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]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #88]
I don't really get your point about morality. Whether or not we were created by God, everything I can see is still the same: I am the same, my choices are the same, my motives are the same, the affect on the well-being of others is the same, but according to you if your invisible creator is real I can be a moral agent and morality is objective, but if not I can't be because morals are like taste in food. It doesn't make any sense.

[The Tanager]

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

Could you be more specific on what you mean about them affecting much more than food taste affects?

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.

If morality is “I like/dislike X”, then “for their own gain” is a synonym for “moral”.

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".

God can put an ‘ought’ in the nature of a human (be the "mechanism" that accounts for that), but there is no mechanism in atheism (at least I’ve never seen one given), so the nature isn’t necessarily the same in either case.

Yes, we can be hurt and “damaged” (but what we call damage, another person might not, so is it really damage?) Yes, we can empathize and say that since I don’t like the feeling, I don’t like giving that feeling to others. But what about the person who is only interested in not getting that feeling? They could care less about someone else experiencing that feeling, especially if it allows them to gain from it. Why is your (and my) view here (i.e., that we ought not to hurt each other like that) correct and their view wrong? What, in your worldview, adjudicates between our preference and theirs?

[help3434]

Could you be more specific on what you mean about them affecting much more than food taste affects?

You need an example? I don't like mushrooms, other people like mushrooms. That other people eat mushrooms doesn't hurt me other than it is mildly annoying when I am served a dish with mushrooms. Some people think it is moral to stone gay people, infidels, unchaste women, etc. That kills people.

If morality is “I like/dislike X”, then “for their own gain” is a synonym for “moral”.

Who said that is what morality means? Morality has to take into account the well being of others.

God can put an ‘ought’ in the nature of a human (be the "mechanism" that accounts for that), but there is no mechanism in atheism (at least I’ve never seen one given), so the nature isn’t necessarily the same in either case.

This is an ought you believe God did, not just, could put it in, right? What does this "ought" look like and how is it different than the oughts that us nonbelievers can see like wanting to live in a decent society, regard for our fellow man, love for those close to us, etc?

But what about the person who is only interested in not getting that feeling? They could care less about someone else experiencing that feeling, especially if it allows them to gain from it. Why is your (and my) view here (i.e., that we ought not to hurt each other like that) correct and their view wrong? What, in your worldview, adjudicates between our preference and theirs?

Their way is inherently unworkable. The psychopath doesn't want a society with only other psychopaths, that society would immediately collapse. The empathetic want a society with other empathetic people.

[The Tanager]

You need an example? I don't like mushrooms, other people like mushrooms. That other people eat mushrooms doesn't hurt me other than it is mildly annoying when I am served a dish with mushrooms. Some people think it is moral to stone gay people, infidels, unchaste women, etc. That kills people.

If you aren’t the one stoned and you don’t know the person stoned, how is it hurting you? It could be mildly annoying to hear the story on the news when you want something more uplifting or pertinent to you, but it doesn’t directly hurt you. So why not treat that like you treat other people eating mushrooms or being served a dish with mushrooms?

Who said that is what morality means? Morality has to take into account the well being of others.

But “well-being” is defined by what each individual likes or dislikes. Your idea of ‘well-being’ is different from the one who thinks human well-being includes killing gay people, infidels, unchaste women, etc.

This is an ought you believe God did, not just, could put it in, right? What does this "ought" look like and how is it different than the oughts that us nonbelievers can see like wanting to live in a decent society, regard for our fellow man, love for those close to us, etc?

Saying God put it in humans means believers and non-believers would both have it. The difference is that atheism can’t explain the existence of an ought at all.

Their way is inherently unworkable. The psychopath doesn't want a society with only other psychopaths, that society would immediately collapse. The empathetic want a society with other empathetic people.

Why would the psychopath way be a society of only other psychopaths; they would probably benefit more by a generally empathetic society. Why is our preference better than theirs?

[help3434]

If you aren’t the one stoned and you don’t know the person stoned, how is it hurting you? It could be mildly annoying to hear the story on the news when you want something more uplifting or pertinent to you, but it doesn’t directly hurt you. So why not treat that like you treat other people eating mushrooms or being served a dish with mushrooms?

I didn't say it hurt me, it hurts the victims. There are broader concerns in the world than my own personal experience.

But “well-being” is defined by what each individual likes or dislikes. Your idea of ‘well-being’ is different from the one who thinks human well-being includes killing gay people, infidels, unchaste women, etc.

My idea includes the welfare of those being killed.

Saying God put it in humans means believers and non-believers would both have it. The difference is that atheism can’t explain the existence of an ought at all.

What is this ought? Where is it, what does it look like? Can you show we have an "ought" that could have only have been put there by God?

Their way is inherently unworkable. The psychopath doesn't want a society with only other psychopaths, that society would immediately collapse. The empathetic want a society with other empathetic people.

Why would the psychopath way be a society of only other psychopaths; they would probably benefit more by a generally empathetic society. Why is our preference better than theirs?

That's what I said. The psychopath way doesn't work because you can't have a society where no one has regard for the rights and wellbeing of others.

[The Tanager]

I didn't say it hurt me, it hurts the victims. There are broader concerns in the world than my own personal experience.

You said the difference between moral tastes and food tastes is that other people eating mushrooms doesn’t hurt you. I pointed out that, if it’s about not hurting you, then you should feel the same way about these abusive instances (that don’t directly involve you).

But, okay, you actually mean that the difference is that it causes hurt at all. Well you’ve still got a logical problem. They (and/or you) claim they are being hurt by the stoning. The other group is claiming they (or even society as a whole) is being hurt by not stoning them. This logic (unless you need to nuance it more) leads to either both possibilities being wrong (or right). What does an atheistic worldview give us to adjudicate between the two to say one kind of hurt is wrong but not the other?

My idea includes the welfare of those being killed.

Yes, but it’s still different from the one who doesn’t include it. Why are you (and me) right and they wrong?

What is this ought? Where is it, what does it look like? Can you show we have an "ought" that could have only have been put there by God?

It’s not physical, if that is what you mean. Every human knows this sense of “ought”. Even those who don't believe it exists admit the sense is there; they try to explain it away as an illusion. I agree that atheism leads to it being an illusion, but you are fighting back against that.

I’m claiming that God putting it there makes sense (not that it’s necessarily true) and I’m asking for an atheistic explanation, an offering, that would make sense of it being there (not that it’s necessarily true). What is even the suggested source of a real "ought"?

That's what I said. The psychopath way doesn't work because you can't have a society where no one has regard for the rights and wellbeing of others.

The psychopathic way doesn’t work for building a functioning society on. Absolutely. But the psychopath’s way within a generally empathetic society can work fine. So, why is it wrong on your view?

[help3434]

Well you’ve still got a logical problem. They (and/or you) claim they are being hurt by the stoning. The other group is claiming they (or even society as a whole) is being hurt by not stoning them. This logic (unless you need to nuance it more) leads to either both possibilities being wrong (or right). What does an atheistic worldview give us to adjudicate between the two to say one kind of hurt is wrong but not the other?

I can point to Finland, the happiest country in the world, not a lot of stonings there. I can argue for the concept of rights. What do you use with your worldview.

Yes, but it’s still different from the one who doesn’t include it. Why are you (and me) right and they wrong?

What reasons do they have to not include besides being selfish and uncaring?

It’s not physical, if that is what you mean. Every human knows this sense of “ought”. Even those who don't believe it exists admit the sense is there; they try to explain it away as an illusion. I agree that atheism leads to it being an illusion, but you are fighting back against that.

But this sense is different in different people and subjective, as you yourself have been arguing.

I’m claiming that God putting it there makes sense (not that it’s necessarily true) and I’m asking for an atheistic explanation, an offering, that would make sense of it being there (not that it’s necessarily true). What is even the suggested source of a real "ought"?

We want to live in a decent society, we have are of recognizing that others are thinking and feeling beings like ourselves, we have loved ones that also live in this world. I already brought this up, Tanager.

The psychopathic way doesn’t work for building a functioning society on. Absolutely. But the psychopath’s way within a generally empathetic society can work fine. So, why is it wrong on your view?

That way is against the interests of everyone else.

[The Tanager]

I can point to Finland, the happiest country in the world, not a lot of stonings there.

There aren’t stonings in many countries, with a range of happiness. There are people in Finland who still aren't happy. So, this isn’t a rational way to adjudicate between the competing moral ideas.

I can argue for the concept of rights.

Yes, please argue it.

What do you use with your worldview.

How nature was designed by God to include moral agency within what it means to be a true human (and therefore, truly happy).

What reasons do they have to not include besides being selfish and uncaring?

Even if that’s all they have, why are those bad (instead of just different) reasons?

We want to live in a decent society, we have are of recognizing that others are thinking and feeling beings like ourselves, we have loved ones that also live in this world. I already brought this up, Tanager.

This does not make sense of there being a real “ought”. It makes sense of there being a perceived ought, but not a real one.

The psychopathic way doesn’t work for building a functioning society on. Absolutely. But the psychopath’s way within a generally empathetic society can work fine. So, why is it wrong on your view?

That way is against the interests of everyone else.

So what? Why “ought” all of us to really care about the interests of everyone else to the sacrifice of our own interests?

[help3434]

I can point to Finland, the happiest country in the world, not a lot of stonings there.

There aren’t stonings in many countries, with a range of happiness. There are people in Finland who still aren't happy. So, this isn’t a rational way to adjudicate between the competing moral ideas.

But in this case we were talking about on a societal level, remember? This was to the people who think stoning gays, infidels, and unchaste women is needful for society.

Yes, please argue it.

For you? Don't you already believe in rights?

What do you use with your worldview.

How nature was designed by God to include moral agency within what it means to be a true human (and therefore, truly happy).

But you are not God, how do you know what makes people "truly" happy? What can you say that can't be said by looking at what we know about human nature and happiness studies without appealing to God?

Even if that’s all they have, why are those bad (instead of just different) reasons?

We were talking about morality, were we not? I have never of anyone call murdering people for gain moral.

We want to live in a decent society, we have are of recognizing that others are thinking and feeling beings like ourselves, we have loved ones that also live in this world. I already brought this up, Tanager.

This does not make sense of there being a real “ought”. It makes sense of there being a perceived ought, but not a real one.

What real one? This is what is important to people's lives, this is as real as it gets.

So what? Why “ought” all of us to really care about the interests of everyone else to the sacrifice of our own interests?

In most circumstances we are not obligated to sacrifice our own interests , at least when looking at the long term.

[Purple Knight]

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”.

But that's circular. Somebody could be absolutely miserable living the way God created humans to live. But it wouldn't matter because that's what God intended so that's best, right? You're not just saying it won't happen; you're saying it wouldn't matter if it did happen.

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.

It's kind of sad that you're using a god who is allowed to kill people wholesale simply because he is God and decides what is good, as an example of good not being about social power. If you do what God would do, that's just you getting to decide what's best for others, right? It's very much about who gets to make the rules. But it's also about measurable success and you can see that by how people (even God) acknowledge other people. People will praise those who are praiseworthy and curse those who are immoral. This includes God.

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

But if the person initiates it, the results are always caused by that initial selfish motive. If someone has even a tiny spark of unselfishness then they can go from there, and build on that. But if they don't, well, tough luck for them, because anything they do always has a selfish motive, and is therefore a selfish act. If you were born 100% selfish, you can say, "I'm going to talk to God so he'll turn me unselfish, that way, I can get along better in life without being harassed for being selfish all the time," but that's a selfish motive, and God can't erase that. Even if he changes the person completely, the person had a selfish motive for wanting to be changed and initiating that. All acts caused by that selfish motive, also have a selfish motive, ultimately, and are therefore selfish acts.

Abuse is never deserved.

Why? It doesn't matter if someone is abused. As long as they live the way God intended they'll be joyful, right? Abuse doesn't really hurt anyone. It doesn't stop them from being good, and that's all that matters. They're in Heaven because they're doing good. Now you can say, well, God doesn't want people tortured or mutilated, but if Heaven is really doing good, then why not? Being tortured and mutilated just makes them smile and forgive the torturer. So we have one person doing something that does not hurt someone else, and another person not being hurt by it. All I see is people acting righteously. I see no harm that God could be upset over.

I do agree that if they thought they were selfishly doing evil, they probably wouldn’t do it.

That's why acknowledgement is required, at least. If nobody ever said you were doing good, only evil, you wouldn't know. So when, in one case, people say, "He does good just for good's sake, he is a truly wonderful person! He doesn't do it for acknowledgment, like you do; that would mean he was selfish and worthless." That's at least not totally correct. Without acknowledgment, with only punishment, people would not be doing those good acts because they would think those acts were evil. Some time, they were rewarded for those acts, even if it was only with praise. You can choose who to believe if there are differing opinions, but it would be hard to trust just yourself when there is only one opinion, and everyone else holds it. That's called being delusional.

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 know you wouldn't but if a society did it, and it made them better off, would you step in and stop it? Maybe they have to kill because they don't have the resources to lock people up.

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.

You're really just subbing "listening to God" for being born unselfish. It's the same thing where what a person does, doesn't matter, just what's on the inside. People with good and unselfishness on the inside (or, who listen to God) can do some pretty mean and selfish things, but if it's what's on the inside that counts, they can do whatever they want. There is always a good reason. But if you don't listen to God, if you just want to be good, but aren't, nothing can make you good. You say a person who loves God wouldn't abuse someone else. But you also say doing good is Heaven. So I fail to see the harm in mutilating or beating somebody who is in Heaven because they themselves do right. And because there's no harm in it, it's not wrong in the first place.