Atheist morality.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2014, 08:02 PM
Atheist morality.
I tend to use this as my go to morality comment when asked. Opinions are appreciated.

Atheists derive their morals the same way religious people do. We did not get our morality from some bronze age goat herders mythology. It was an accumulation of philosophical ideologies over the centuries.
Morality is subjective, which known history demonstrates. Even in the religious world view that it is. Christians once endorsed slavery, torture and executions of non-believers, burning of witches and many other atrocities. Which are taboo now in western societies. (Christians still do that stuff in Asia and Africa).
We are evolved social primates with inherent evolutionary traits, such as communication, intelligence, altruistic tendencies and emotions like empathy. These evolutionary traits allow us to place ourselves into other peoples shoes. Which we can produce thought experiments, like "I wouldnt want to be shot, so I doubt you would either". Which we can then convoy the thought experiments to others to see if they agree. Which if the majority agree we then can produce laws and consequences for breaking those laws.
No deity needed, it is just the inherent and objective nature of a social animal we are, that we come to similar conclusions on moral issues.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like StorMRising's post
14-11-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: Atheist morality.
nice and short, nicely done. Here is a paper I wrote on this:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674800

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 08:18 PM
RE: Atheist morality.
StorMFront and StorMRising Unsure you two know each other? Consider apologies for the derail. I'm just curious Big Grin and confused because the names are SO similar. I couldn't tell you apart for a second Laugh out load

I hope that the world turns, and things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you. With all my heart, I love you. - V for Vendetta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 08:36 PM
RE: Atheist morality.
(14-11-2014 08:18 PM)Smercury44 Wrote:  StorMFront and StorMRising Unsure you two know each other? Consider apologies for the derail. I'm just curious Big Grin and confused because the names are SO similar. I couldn't tell you apart for a second Laugh out load

Brothers.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
14-11-2014, 08:52 PM
RE: Atheist morality.
(14-11-2014 08:02 PM)StorMRising Wrote:  I tend to use this as my go to morality comment when asked. Opinions are appreciated.

Atheists derive their morals the same way religious people do. We did not get our morality from some bronze age goat herders mythology. It was an accumulation of philosophical ideologies over the centuries.
Morality is subjective, which known history demonstrates. Even in the religious world view that it is. Christians once endorsed slavery, torture and executions of non-believers, burning of witches and many other atrocities. Which are taboo now in western societies. (Christians still do that stuff in Asia and Africa).
We are evolved social primates with inherent evolutionary traits, such as communication, intelligence, altruistic tendencies and emotions like empathy. These evolutionary traits allow us to place ourselves into other peoples shoes. Which we can produce thought experiments, like "I wouldn't want to be shot, so I doubt you would either". Which we can then convoy the thought experiments to others to see if they agree. Which if the majority agree we then can produce laws and consequences for breaking those laws.
No deity needed, it is just the inherent and objective nature of a social animal we are, that we come to similar conclusions on moral issues.

I think you have a slight confusion here.

Morals are Objective. They are objective to the way our evolutionary processes have gone over the years. ETHICS on the other hand is what is Subjective. Slavery is not really a moral choice but more an ethical one based on what the population believes at the time. Morality never changes, Ethics does, but the two are so interconnected to each other that it is difficult to tell which is which.

For example, murder. Murder is wrong no matter what culture you are in. However, because of the ethics of a certain time, it can be "morally", and by morally I actually mean ethically, correct to kill someone if they have opposing ideals that are against the holy book of whatever region you are from.

Ethics are driven from an outside source, this outside source can be anything from a holy book written by the ethical standards of others from any other period of time, to people in your community or whatever.

Morality exists in every social animal species on the planet. They are Objective because that is how evolution has brought us up to survive as a species.

For example, there is a moral stigma against killing each other for no reason.
Why? Because in order to kill someone, we need a reason to be afraid of them such as a fear of our lives ending because of that person. If we simply walked around and killed each other for no reason than our species would come to an end.

Sex with small children is a morality issue. They are not able to procreate, therefor, sex with children is morally wrong since it provides no purpose and they are still at the age where maternal and paternal instincts should still be in place that causes us to want to protect them from harm, be it physical or psychological which the act of sex would harm them in both.

The act of having sex with a minor whom is capable of making children is an Ethical choice based on many factors and continues to evolve over time today. It would not surprise me if the age of consent would be pushed to 20-21 in the next 100 years. This is also due to the fact that our species no longer needs to copulate with minors in order to keep the species alive.

So, while you are correct in saying we all have the same morality ( aside from some mentally defective people. ) Our ethics on the other hand are not all the same and that is where a lot of people get confused. People often confuse a ethical choice over a moral one.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 09:52 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2014 10:03 PM by StorMFront.)
RE: Atheist morality.
(14-11-2014 08:52 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 08:02 PM)StorMRising Wrote:  I tend to use this as my go to morality comment when asked. Opinions are appreciated.

Atheists derive their morals the same way religious people do. We did not get our morality from some bronze age goat herders mythology. It was an accumulation of philosophical ideologies over the centuries.
Morality is subjective, which known history demonstrates. Even in the religious world view that it is. Christians once endorsed slavery, torture and executions of non-believers, burning of witches and many other atrocities. Which are taboo now in western societies. (Christians still do that stuff in Asia and Africa).
We are evolved social primates with inherent evolutionary traits, such as communication, intelligence, altruistic tendencies and emotions like empathy. These evolutionary traits allow us to place ourselves into other peoples shoes. Which we can produce thought experiments, like "I wouldn't want to be shot, so I doubt you would either". Which we can then convoy the thought experiments to others to see if they agree. Which if the majority agree we then can produce laws and consequences for breaking those laws.
No deity needed, it is just the inherent and objective nature of a social animal we are, that we come to similar conclusions on moral issues.

I think you have a slight confusion here.

Morals are Objective. They are objective to the way our evolutionary processes have gone over the years. ETHICS on the other hand is what is Subjective. Slavery is not really a moral choice but more an ethical one based on what the population believes at the time. Morality never changes, Ethics does, but the two are so interconnected to each other that it is difficult to tell which is which.

For example, murder. Murder is wrong no matter what culture you are in. However, because of the ethics of a certain time, it can be "morally", and by morally I actually mean ethically, correct to kill someone if they have opposing ideals that are against the holy book of whatever region you are from.

Ethics are driven from an outside source, this outside source can be anything from a holy book written by the ethical standards of others from any other period of time, to people in your community or whatever.

Morality exists in every social animal species on the planet. They are Objective because that is how evolution has brought us up to survive as a species.

For example, there is a moral stigma against killing each other for no reason.
Why? Because in order to kill someone, we need a reason to be afraid of them such as a fear of our lives ending because of that person. If we simply walked around and killed each other for no reason than our species would come to an end.

Sex with small children is a morality issue. They are not able to procreate, therefor, sex with children is morally wrong since it provides no purpose and they are still at the age where maternal and paternal instincts should still be in place that causes us to want to protect them from harm, be it physical or psychological which the act of sex would harm them in both.

The act of having sex with a minor whom is capable of making children is an Ethical choice based on many factors and continues to evolve over time today. It would not surprise me if the age of consent would be pushed to 20-21 in the next 100 years. This is also due to the fact that our species no longer needs to copulate with minors in order to keep the species alive.

So, while you are correct in saying we all have the same morality ( aside from some mentally defective people. ) Our ethics on the other hand are not all the same and that is where a lot of people get confused. People often confuse a ethical choice over a moral one.

Where is the objectiveness you speak of? Is murder wrong if you kill a paedophile trying to harm your child? Is it wrong to eat someone if you are in a situation where the only food was a dead person? Common sense eludes you my friend. EVERY situation is determined by a subjective reasoning.

Having sex with a 'minor' is only a recent legal development. The most common age for marriage for centuries was in the teens. The fact remains as AA pointed out, just like we evolve, so does our morality and ethics.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 10:22 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2014 10:28 PM by StorMRising.)
RE: Atheist morality.
(14-11-2014 08:52 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 08:02 PM)StorMRising Wrote:  I tend to use this as my go to morality comment when asked. Opinions are appreciated.

Atheists derive their morals the same way religious people do. We did not get our morality from some bronze age goat herders mythology. It was an accumulation of philosophical ideologies over the centuries.
Morality is subjective, which known history demonstrates. Even in the religious world view that it is. Christians once endorsed slavery, torture and executions of non-believers, burning of witches and many other atrocities. Which are taboo now in western societies. (Christians still do that stuff in Asia and Africa).
We are evolved social primates with inherent evolutionary traits, such as communication, intelligence, altruistic tendencies and emotions like empathy. These evolutionary traits allow us to place ourselves into other peoples shoes. Which we can produce thought experiments, like "I wouldn't want to be shot, so I doubt you would either". Which we can then convoy the thought experiments to others to see if they agree. Which if the majority agree we then can produce laws and consequences for breaking those laws.
No deity needed, it is just the inherent and objective nature of a social animal we are, that we come to similar conclusions on moral issues.

I think you have a slight confusion here.

Morals are Objective. They are objective to the way our evolutionary processes have gone over the years. ETHICS on the other hand is what is Subjective. Slavery is not really a moral choice but more an ethical one based on what the population believes at the time. Morality never changes, Ethics does, but the two are so interconnected to each other that it is difficult to tell which is which.

For example, murder. Murder is wrong no matter what culture you are in. However, because of the ethics of a certain time, it can be "morally", and by morally I actually mean ethically, correct to kill someone if they have opposing ideals that are against the holy book of whatever region you are from.

Ethics are driven from an outside source, this outside source can be anything from a holy book written by the ethical standards of others from any other period of time, to people in your community or whatever.

Morality exists in every social animal species on the planet. They are Objective because that is how evolution has brought us up to survive as a species.

For example, there is a moral stigma against killing each other for no reason.
Why? Because in order to kill someone, we need a reason to be afraid of them such as a fear of our lives ending because of that person. If we simply walked around and killed each other for no reason than our species would come to an end.

Sex with small children is a morality issue. They are not able to procreate, therefor, sex with children is morally wrong since it provides no purpose and they are still at the age where maternal and paternal instincts should still be in place that causes us to want to protect them from harm, be it physical or psychological which the act of sex would harm them in both.

The act of having sex with a minor whom is capable of making children is an Ethical choice based on many factors and continues to evolve over time today. It would not surprise me if the age of consent would be pushed to 20-21 in the next 100 years. This is also due to the fact that our species no longer needs to copulate with minors in order to keep the species alive.

So, while you are correct in saying we all have the same morality ( aside from some mentally defective people. ) Our ethics on the other hand are not all the same and that is where a lot of people get confused. People often confuse a ethical choice over a moral one.

We can get into hypothetical situations, but that seems ridiculous. What is likely and what isnt is what I like to deal with. Is it likely that the majority of humans would support extraordinary and ridiculous reasons to commit atrocities? I say no. We are evolved to take care of each other. Sure, we care more about our own child, yet, time and again (which is documented) we will put ourselves in harm's way to save someone else's child. We will try to do what is best for any situation (the vast majority of us). However, we might not get it right and something terrible may happen. Like I said in my original post, its about learning from our mistakes. Which we fail sometimes but by the evidence of history, we seem to be heading in the right direction. As there has never been a more moral time then now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 10:27 PM
RE: Atheist morality.
I actually had to look up the difference between morals and ethics. I always assumed they were the same.

Oh how wrong I was.

Short version - morals are derived by the individual and ethics are rules of conduct passed down by an institution or other group of people.

I have morals. My company has a written set of ethics for its employees

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 10:34 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2014 10:40 PM by StorMRising.)
RE: Atheist morality.
(14-11-2014 10:27 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I actually had to look up the difference between morals and ethics. I always assumed they were the same.

Oh how wrong I was.

Short version - morals are derived by the individual and ethics are rules of conduct passed down by an institution or other group of people.

I have morals. My company has a written set of ethics for its employees

Well, depends, yet we would have to get into philosophical nonsense over this. It seems like semantics to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 10:40 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2014 10:49 PM by StorMFront.)
RE: Atheist morality.
(14-11-2014 10:27 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I actually had to look up the difference between morals and ethics. I always assumed they were the same.

Oh how wrong I was.

Short version - morals are derived by the individual and ethics are rules of conduct passed down by an institution or other group of people.

I have morals. My company has a written set of ethics for its employees

Sorry, but morals and ethics are one in the same. Morals are not just derived by the individuals, nor are ethics, they are derived by the society in which we live.

We in the West think its ethical to eat with a fork and knife. However in the east they do not. We think it is unethical to eat 'pets', however in the east they do not. Just like morality, ethics are completely subjective. Only people who are vastly ignorant on what morality and ethnics are state otherwise.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: