly experiencing joy or if they are settling for simply the greatest benefit they have experienced and wrongly calling it “joy”.

I think if you know people well, it's possible to see if they're genuinely happy as opposed to miserable and hedonistic.

I’m not sure I’d put it like that. I think morality and taste can match up. I think our tastes change as we become more and more moral. I also think morality makes room within tastes, although certainly not the whole spectrum.

So for some things, you'd say they were wrong enough that if you found a society of people doing them and seeming to be happy, it would nevertheless be moral to put a stop to it?

[The Tanager]

Having a good heart I would say. Actions are meaningless. If one person kills baby Hitler to save the world, and another person does it just wanting to kill a baby, the first person is good and the latter one, evil. Am I wrong?

Everyone I’ve met (including myself) is a mix of goodness and badness, so I don’t think we can divide people that way. I don’t think actions are meaningless at all. If it would be good to kill baby Hitler, then both people did the morally right action. What type of person they are is an important but different matter.

But the fact that I can't just refrain from them out of the goodness of my heart for no reason other than it being moral, is pretty disgusting to most people.

If I understand you correctly, I don’t understand what’s disgusting about that.

But from where I sit, it's like this: Suppose I told you standing on one leg while playing the harmonica was immoral. Why? Well, it just is. Morality needs no explanation. It's about being moral, not making anyone better off. Now imagine you're the only one who doesn't see this harmonica thing as obvious and everyone else does. That's how it is to me.

But morality is all about making people better off.

Maybe, but that doesn't address the idea that if an act comes from an evil person it must have a selfish motivation and is therefore a selfish act.

Yes, and selfishness will lead to other immoral acts, but the good act was still good.

Motives might change if valuations change. We give up on things that end up being a greater pain than we expected and try new things. But people can't change from evil to good. If you start out selfish, anything you want to do has a selfish motivation, so no matter how much a selfish person might want to become unselfish, he cannot. He can acquire a different motive for wanting to be unselfish, but that too is coming from a selfish place if it comes from a selfish person.

I disagree with you. I don’t think there are just selfish people and just unselfish people. Even the most unselfish people I know have selfishness in them. I think selfish people can change. As a Christian, I think that is what God is doing in the world through Jesus.

It's at least a possibility that God has made some people with a true desire to murder because he wants them to put orange juice in their gas tanks to prove they're human. Oh, I want to do this thing that is clearly wrong. I choose not to.

If God is giving someone a desire so that they will overcome it and choose not to, then it’s because he wants them to not put the orange juice in so that they will be truly human, isn’t it?

It depends on the act and whether it's really hurting people. It doesn't make the forced person moral, you're right, but depending on the act and how it's hurting people, it might help others.

Then it’s about the action, not the motivation, right?

I think if you know people well, it's possible to see if they're genuinely happy as opposed to miserable and hedonistic.

I’ve seen many (and been one myself) that thought they were genuinely happy, but in looking back I’ve realized I was settling for a lesser joy than what’s out there.

So for some things, you'd say they were wrong enough that if you found a society of people doing them and seeming to be happy, it would nevertheless be moral to put a stop to it?

Do you have a more specific example in mind that could help me wrap my brain around this?

[terrydactyl]

Interesting topic and I'm sorry to jump in late. An important point is to define morality or at least it's reason for existence. To the first point of this thread, for the atheist (or secularist, I'd prefer) morals are a necessity of any society. I think Christians might be surprised to know that the Golden Rule is nearly universal to all societies. They won't last long if killing or stealing is tolerated.

To the second point, the religious can be moral beyond the belief that their deity says they must. Simply because of my first point. An atheist as well as a theist can see the benefit to society.

A difference is the secularist can (hopefully) see that societies change and evolve, requiring the moral codes to change as well. For the theist, this is a conundrum. For example, slavery is abhorrent is today's society. Yet, as is being debated in another thread, the bible condones it. So how does the theist resolve this. The reality is they follow the secularist point in these cases.

[The Tanager]

Interesting topic and I'm sorry to jump in late. An important point is to define morality or at least it's reason for existence.

Welcome in terrydactyl. You're never too late here! Defining what one means by morality is important. What do you mean by it? How one should act in a given situation? How one should act to get a specific goal that society deems desirable? What helps societies continue? Something else?

[terrydactyl]

Interesting topic and I'm sorry to jump in late. An important point is to define morality or at least it's reason for existence.

Welcome in terrydactyl. You're never too late here! Defining what one means by morality is important. What do you mean by it? How one should act in a given situation? How one should act to get a specific goal that society deems desirable? What helps societies continue? Something else?

Your questions are fraught with difficulties to me. I think you can breaking down to two main morals; the morals of the individual, and the morals of society. The individual develops their moral compass from many sources; family, religion, life experience, learning, and society itself. And it evolves. My morals today are not those when I was twenty. A fair bit is an increased sense of empathy, which, it can be argued, is evolution's contribution to society. A sense of empathy contributes to the well being of society.

And society's morals can be seen as an aggregate of its members' beliefs. Take homosexuality. It wasn't long ago that many societies found it intolerable. Today toleration of it is becoming mainstream. So society's morality, I'd argue, is not fixed or absolute as some believe.

And to discuss given situations seems trivial when major issues (e.g. homosexuality) are unresolved.

[The Tanager]

Your questions are fraught with difficulties to me. I think you can breaking down to two main morals; the morals of the individual, and the morals of society. The individual develops their moral compass from many sources; family, religion, life experience, learning, and society itself. And it evolves. My morals today are not those when I was twenty. A fair bit is an increased sense of empathy, which, it can be argued, is evolution's contribution to society. A sense of empathy contributes to the well being of society.

And society's morals can be seen as an aggregate of its members' beliefs. Take homosexuality. It wasn't long ago that many societies found it intolerable. Today toleration of it is becoming mainstream. So society's morality, I'd argue, is not fixed or absolute as some believe.

And to discuss given situations seems trivial when major issues (e.g. homosexuality) are unresolved.

But do you think individuals and societies are simply changing from one set of likes and dislikes to another or that they are getting better or worse? Is the change in attitude towards homosexuality an improvement, regression, or only a valueless change?

[Bust Nak]

Then please explain how it works, because I've yet to see how it does.

It literally works the same way as your suggestion. You argued that the optimal way to act is objectively verified by seeing how well it helps achieve a goal; and which goal is best can be determined objectively by seeing which matches the the assigned nature the best. Human are assigned (the way the shape of the Earth is assigned) with a certain nature.

[The Tanager]

It literally works the same way as your suggestion. You argued that the optimal way to act is objectively verified by seeing how well it helps achieve a goal; and which goal is best can be determined objectively by seeing which matches the the assigned nature the best. Human are assigned (the way the shape of the Earth is assigned) with a certain nature.

But there isn’t just one current nature we can point to in this regard. Some people act one way and some people act the complete opposite. Some would love it if evolution had sent us down the path of sharks in regards to being able to rape any female they want.

On theism, in spite of these competing natures, there is one that God desired and one that went against that desire. I don't see what provides that on atheism because evolution produced both natures in equal ways.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #79]

There isn't one current nature we can point to in theism or atheism; with both systems there are competing assigned natures. If the existence of competing natures is enough to invalidate the atheists model for objectivism, then it is enough to invalidate the theistic version too.

Here you are appealing to God's desires to salvage the theistic model, but by doing that, you bring back into the conversation the apparent contraction with the subjectivity of a personal being and objectivism. Objectivity in this context can't be just outside of one’s self, it has to be outside of all selves. The Earth has an assigned shape, it is a globe regardless of God's favorite shape, which might well be a cube for all you know.

While I am here, I don't see a contradiction between objectivity and different rules for different people. Cops are allowed to speed while on a call, regular people are not allowed, yet that's still objective.