Atheism and morality

[finewine]

I confess to being a little tired of one particular canard; namely that atheism denies morality.  So tired of this, in fact, that I've added an article specifically about it on my nascent site.  As there are a few other atheists here, I thought I'd share my reasoning and see if it seeds any discussion

[Dana Lane]

I usually try and not let it bother me. It is kind of funny how the groups that call us immoral are the ones who are least moral. Look at all the death and discrimination throughout recorded history of religion.

[FairyGirl]

Why is it so hard to understand that some people can believe in doing the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do, and don't need to worry about some pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by reward for it, or some flaming brimstone punishment if we don't? As if we're all errant little children who need to be threatened or rewarded into just being a good person. In my experience Life seems to have its own way of sorting these things out, and whether you believe in God/dess or not, what goes around does tend to come back around. Even so, doing the right thing is often its own reward.

[Miniar]

Didn't read your link cause I'm lazy.

As far as I am concerned, morality has to deal with generally agreed upon, social rules, that have come about in order to make the society stronger and more closely knit, which in turn helps support the survival of the society and it's members.
(if that wording makes sense at all)

It's nothing to do with what a god or gods tell us is right or wrong.
It doesn't even have anything to do with "right" or "wrong" strictly speaking.

[lisagurl]

It doesn't even have anything to do with "right" or "wrong" strictly speaking.

It has to do with justice.

[Miniar]

It has to do with justice.

No it doesn't.
Morality is about survival of the society. Nothing else.
What we call justice is a "part" of morality.
Thus, morality is Not about justice.

[FairyGirl]

It doesn't even have anything to do with "right" or "wrong" strictly speaking.

I suppose it has to do with it only in the estimation of the society in which those concepts are defined. But I agree that "right" and "wrong" are very relative terms, and are subjective only. I guess I meant "right" in the context of "proper" rather than as a binary opposite of "wrong", but again what is proper in a society is defined only by that society, it's not universal. Some religious types tend to think in absolute terms of universal "truth", which they further contend is handed down by deity, therefore no deity = no morals.

[Calistine]

I think atheists have morality they just define it for themselves

[Firelight]

Honestly, I would say that atheist morality is a lot more trustworthy and genuine than religious morality.

When you stop to think about it... how to religious people judge morality? By religious teachings. And why do most religious people FOLLOW religious teachings? Because by being moral according to the word of their doctrine, they will be rewarded in one way or another.

In other words, their morality isn't genuine; they're only being good because God told them to.

Atheists, on the other hand, have no real stake in anything, and therefore all of their judgments on morality are fueled by practicality and the social contract. Their morality makes sense, and isn't just a facade put up to get into Heaven.

[lisagurl]

No it doesn't.

Read "Ethical Theory" By Louis P. Pojman
Then you might try " A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls.

[finewine]

Morality is a mutable, subjectively held personal framework of what constitutes "right" vs "wrong".  It is influenced by extrinsic factors, of course, and moral relativism is commonplace (even Calvin and Hobbes understood this).

Read "Ethical Theory" By Louis P. Pojman
Then you might try " A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls.

Ah well if it's in a book, it must be right!

Lisa, forgive me but you really shouldn't go making terse throwaway comments and then expect everyone to go traipsing down to the bookstore on your say-so.  If you've read and understood these tomes, and believe they make a relevant point, try to at least summarize a key point.  Just throwing out book titles and saying "See!" is a very lazy way to try and make or defend a point.

[FairyGirl]

(even Calvin and Hobbes understood this).

omg I miss them soooo much!

[Bombi]

If it's possible, I think atheists are perhaps more serious and understanding of "morality". Atheists rely on factual information and the belief that mankind is generally good. People of religion seem to define their morality with the dogma of their religious views.

[lisagurl]

" Just throwing out book titles and saying "See!" is a very lazy way to try and make or defend a point."
And not reading is a way of admitting you are lazy. It takes real work to get a book bought and published not just self published. They also edit and comb a published book for mistakes and stand by it in case of law suits. Anything can be written on the web under a fake name. Books still are more reliable than the electronic media. It would take a book to explain what is in the books. Only the 30 second sound bite mentality wants things in one sentence.

[tekla]

Theory of Justice is not just a book, it's pretty much the book these days when discussing this. Rawls argues that there is both a need for liberty and differences (equality) in modern society and our own lives, and that justice and morality from which it springs is a contract, much like Rousseau and Locke described it, which is a way to balance our needs, and the needs of the greater whole off against each other.

[finewine]

" Just throwing out book titles and saying "See!" is a very lazy way to try and make or defend a point."
And not reading is a way of admitting you are lazy. It takes real work to get a book bought and published not just self published. They also edit and comb a published book for mistakes and stand by it in case of law suits. Anything can be written on the web under a fake name. Books still are more reliable than the electronic media. It would take a book to explain what is in the books. Only the 30 second sound bite mentality wants things in one sentence.

Unfortunately it's just not possible to read every book out there so you need to qualify your recommendation, as I said before.   Further, tekla just demonstrated that it is possible to highlight why it may be a relevant read, without needing to write another book but in more than one sentence (not that I suggested "one sentence" was sufficient but thanks for putting words in my mouth).

You see, it's not that I actually disagree with the point I think you were trying to make, its just that I think you could make your points more persuasive if you hung a little more meat on the bones, as it were.  Meh, it's up to you - no skin off my nose

[PanoramaIsland]

IMO, atheism in itself - that is, the lack of belief in God(s) - has nothing to do with ethics or morals, except in a very abstract and technical metaphysical sense. I don't derive my ideas of right action and doing good in the world from the probable nonexistence of deity. I derive them from my cultural surroundings, and when I have questions or doubts, I consult philosophers and other thinkers I deem worthy of my time.  That, after all, is what the "atheists have no morals" canard is attacking - the culture of atheists, and of nonreligious people in general.

[LordKAT]

Somehow religion and morality strike me as an oxymoron.

[tekla]

I only gave a quick summery, in fact, you do need to read the entire book to see the real point.  Not all things are solved in a matter of a few sentences, some are very complex.

[spacial]

Those which claim that atheism denies morality will presumably be the same people who misquote Jesus while sending other people's sons to kill innocent people on the other side of the world.