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.

[Purple Knight]

Why can't morality have a practical motivation?

People don't seem to think that morality can have a practical motivation. They want morality for morality's sake. They want no murdering not because of a benefit, but because murder is wrong and end of story. The atheist doesn't have that; he's doing it for the best practical benefit to all, including himself. The religious person is doing it to get into Heaven. Nobody is being purely moral.

[The Tanager]

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.

So why does this idea of ‘happiness’ (versus other societies’ ideas of happiness) adjudicate objectively?

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

Yes, but my belief rests on God’s existence and act of creation.

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?

I am not saying that I can judge what makes people truly happy; I’m saying God can (whatever those judgments end up being). One can’t say that if they don’t think God exists. They must say something else. What is it for you?

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

Morality is about ‘oughts’, right? The murderer often believes that this is what they ought to do. We disagree. Why, on your view, are they worse than us?

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

My claim has been that, on atheism, morality would be subjective. This is what you just described. So why are you disagreeing with me in the rest of this by trying to say that atheism can give us objective morality as well?

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

I’m not sure we can say what happens in most, but even assuming you are correct, that still means some circumstances we are “obligated” to sacrifice our own interests, even long term. Why “ought” all of us do that, when we simply don’t want to?

[The Tanager]

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.

It’s not circular, it’s just a logical consequence. If God designed humans to be happy in way A, then it logically follows that they couldn’t be miserable living that way. They could settle for way B or C or D and think they are as happy as possible, but it couldn’t actually be true.

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.

No, God doesn’t just decide what is good. God designs humans so that good, for them, is a certain way. He can’t then turn around and say killing them for no good reason is good for them.

As a Christian, I think that design isn’t about humans having social power (at least not for their own reputation and benefit), but using one’s power for the good of everyone involved. That design is not about deciding what’s best for others (that’s God’s job). It’s not about a power trip to make rules. It’s not about acknowledgement from 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.

As a Christian, I think God initiates it in all of us. But the results aren’t determined by the initiator alone. (You keep saying it does, but aren’t offering support for that being true.) I also don’t think anyone is born 100% selfish. I also don’t think we start off turning to God out of unselfishness; that’s something God shows us and works on down the line.

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.

They can live a joyful life in spite of being abused, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. Abuse does hurt people; it hurts everyone in different levels. Being good is not all that matters. They are in Heaven because they want to be the kind of people who are doing good to those around them (even though they can’t do that on their own wisdom and strength). You can get that without being tortured and mutilated.

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.

Acknowledgement is needed at some point, probably for all of us, because we are all selfish in different ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t move past that.

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 don’t have a problem (generally speaking) with capital punishment in past societies.

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.

It’s not just what’s on the inside; our actions matter.

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.

Beating someone is the absence of heaven in that place, it’s hell.

[help3434]

So why does this idea of ‘happiness’ (versus other societies’ ideas of happiness) adjudicate objectively?

You seem to be looking for an impossible standard. Morality is a social product, a product of the fact that our actions as sentient beings have an effect on other sentient beings. Its not a law of physics.

Yes, but my belief rests on God’s existence and act of creation.

What does that have to do with human rights? Human rights certainly don't seem to be a biblical concept.

I am not saying that I can judge what makes people truly happy; I’m saying God can (whatever those judgments end up being).

What good does that do us in the here and now?

My claim has been that, on atheism, morality would be subjective. This is what you just described. So why are you disagreeing with me in the rest of this by trying to say that atheism can give us objective morality as well?

Again you seem to have a tendency to handwave away anything that is not as objective as a law of physics as if it were just arbitrary. I am taking about things that actually matter to people. People want happy lives in healthy communities, and to have good relations with their loved ones. I don't know how your theistic system of "objective" morality can do much better than that

[The Tanager]

You seem to be looking for an impossible standard. Morality is a social product, a product of the fact that our actions as sentient beings have an effect on other sentient beings. Its not a law of physics.

I think it's more like a law of rationality because we aren't forced to obey that kind of law, but I do think the moral law applies to every human the same way laws of logic do.

Again you seem to have a tendency to handwave away anything that is not as objective as a law of physics as if it were just arbitrary. I am taking about things that actually matter to people. People want happy lives in healthy communities, and to have good relations with their loved ones. I don't know how your theistic system of "objective" morality can do much better than that.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say “arbitrary”, but Oxford languages has this general definition: “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system”. I don’t think atheistic morality is completely random or based on personal whims (which OL defines as “a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained). It has reasons and systems of thought behind it.

People disagree on what a happy life is and what a healthy community looks like. When they disagree, are you saying one is better (not just different) than the other? If so, you are saying morality is objective. I’m saying atheism can’t give us that. So, are you saying “yes, it can” or something more like “I agree it can’t, but so what and/or neither can theism”?

[help3434]

People disagree on what a happy life is and what a healthy community looks like. When they disagree, are you saying one is better (not just different) than the other? If so, you are saying morality is objective. I’m saying atheism can’t give us that. So, are you saying “yes, it can” or something more like “I agree it can’t, but so what and/or neither can theism”?

I don't think our natures are as uniform as your "objective morality from design" seems to imply, but your posts on the subject are vague enough that I'm not really sure what you are getting at with that.

[The Tanager]

I don't think our natures are as uniform as your "objective morality from design" seems to imply, but your posts on the subject are vague enough that I'm not really sure what you are getting at with that.

Okay, feel free to ask questions on that. I'm saying that part of human nature is moral agency, where we ought to seek the good of others, not their bad. We are designed in such a way that each of us would truly be more happy/fulfilled/joyful/content if we acted in those moral ways. None of us is designed in a way where abusing a child is the more happy/joyful/fulfilling option even if we think differently in the moment, before it, and after it. We would be settling for a worse life, personally by abusing the child.

As to what I'm saying about atheism, are you disagreeing about atheism leading to subjective morality or are you saying something like "Yes, but so what?"

[Purple Knight]

It’s not circular, it’s just a logical consequence. If God designed humans to be happy in way A, then it logically follows that they couldn’t be miserable living that way. They could settle for way B or C or D and think they are as happy as possible, but it couldn’t actually be true.

So you think that every single time someone is miserable, they inflicted it on themselves, by living in a way other than God intended? But you also say abusing people, torturing them, does hurt them. So what if someone is living the way God intended, but others torture them every day in the worst way imaginable? If they can't be miserable, because they're living rightly, then it's like I said and there's no harm in torturing people, so there's no reason why people shouldn't do it. If there is harm, then people can be unhappy even if they're living rightly, because others torture them.

This is where this blissful Christian pacifist perfection thing breaks down. Either you can meaningfully hurt others or you can't. If you can't, then there's no reason for the pacifism. Maim, mangle, torture others all you want. It's nothing but momentary physical pain and can't cause meaningful harm. And if you can meaningfully hurt others, your idea that people can be joyous despite being raped and tortured every day is what breaks down.

Besides, what if God created people so that they can't be happy? Then we'd have to make our own happiness. And we'd have full control of it. We might not ever be able to achieve it, but we could fight for it, struggle for it, and that in itself is meaningful.

No, God doesn’t just decide what is good. God designs humans so that good, for them, is a certain way. He can’t then turn around and say killing them for no good reason is good for them.

What my point was that God decides what is good for himself. And the reason he gets to do this (or rather, that it trickles down to us and we say it is good if God kills a bunch of people) is that he is worshiped. So God is a very bad example of it not being about primate hierarchy. Even if God made us to be happy in a certain way, and not other ways, so it just becomes tautological that we should behave that way, this is about God's behaviour. He gets to do stuff that would be evil if we did it, and we call it good because... why? What reason, if not because he's on top?

It’s not about acknowledgement from others.

People who have that acknowledgment take it for granted. You wouldn't be able to maintain the idea that you were doing good, if no one, ever, in all your life, had told you so. It would be no different than me just deciding that killing people is good and doing it. If we can't take the feelings of others into account, then one idea of what is good, is just as good as any other. I can't cut off your toe against your will and say that is good for you. You get to decide that. If you only care about what God thinks then it's about acknowledgment from God, but you have to have it from somebody. And the hard truth is that you might look in the Bible and try to apply it to your life, but since God might not exist, you can't ask him after the fact whether you did a good thing or not. You can only assume.

As a Christian, I think God initiates it in all of us. But the results aren’t determined by the initiator alone. (You keep saying it does, but aren’t offering support for that being true.)

I have offered support. I'm trying to backtrack to an idea of selfishness we can agree on. At first I was using good and selfless interchangeably but then you said what I was talking about by good, meaning how the act was motivated, was more along the lines of selfish/unselfish. And I think we both agreed that if you give someone $40, to give $20 to charity, that when he does it, because he does it so that he can gain $20, it's a selfish act. If I go and beg God to turn me into a selfless person, so that people will stop abusing me, that's the same, right? Do you also agree that it goes forwards and backwards? The man might have to fill out a credit card application before he donates, or deal with the spam after he donates, but all of that is so that he can get the $20 profit, right?

I also don’t think anyone is born 100% selfish.

I admit it so that spoils that. I knew it very early on. I wasn't keen on sharing, so my parents told me to share. Next time, I shared. When they said, "You just did that because we told you to," they had me. I realised I was 100% selfish when I was 5. I only shared to avoid being scolded. I only want to be a good person because I want to be treated like they treat each other.

They can live a joyful life in spite of being abused, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. Abuse does hurt people; it hurts everyone in different levels. Being good is not all that matters. They are in Heaven because they want to be the kind of people who are doing good to those around them (even though they can’t do that on their own wisdom and strength). You can get that without being tortured and mutilated.

Beating someone is the absence of heaven in that place, it’s hell.

So how does it matter? If someone can be joyful, and in Heaven on Earth because they're living right, why in the world does anything else matter? What does it matter to? Why is it Hell to inflict meaningless physical discomfort on somebody, when you're not stopping them from being peaceful and joyous and in Heaven?

Acknowledgement is needed at some point, probably for all of us, because we are all selfish in different ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t move past that.

We both agree, a selfish act is one with a selfish motivation. If a person is 100% selfish, then everything they do has a selfish motivation. So how could somebody move past selfishness, if they never had an unselfish thought to act upon? I agree that if you have both, selfishness and unselfishness, you can ideally choose between them. However if you don't start with anything but selfishness, selfishness will describe the motivation for every action you take.

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 don’t have a problem (generally speaking) with capital punishment in past societies.

Well we still have poor in our first-world societies, who worry where their next meal will come from. So imagine if we killed everyone in prison. Not with the expensive appeal process, just killed them. We could lift everybody out of poverty. If a society did this, would you ask of them to recreate poverty in the law-abiding so that hundreds of thousands of criminals could live comfortably and never have to worry where their next meal was coming from?

It’s not just what’s on the inside; our actions matter.

Obviously you can't go on a murderous rampage and claim it doesn't matter because your heart is pure. But both matter, and without purity of motivation, all actions are tainted with that motivation. They may be helpful to others anyway, but as far as being unselfish, it won't happen. Your own God says, you can't be doing it so that others will see. He forgets that he's one of these others and now, if I'm doing it so that he'll see, it's just as bad. And if I'm doing it for nobody's sake, it goes back to playing the harmonica while standing on one leg. That might as well be defined as good, or evil, it makes no difference.

[Purple Knight]

I don't think our natures are as uniform as your "objective morality from design" seems to imply, but your posts on the subject are vague enough that I'm not really sure what you are getting at with that.

I agree with this. Where's the line between me hating avocados more than anything else, and me having a different idea of morality? For example, I think we should kill criminals if it's a choice between feeding and housing the criminal, and feeding and housing someone else who is not a criminal. Why should he be fat and happy while someone else is on the street starving? If I'd really be happier in this sort of society, even if I have to go far out of my way to make sure nobody even thinks I did anything wrong, how is that different than me hating avocados?

The vast majority of disagreements would simply disappear if we allowed people to self-segregate and live under the policies and morality they preferred. Sometimes people would find their choices were simply foolish and counterproductive. (*Cough* Libertarians *Cough*) I just don't think that would happen every time. There are multiple sustainable, non-parasitic moral strategies. The idea that the clever should win and scam with impunity is parasitic, because it relies on victims being available. So scamworld would make everyone miserable. But not every choice is like this. Some may want to live with more freedom to endanger one's own self, for example, while others may want to endure less freedom to live in a world where their loved ones are safer.

[help3434]

Okay, feel free to ask questions on that. I'm saying that part of human nature is moral agency, where we ought to seek the good of others, not their bad.

I agree, but what makes that ought objective?

We are designed in such a way that each of us would truly be more happy/fulfilled/joyful/content if we acted in those moral ways.

How do we figure out what those ways are?

As to what I'm saying about atheism, are you disagreeing about atheism leading to subjective morality or are you saying something like "Yes, but so what?"

I'm saying I don't see how it is any less objective than your morality.