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]

So what would you say morality is? Is it just best benefit to all, with a sort of understanding that practicality goes too far if people are being chopped up for organs, maybe because not a lot of us want to live in that sort of world?

What do you mean by “best benefit for all”? In its utilitarian sense? Something else?

No, I can't. I have some sort of selfish motive for everything I do. I would like to say that's not the case, but, well, it is. I'm not capable of doing good for good's sake.

Okay, I misunderstood what you were claiming about yourself. But you are still doing good. Motivations and morality are distinct, it seems to me.

Okay, I feel like we're getting somewhere. So I guess what I'm aiming for isn't good as you put it - it's unselfishness. Some people have it. But it seems to me that if you start out selfish, then you are always selfish, because no matter how unselfish you act, if you were selfish to begin with, there was some original selfish motive that covers trying to be unselfish and everything that follows from that. The only way these people have achieved it, I reason, is by being born unselfish.

Well, you probably know my Christian thought: that God can change the selfish heart. I think He’s been changing mine for half my life.

And because they have unselfish motives for everything they do, they're allowed the same acts, and rightly get praise for them. They can even say things like, "Well, I help so many people that it really helps them if I take very good care of myself and my happiness, so my Starbucks latte is actually a very giving and unselfish thing, while yours is a hedonistic indulgence." And if they're really unselfish there's absolutely nothing wrong with that logic.

The unselfish people I know aren’t comparing others to themselves in this way because their focus is simply on seeking the good of others.

But follow my reasoning: Nobody can ever be less selfish if they started out selfish. Anything they do can be traced back to a totally selfish motive. You would need divine intervention, and it would have to be unsought. Because if God changes a selfish person because they seek it, they have a selfish motive for wanting to be changed and that taints everything that follows from it. It would be like stepping into a brain-change machine that makes you unselfish. The selfish person had a selfish motive for going in there, so anything he does after, ultimately has a selfish motive, and is a selfish act. He might end up doing good but it's all worthless.

According to Christianity, God’s intervention is unsought; God initiates. We catch glimpses of the life we are missing. And we may start to want it more and more.

But how do you define ‘selfishness’? Oxford Languages says “lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure.” I’m not sure seeking God to help you be unselfish fits this. You aren’t lacking consideration for others; this issue just has nothing to do with them. Going to watch Star Wars isn’t lacking consideration for Marvel; it’s just not a part of that issue. You aren’t concerned with your own personal profit or pleasure because being unselfish will often mean laying down your personal profit and pleasure. I also don’t see why you keep the chain alive where starting selfishly means it will always be selfish. I see no problem with a break in the chain.

That might be true. But do you think someone can be joyful after being punished and called selfish and evil for everything they do? Personally I think physical pain is probably possible to get past. For example, being physically beaten as punishment for doing something good. That's theoretically something you can ignore, if they say, well, you did the right thing but I'm going to punish you anyway. But if they instead say, you did the wrong thing, it'll be wrong no matter what, I don't think it's possible to be joyful. Because to derive joy from being unselfishly good, you have to at least know that's what you're doing. If you're trying to be unselfishly good, and failing, there's no joy in that.

I can’t speak to which is easier, but I do know people who have found joy after experiencing verbal and psychological abuse like you speak of. People have come out of it and those people that do are often some of the most loving, unselfish people.

But there really are bad apples. There aren't a lot of them but they do exist. I know it's a big ask but imagine a society that just did away with them successfully by having legal murder.

How do we know there are really “bad apples” in the sense of it’s impossible for them to be redeemed? We live in a society that has the resources to limit their damage without killing them to where we can work towards even their good and redemption.

See, this right here. This is the point of the thread. The answer is, because we don't want to be hurt, and the best way to achieve that is to shoot for a society where we don't hurt one another. That's not morality so I don't think atheists can be moral.

I agree.

But I don't think religious people can be moral either because it's about getting the reward. Jesus outright says it. All the good people will be rewarded so be good. That's not an unselfish reason to do it.

I guess I just see it differently. It’s not about doing good X to get reward Y; doing good is the reward. Jesus’ kingdom kind of life is the good, it’s the joy itself. Yes, we all do it imperfectly, but God knows our limitations and is patient.

[The Tanager]

It makes a difference in this debate because design can be both objective or subjective; objective designs, a godless universe can achieve. If you bring intention and desires into the picture, the design is a subjective one.

It would help if you define your three terms here to make sure we are on the same page (objective, subjective, design).

Okay, lets call it an analogy then "objective but relative rules for different roles" is like "objective but relative rules for different natures." The existence of different competing natures shouldn't get in the way of objectivism.

But roles “put” a nature in a specific situation, so I’m not sure that’s an analogy.

[help3434]

I agree. My point is that if God doesn’t exist, then (as far as I can tell) morality is not objective and, therefore, no one could be a moral agent; we all just have opinions akin to food taste, where differences exist but the differences aren’t better or worse.

Whether or not there is a an "objective" morality designed into the universe or not, what we as human call morals is obviously different than food tastes. There are actions that affect the well being of others, and we can be moral agents in regards to that.

If atheism is true, why is hurting someone else wrong?

How does the existence of God affect the wrongness of hurting someone? There are just as hurt either way.

[Bust Nak]

It would help if you define your three terms here to make sure we are on the same page (objective, subjective, design).

Objective: does not depend on perspective, desires or preference. Subjective is the direct opposite of objective, does depend on those things. Design is how something is, its nature.

But roles “put” a nature in a specific situation, so I’m not sure that’s an analogy.

Ignore it all together then, what's wrong with objective but relative rules for people with different natures: It's objectively moral for person A to do X, but objectively immoral for person B to do X, because of the specific differences in assigned nature between person A and B.

[Purple Knight]

So what would you say morality is? Is it just best benefit to all, with a sort of understanding that practicality goes too far if people are being chopped up for organs, maybe because not a lot of us want to live in that sort of world?

What do you mean by “best benefit for all”? In its utilitarian sense? Something else?

I'm asking you what you think morality is. You said no to pure utilitarianism but you also said it was about the act, and not the heart.

The unselfish people I know aren’t comparing others to themselves in this way because their focus is simply on seeking the good of others.

For where I sit, not comparing yourself to others is the luxury of success. But if you constantly try and fail to be a good and unselfish person, what can you do but look at the people who have succeeded?

Well, you probably know my Christian thought: that God can change the selfish heart. I think He’s been changing mine for half my life.

According to Christianity, God’s intervention is unsought; God initiates. We catch glimpses of the life we are missing. And we may start to want it more and more.

Well I guess good for the people God chooses to interact with.

I also don’t see why you keep the chain alive where starting selfishly means it will always be selfish. I see no problem with a break in the chain.

Well, you would have to have a totally unmotivated action to break the chain. Take the giving someone $40 to donate $20 to charity. To donate to charity, he must fill out a form. To fill out a form, he must have a credit card. He's doing it all to get the $20 profit so the motive for all of it is selfish. Each of these acts, then, has a selfish motivation. It's the same if he's doing it for social status or for his own feelgoods. Joey says there's no such thing as a selfless act. Phoebe tries to prove him wrong. I'm just being honest when I say that this applies to me 100%. But there are people who it does not apply to and I do not understand how they got there, except to be born that way.

I can’t speak to which is easier, but I do know people who have found joy after experiencing verbal and psychological abuse like you speak of. People have come out of it and those people that do are often some of the most loving, unselfish people.

Well, do they know the abuse was deserved? Or are they at least assured by at least one person, that they are in fact loving and selfless? I mean, you're giving them that acknowledgment right now. My claim is that if they thought they were selfishly doing evil, they wouldn't do it.

How do we know there are really “bad apples” in the sense of it’s impossible for them to be redeemed? We live in a society that has the resources to limit their damage without killing them to where we can work towards even their good and redemption.

I don't know whether they can be redeemed or not, but I have seen one-year-olds whose solution to everything is to hit everybody. That seems inherent. Sure, we can spend lots of resources making sure they can't do harm and trying to help them, but it's not totally incomprehensible to you that society would work better if we just killed them off instead, is it? So you can at least imagine that world. But it's a world with legalised murder. I admit it's a stretch to assume these bad apples can't deceive everyone the way they do now, but it's at least possible. That's why I'm asking whether you would ever step in, assuming you could, and make a more functional society a less functional one, so it could be more moral?

See, this right here. This is the point of the thread. The answer is, because we don't want to be hurt, and the best way to achieve that is to shoot for a society where we don't hurt one another. That's not morality so I don't think atheists can be moral.

I agree.

But I don't think religious people can be moral either because it's about getting the reward. Jesus outright says it. All the good people will be rewarded so be good. That's not an unselfish reason to do it.

I guess I just see it differently. It’s not about doing good X to get reward Y; doing good is the reward. Jesus’ kingdom kind of life is the good, it’s the joy itself. Yes, we all do it imperfectly, but God knows our limitations and is patient.

I think you're giving religious people an extra boost here. We both admit the atheist can't be moral because, "I want to live in a society where I'm not hurt, so let's all agree to shoot for a society where no one is," is not morality, it's practicality. And that's the reason. That's the absolute best reason there can be. But when the religious person does good because it grants real joy, well, it's imperfect but he's still doing good, he's just doing it imperfectly.

How many people would join, if Christianity was otherwise the same, but said that by doing good, you were consigning yourself to Hell, but you should still do it? It's not just that fewer people would buy it. It's that if anyone did buy it, everyone else would say they were crazy.

[help3434]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #95]

Why can't morality have a practical motivation?

[The Tanager]

Whether or not there is a an "objective" morality designed into the universe or not, what we as human call morals is obviously different than food tastes.

Moral tastes and food tastes aren’t identical, yes. But if morality is subjective, then how we rationally react to different moral tastes should be the same way we react to different food tastes. In that way it should be the same.

There are actions that affect the well being of others, and we can be moral agents in regards to that.

But there are different ideas of well being at play. The murder victim’s well being is damaged, sure. But the murderer’s well being (in their opinion) is benefitted. So, “well-being” can’t be an objective standard because there are only subjective well-beings, if atheism is true.

How does the existence of God affect the wrongness of hurting someone? There are just as hurt either way.

God’s design determines true well-being for humans just like the one who creates a car determines how the car will work best for the purpose it is created for.

[The Tanager]

Objective: does not depend on perspective, desires or preference. Subjective is the direct opposite of objective, does depend on those things. Design is how something is, its nature.

So, by God’s design of human moral agents, are you saying that it would be subjective because it depends on God’s preference? Or are you saying something else?

Ignore it all together then, what's wrong with objective but relative rules for people with different natures: It's objectively moral for person A to do X, but objectively immoral for person B to do X, because of the specific differences in assigned nature between person A and B.

In talking about relative rules, I was referring to different rules for people with the same nature. All people put in those situations have the same rules to follow. Having different natures within humanity is logically possible, but “ought” still requires intentions for each different nature. On atheism there is no intention, whether there is one nature or many.

[The Tanager]

I'm asking you what you think morality is. You said no to pure utilitarianism but you also said it was about the act, and not the heart.

I do think it’s what best benefits the whole, but what is “best” depends on how God created humans, not in weighing people’s personal preferences against each other. So, I think it is utilitarian, but it matters how one decides “best”.

For where I sit, not comparing yourself to others is the luxury of success. But if you constantly try and fail to be a good and unselfish person, what can you do but look at the people who have succeeded?

I agree, but only if ‘success’ isn’t defined by having social power or something like that. Ultimately, I’d rather compare myself to the God that defines success instead of people who succeed at times and don’t succeed at times.

Well I guess good for the people God chooses to interact with.

I think it’s a two-way street, not just God choosing to interact with some and not others.

Well, you would have to have a totally unmotivated action to break the chain. Take the giving someone $40 to donate $20 to charity. To donate to charity, he must fill out a form. To fill out a form, he must have a credit card. He's doing it all to get the $20 profit so the motive for all of it is selfish. Each of these acts, then, has a selfish motivation. It's the same if he's doing it for social status or for his own feelgoods. Joey says there's no such thing as a selfless act. Phoebe tries to prove him wrong. I'm just being honest when I say that this applies to me 100%. But there are people who it does not apply to and I do not understand how they got there, except to be born that way.

I don’t think any of us are born unselfish. Some are less selfish than others, naturally, for sure, but even those people have selfish bits. I think God is the only way we can become greatly less selfish.

Well, do they know the abuse was deserved? Or are they at least assured by at least one person, that they are in fact loving and selfless? I mean, you're giving them that acknowledgment right now. My claim is that if they thought they were selfishly doing evil, they wouldn't do it.

Abuse is never deserved. I do agree that if they thought they were selfishly doing evil, they probably wouldn’t do it.

I don't know whether they can be redeemed or not, but I have seen one-year-olds whose solution to everything is to hit everybody. That seems inherent. Sure, we can spend lots of resources making sure they can't do harm and trying to help them, but it's not totally incomprehensible to you that society would work better if we just killed them off instead, is it? So you can at least imagine that world. But it's a world with legalised murder. I admit it's a stretch to assume these bad apples can't deceive everyone the way they do now, but it's at least possible. That's why I'm asking whether you would ever step in, assuming you could, and make a more functional society a less functional one, so it could be more moral?

Using 1-year olds hitting everybody as an example is probably the wrong choice, but I get your overall point. Yes, I can imagine society seeming better off if we just kill them off, but we can accomplish the same thing by other means than killing. They may never be redeemed, but that’s still better for society than just giving up on all those deemed “bad apples” because some of those can become good apples and if even just 1 does, it’s worth it.

I would never step in and kill a “bad apple” because I don’t have the knowledge required to know who really is a bad apple and who is an almost bad apple that can be redeemed.

I think you're giving religious people an extra boost here. We both admit the atheist can't be moral because, "I want to live in a society where I'm not hurt, so let's all agree to shoot for a society where no one is," is not morality, it's practicality. And that's the reason. That's the absolute best reason there can be. But when the religious person does good because it grants real joy, well, it's imperfect but he's still doing good, he's just doing it imperfectly.

I’m saying God is interested in people who want to do good, knowing they are imperfect at it, but striving to get better. I think we can only truly get better by listening to God’s wisdom and being with God (so, yes, a religious boost in that sense). And I’m saying real joy comes from being that kind of person because that is how God designed us to work best/joy best.

How many people would join, if Christianity was otherwise the same, but said that by doing good, you were consigning yourself to Hell, but you should still do it? It's not just that fewer people would buy it. It's that if anyone did buy it, everyone else would say they were crazy.

But, under the surface, this seems like a contradiction to me. Doing good is heaven and doing bad is hell. But I don’t mean that in a typical “liberal Christianity” kind of way. I see Heaven as an extension of this good life and that, ultimately, without God, we would devolve into selfishness which would lead to plenty that is not good.

[help3434]

Moral tastes and food tastes aren’t identical, yes. But if morality is subjective, then how we rationally react to different moral tastes should be the same way we react to different food tastes. In that way it should be the same.

But people's morals affects others much more than food taste, so reacting to them would as if they were the same would be irrational

But there are different ideas of well being at play. The murder victim’s well being is damaged, sure. But the murderer’s well being (in their opinion) is benefitted. So, “well-being” can’t be an objective standard because there are only subjective well-beings, if atheism is true.

I don't think that most people who murder for their own gain regard their murder as moral, but in any case it is clearly against society's interest to allow murder.

God’s design determines true well-being for humans just like the one who creates a car determines how the car will work best for the purpose it is created for.

I don't see how that answers the question. Our nature is our nature is either case, and in either case we are thinking and feeling beings that can be hurt and damaged by the choices of others. We can that people don't like it when that happens to them, and if we have empathy we will see it as wrong. We don't need a God to tell us "I've designed humans such such as way that their well being can be damaged, so don't do it, cause its wrong, so saith Me".