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]

There isn't one current nature we can point to in theism or atheism; with both systems there are competing assigned natures. If the existence of competing natures is enough to invalidate the atheists model for objectivism, then it is enough to invalidate the theistic version too.

No, there aren't competing assigned natures in theism. There is an assigned nature by God and a corrupted by men nature.

Here you are appealing to God's desires to salvage the theistic model, but by doing that, you bring back into the conversation the apparent contraction with the subjectivity of a personal being and objectivism. Objectivity in this context can't be just outside of one’s self, it has to be outside of all selves. The Earth has an assigned shape, it is a globe regardless of God's favorite shape, which might well be a cube for all you know.

No, I'm not appealing to God's desires, but God's intentional act of design/creation. Atheism can point to acts of design/creation, but it doesn't point to intention as part of that (and it doesn't seem to point to some other factor that can replace intention to get the same result).

While I am here, I don't see a contradiction between objectivity and different rules for different people. Cops are allowed to speed while on a call, regular people are not allowed, yet that's still objective.

That is akin to the difference between relativism and absolutism, not objective and subjective.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #81]

This is what you said in an earlier post: "On theism, in spite of these competing natures, there is one that God desired and one that went against that desire."

It seems I was supposed to interpret that as "On theism, in spite of these competing natures, there is one that God assigned and one that was corrupted."

That is akin to the difference between relativism and absolutism, not objective and subjective.

That's the point, completing assigned nature is compatible with objectivism, it only impacts on relativism vs absolutism.

[The Tanager]

This is what you said in an earlier post: "On theism, in spite of these competing natures, there is one that God desired and one that went against that desire."

It seems I was supposed to interpret that as "On theism, in spite of these competing natures, there is one that God assigned and one that was corrupted."

Yes, those sound like two ways to say the same thing to me. So, it’s not about the existence of competing natures, it’s about how theism has a God objectively designing one as how humans ought to be through intention, and atheism saying there is no intention behind what nature produces and not positing a different way to account for an objective ought.

That's the point, completing assigned nature is compatible with objectivism, it only impacts on relativism vs absolutism.

Cops don’t have a different nature; they have a different role in specific situations. Anyone that becomes a cop would be allowed the same exception there. That’s not competing natures.

[Purple Knight]

Everyone I’ve met (including myself) is a mix of goodness and badness, so I don’t think we can divide people that way. I don’t think actions are meaningless at all. If it would be good to kill baby Hitler, then both people did the morally right action. What type of person they are is an important but different matter.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-exampl ... ong-reason
If someone does good deeds for the reason of wanting to impress others or to be exalted above others, this is a wrong reason. It may look like they did good, but God sees their heart motive. God says people who pray or do good things just to be seen by men, will receive no further reward from Him. (Matthew 6:1, 5–6, 16–18)

God seems to think the motive matters a lot. If you do good things to be seen, that does not equal a good thing. If you do good things so that you won't be abused, that has to fall under the same category.

But the fact that I can't just refrain from them out of the goodness of my heart for no reason other than it being moral, is pretty disgusting to most people.

If I understand you correctly, I don’t understand what’s disgusting about that.

It seems like people want good to be done for good's sake, not for any other reason. That's the whole point of the thread. Religious people can't be moral because then, it's about the reward. Atheists can't be moral because there's no divine command, no good for good's [God's] sake, so the argument can be made that it's practicality, niceness, reciprocity, but not morality.

But morality is all about making people better off.

There are a lot of problems that show it is not so. Would you agree with a doctor who slaughtered a healthy man to harvest his organs and save six who were in need? What would you do if someone with hostages told you than unless you killed one of his hostages, he would kill two? I think, as a good person, you'd refuse and let him kill two, if those were really the only choices.

Maybe, but that doesn't address the idea that if an act comes from an evil person it must have a selfish motivation and is therefore a selfish act.

Yes, and selfishness will lead to other immoral acts, but the good act was still good.

So if someone tells a selfish person, give $20 to charity, and get $40, and they do it, that's as good an act as someone who didn't gain from it? You might call it good but the person is just motivated to gain $20. There's no good in him at all. It's a selfish act, right?

I disagree with you. I don’t think there are just selfish people and just unselfish people. Even the most unselfish people I know have selfishness in them. I think selfish people can change. As a Christian, I think that is what God is doing in the world through Jesus.

That's why it has to be divine intervention though, isn't it? If someone was totally selfish, they might adopt a pattern of seeming unselfishness but it would always be selfishness, because the motive was selfish, even if you call it a good act.

If God is giving someone a desire so that they will overcome it and choose not to, then it’s because he wants them to not put the orange juice in so that they will be truly human, isn’t it?

It depends on whether they will be happier not doing that thing they think they want to do. Maybe they will be happier. The idea that it's about our happiness sits with me as a little childish. Then, we're just selfish for doing right.

I’ve seen many (and been one myself) that thought they were genuinely happy, but in looking back I’ve realized I was settling for a lesser joy than what’s out there.

And that kind of thing may or may not be true about something immoral. Maybe we would all be happier if we had free love and gave up on the concept of jealousy.

So for some things, you'd say they were wrong enough that if you found a society of people doing them and seeming to be happy, it would nevertheless be moral to put a stop to it?

Do you have a more specific example in mind that could help me wrap my brain around this?

The easiest one is a purge society that worked much better than ours, and somehow ended up with lower homicide because, on a certain day each year (or even year-round) murder was legal. It seems counterintuitive but imagine that all the people serving their own interests and hurting others within the limits of the law actually cause 90% of society's problems. If people know who they are and can just off them, it might legitimately get better for everyone. I don't trust our population to be sensible and only murder only the parasites, but for a moment, imagine they did.

[Purple Knight]

Interesting topic and I'm sorry to jump in late. An important point is to define morality or at least it's reason for existence. To the first point of this thread, for the atheist (or secularist, I'd prefer) morals are a necessity of any society. I think Christians might be surprised to know that the Golden Rule is nearly universal to all societies. They won't last long if killing or stealing is tolerated.

To the second point, the religious can be moral beyond the belief that their deity says they must. Simply because of my first point. An atheist as well as a theist can see the benefit to society.

A difference is the secularist can (hopefully) see that societies change and evolve, requiring the moral codes to change as well. For the theist, this is a conundrum. For example, slavery is abhorrent is today's society. Yet, as is being debated in another thread, the bible condones it. So how does the theist resolve this. The reality is they follow the secularist point in these cases.

But if it's about benefit to society, isn't that practicality and not morality? As I told Tanager, I think people want good to be done for no other reason than good itself. If you tell someone you'll give him $40 if he gives $20 to charity, and he does it, that's hardly moral; it's just selfish. The atheist may have a broader view but in the end he's just as much the reward-motivated dog as the religious person, with the single extra step of trying to make society a better place, so he can live in a better place. The religious person skips right to living in a better place... when you die.

For example, even if legalised murder were beneficial, it would still be wrong, because murder is wrong, it just is, full stop, needs no justification. This is what people seem to believe.

[help3434]

[Replying to William in post #7]

I agree that atheists can be moral agents, but only if theism is true.

Regardless if there is a God or not the atheist is still the same person making the same choices.

If atheism is true, carrying out an action against a person without their consent cannot be wrong any more than eating pistachio ice cream would be wrong. If atheism is true, ignoring consent is as 'moral' as choosing an ice cream flavor (i.e., not moral at all) because there is no "should" with specific ice cream flavors.

Ignoring consent hurts people, regardless if you subjectively care or not. Your favored ice cream flavor is of no consequence.

[The Tanager]

If someone does good deeds for the reason of wanting to impress others or to be exalted above others, this is a wrong reason. It may look like they did good, but God sees their heart motive. God says people who pray or do good things just to be seen by men, will receive no further reward from Him. (Matthew 6:1, 5–6, 16–18)

God seems to think the motive matters a lot. If you do good things to be seen, that does not equal a good thing. If you do good things so that you won't be abused, that has to fall under the same category.

I agree that God cares about motivations. I’m saying that is different from morality, though.

It seems like people want good to be done for good's sake, not for any other reason. That's the whole point of the thread. Religious people can't be moral because then, it's about the reward. Atheists can't be moral because there's no divine command, no good for good's [God's] sake, so the argument can be made that it's practicality, niceness, reciprocity, but not morality.

But you refraining for no other reason than it being moral is doing good for goodness’ sake, isn’t it?

But morality is all about making people better off.

There are a lot of problems that show it is not so. Would you agree with a doctor who slaughtered a healthy man to harvest his organs and save six who were in need? What would you do if someone with hostages told you than unless you killed one of his hostages, he would kill two? I think, as a good person, you'd refuse and let him kill two, if those were really the only choices.

I agree; I don’t mean “better off” in that utilitarian sense.

So if someone tells a selfish person, give $20 to charity, and get $40, and they do it, that's as good an act as someone who didn't gain from it? You might call it good but the person is just motivated to gain $20. There's no good in him at all. It's a selfish act, right?

Yes, but I see those as two separate things that you are conflating into one. Good was done for those that receive that charity, but the person that gave the money was doing it for selfish reasons.

That's why it has to be divine intervention though, isn't it? If someone was totally selfish, they might adopt a pattern of seeming unselfishness but it would always be selfishness, because the motive was selfish, even if you call it a good act.

Well, I do think people sometimes become less selfish as life goes on, but I don’t think it can be as big a change as divine intervention brings.

It depends on whether they will be happier not doing that thing they think they want to do. Maybe they will be happier. The idea that it's about our happiness sits with me as a little childish. Then, we're just selfish for doing right.

And that kind of thing may or may not be true about something immoral. Maybe we would all be happier if we had free love and gave up on the concept of jealousy.

I might use ‘joy’ instead of ‘happiness’ because of the baggage with the term ‘happiness’, but if God exists, then He knows what will truly make people more joyful/happier. But, ultimately, I’m saying our true joy/happiness includes being unselfishly good.

The easiest one is a purge society that worked much better than ours, and somehow ended up with lower homicide because, on a certain day each year (or even year-round) murder was legal. It seems counterintuitive but imagine that all the people serving their own interests and hurting others within the limits of the law actually cause 90% of society's problems. If people know who they are and can just off them, it might legitimately get better for everyone. I don't trust our population to be sensible and only murder only the parasites, but for a moment, imagine they did.

There are a couple of possible problems here, though. One, do we trust our limited knowledge to really know who these problem people are. Two, killing people does something to the killer, it seems to me, even if one’s intentions are self-viewed as good. Three, redemption of people is better for them and being a part of that solution is so much better for us.

[The Tanager]

Regardless if there is a God or not the atheist is still the same person making the same choices.

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.

Ignoring consent hurts people, regardless if you subjectively care or not. Your favored ice cream flavor is of no consequence.

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

[Bust Nak]

Yes, those sound like two ways to say the same thing to me. So, it’s not about the existence of competing natures, it’s about how theism has a God objectively designing one as how humans ought to be through intention, and atheism saying there is no intention behind what nature produces and not positing a different way to account for an objective ought.

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.

Cops don’t have a different nature; they have a different role in specific situations. Anyone that becomes a cop would be allowed the same exception there. That’s not competing natures.

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.

[Purple Knight]

I agree that God cares about motivations. I’m saying that is different from morality, though.

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?

But you refraining for no other reason than it being moral is doing good for goodness’ sake, isn’t it?

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. You might as well tell me to play the harmonica while standing on one leg for 30 minutes a day and tell me it was a moral requirement. I might do it because you told me (so I don't get lambasted for being immoral), I might do it because it had a benefit if I thought there was one, but I'm incapable of doing it for no reason whatsoever. I look at good people who are moral for no other reason than being moral and it's like, well, why aren't they standing on one leg playing the harmonica? If good isn't about benefit, if it's supposed to be done for no reason but being good, then the harmonica thing might be good. Or it might be evil. Anything might be either.

Yes, but I see those as two separate things that you are conflating into one. Good was done for those that receive that charity, but the person that gave the money was doing it for selfish reasons.

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. 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.

Well, I do think people sometimes become less selfish as life goes on, but I don’t think it can be as big a change as divine intervention brings.

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.

I might use ‘joy’ instead of ‘happiness’ because of the baggage with the term ‘happiness’, but if God exists, then He knows what will truly make people more joyful/happier. But, ultimately, I’m saying our true joy/happiness includes being unselfishly good.

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.

There are a couple of possible problems here, though. One, do we trust our limited knowledge to really know who these problem people are. Two, killing people does something to the killer, it seems to me, even if one’s intentions are self-viewed as good. Three, redemption of people is better for them and being a part of that solution is so much better for us.

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.

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

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. 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.