the moral atheist

hey guys

it's been done a million times but i couldn't find a thread of recent pertaining.

because atheists haven't got any absolute morals, what determines right or wrong? it's easy enough to say that morals will be based on what is instinctually right; do unto others as you would have them do unto you, act for the survival of the species, and so on.

but further on, issues become subjective; if i say abortion is wrong and you say it's right, who is really right? or is there simply no "right" in an atheist's view, because everything depends on viewpoint?

i'm just wondering what it means to have an atheistic society without absolute moral guide (/religion), and how freethinking atheists with differing or opposing moral codes could form some kind of organized community.


peace,
sophia

 

Well I can't answere your question, pardon me. But I would like to say I don't think there are many strict atheists out there and when realize they are in the same category and as easy to avoid as Jesus Freaks. Sorry But the fundamentalism of "there is no god" is as annoying as the bible thumpers.



boooh!


lol

 

"there's no absolute truth" remember when that scene broke every bone in everyone's body? soerrry if that doens't make snese yet,

no but it's funny right to say, "THERE IS NO TRUTH" Weeeeeee. Ain't we got fun. But there is nothing more honorable than the atheist who acts right for the sake or right. And even that athiest will be pleased to find him or herself alone Heaven and eternity floating through space ffor all a heqav

sorry my neck really hurts

 

what exactly constitutes a "strict atheist"?
there are no fundamentals in atheism; here is no code of practise, and atheism is not a religion, so i don't quite follow what you mean.

i'll suggest that you read the sticky note at the top of this forum before making any further assumptions. the majority of us in here are very open-minded; many of us are agnostic as well as atheist and therefore wouldn't ever proclaim a definite non-existence of god. if you have any anything to say relating to existence or non-existence of deities, it's cool to post it for consideration.

sophia

 

hey man, hope you're getting that head injury looked at... feel better!

sophia

 

t/y!

 

I think it's fairly simple to break it down to "don't try to control anyone else's life," especially in any kind of negative fashion. If someone wants to kill themself, fine it's their life. Obviously as a friend you should try to talk them out of it since it's probably never the best solution, but in the end it's their decision.

As for abortion, I don't particularly like it, but a) I'm not a woman, so what does it matter what I think anyway, and b) it has to be legal. Simple.

Similarly, there is absolutely no reason for the government side of marriage to care about the sexes (or, arguably, perhaps, the number) of the people involved. It should also not be a crime - a terrible thing to do, certainly, but not a /crime/ - to commit adultery.

 

hi phantom, welcome to the forums.
ok, killing yourself is one thing, and that's a pretty bland solution you've given there - what if one person says rape is ok, and the other person says it's not?

a)some would argue that killing people is wrong, and feel compelled to defend a person about to be killed. if you came upon a murder attempt in progress, would you intervene? is it your right to intervene?
b)exactly the point of the thread! what determines legality?

yes, i agree. some people could feel that morally, adultery is wrong; some not. and so my question is, how does a society of persons with differing moral codes perform with any degree of organization? where does law fit in, and how?

 

If a person commits a murder and believes it to be justified then that is their choice. If a number of the people who are in some way effected by the murder perceive the murder as wrong and the murderer to be a threat then they might act so as to protect themselves and their enviornment. If enough like minded people group together then they have the power to force their will onto others.
It would seem plausable that the more common beleifs would be forced onto all.

 

I like to combine what's traditionally called 'golden rule' along with a kant style ethics.

the 'what if everybody did it' and 'treat others as you'd want to be treated' but, with sanctions. such as, i wouldn't want a masochist to treat me as he'd like to be treated.

also a some of locke's social contract, the idea that my right to swing my fist ends at the beginning of the other guy's nose.

there's a lot of ethics and moral philosophy that's completly nonreligous.

 

Atheists and Christians get their morality from the same place. They make it up as the need arises. Humans are social animals and the basics of morality have existed before the rise of Homo sapiens.

Morality is in constant flux, but the basics have remained the same before Homo sapiens evolved. As the social structure becomes more complex, morality changes along with it.

Moral absolutes are for children. "Never lie. Never steal. Never hit. Never this. Always that." Children must be taught in moral absolutes because they don't have the intellectual framework or experience to deal with anything else. As parents, we shield children from situations where our precious absolutes fail us. As children grow into adulthood, they learn that there are times when one must lie to be a decent person; there are times when one is forced to hit another; there are times when stealing is justified. Absolute morals always fail because they are context-less, and, further, no one ever follows moral absolutes because the moral agent can always find an exception for himself or herself.

Morality by its very nature is both subjective—it arises from subjects—and relative—it stands in relation to something.

Side note: I usually draw a distinction between morality and ethics, but that distinction would make for a completely different thread.

 

Iconoclast.
Human beings get their 'initial moral code' from conditioning by parents and their culture..
After that..they modify it to suit.

Occam

 

Existence precedes essence.

Morality exists to protect the weak from the strong.

Ethics must be created like anything else. You first have to accept that there are no moral absolutes as there is no objective, perfect being from which they would be created. Acceptance unquestionably of a non-omniscient being's idea of ethics is foolish and lazy.

Logical and subjective deduction are the means by which ethics must be created: Destruction of life unnecessarily is unethical because since I value the continuation of my own life, I can reasonable assume others feel similarly. As I believe there does not exist an afterlife, Existence in the now is of the highest importance. If the continuation of my life is threatened I will defend it with whatever means necessary, because MY life is of the highest importance, we regress to a primal survival of the fittest.

Desire to self-actualize ethically is necessarily dependent on an individual's desire to be authentic, some fool themselves into believing they are authentic, even more just don't care.

There is a grey area with abortion. On the one hand I value an individual's right to do what they want on the condition that they do not inhibit another's reasonable definition of happiness. However, if a conscious being is killed, it cannot be morally justified just because it is the woman's body in which the conscious being lived. The value of life transcends the woman's desire. However, the value is on a conscious being, not a potential conscious being. If the abortion is before consciousness I see nothing wrong with it, there are over population problems anyway.

For ethics to work on wide scale there must be agreement on ethics. The whole Plato-Crito thing applies here. As there is no omnipotent, omniscient being whom which would uphold moral standards, government must enforce agreed ethics.

 

someone who is certain there is NO god. really annoying to me. How anyone can suchaone witness a model of creation and say No one made the original, Who made this copy?

But still the athiest abides with lose ends and some kind a disingenuity. A self-serving Dishonesty i mean. Not that it's their fault.

my ncek stilll kinda hurts. thanks for your help.

 

I wasn't very clear. I wasn't speaking of a specific individual. I meant in the wide sense from morality's origins. Morality arises from necessity with the hidden and assumed axiom of "I want to continue living". That's why the basics of morality are universal across cultures--we are all human with the same biological needs. After that, the differences are cultural and situational.

For a specific individual, I completely concur with you.

 

how so?

say I invent a 'snurgle'

this device doesn't exsist anywhere else in nature, and it's function isn't mirrored by anything anyone has every done before.

therefore, hasn't it's essence come before it's exsistence?

doesn't the idea or concept have to come before the ability to create?

[i'm not necessarily extending this to a universal scale. I question it's absoluteness.]

 

Iconoclast

Agree on your clarification

Occam

 

smlchance

What do you mean who made this copy? There is ZERO evidence
that reality was 'made' at all.
NONE.

In actuallity...It is far easier to postulate that everything HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. and ALWAYS WILL.
[how did it begin you ask?..well..how did god begin?..Always existed?
If god can always exist..so can reality..and with far less contradiction]

What we call reality is only as far as we can see...Do you imagine we
amusing little apes can see very far?
We con ourselves that we understand reality and that god made it.
Sheer face saving arrogance.

WE know 'virtually nothing' about reality.
WE know 'nothing' about a possible 'god'.

Occam

 

It's simple. Don't take any action that directly affects someone else's life in a way that they don't want.

Murder is wrong, because the victim does not want to die, yet you are making that decision for them. If the victim DOES want to die, then it becomes assisted suicide, which is fine.

Rape is wrong, because the victim does not want to have sex with you. If they do, then it's consensual - i.e., not rape.

Abortion has to be legal because it's wrong for anyone to make someone else's life decision.

It becomes a bit harder to apply this to things like speed limits - I say, go whatever speed you deem to be safe - if you crash, it's your fault. But if you damage someone else's property or person that they did not want damaged, you're going to be prosecuted.

 

Here's a uniquely Australian slant ~

Australia was a penal colony for Englands overflowing jails (spelt goals here). The jails were overflowing because of a wealth divide, whereby the rich were OK, but the poor were very badly off and taken advantage of by the rich industrialists. So some of the poor stole to put bread on the table. Caught committing a crime, they were transported. Amongst the convicts there were "genuine" criminals, murderers and the like. But basically they were petty theives.
I personally don't consider that a person stealing food or items to sell for food because he/she or family is starving is committing a crime. I believe the crime is that they are starving in a supposedly "civilized" world, and those with enough or plenty to spare and take no care of others are the real criminals and corrupt.
But "the system" is governed by the wealthy, and that includes the churches with regard to a couple of hundred years ago as well as now.
I read an article about a woman just yesterday who suffered a serious calamity and lost everything. She went to her catholic church, and the priest said "pray god will help you." She went to an pentecostal church, the pastor listened, phoned a parishoner who established a support group, and within 2 hours the woman had a roof over her head, her kids had hot baths and meals, and plans were being made for her future and employment.
The "moral" is ~ naturally good people do naturally good things, bad people do bad, indifferent people do nothing. There are no "morals" as such. People just do what is in their hearts to do.
.*..*..*......steps off soapbox