The basis of morality.

[McCulloch]

It has been claimed that atheists by definition are amoral. If we do not believe in the spiritual basis of the universe and we do believe that all that is is from materialist causes, we cannot have true morals. That without the belief in the eternal consequences of our lives, we have no motivation to be moral.

On the other hand, it can be claimed that traditional theism also is not a basis for true morality. If you have to be threatened with eternal consequences, if you are only good because someday you will be called to account to an all knowing God, then you are being good not because it is the right thing to do, but to please the all powerful benefactor. The bargain is stated as between gaining the whole world and losing your soul.

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral? Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

I originally thought to put this into Right and Wrong, because it deals with morality. But then I thought it would be better in Philosophy because it deals with the philosophical basis for morality. But finally, I moved it to Christianity and Apologetics because each side of this argument is aimed at disproving the validity of the other.

[Vanguard]

It has been claimed that atheists by definition are amoral. If we do not believe in the spiritual basis of the universe and we do believe that all that is is from materialist causes, we cannot have true morals. That without the belief in the eternal consequences of our lives, we have no motivation to be moral.

On the other hand, it can be claimed that traditional theism also is not a basis for true morality. If you have to be threatened with eternal consequences, if you are only good because someday you will be called to account to an all knowing God, then you are being good not because it is the right thing to do, but to please the all powerful benefactor. The bargain is stated as between gaining the whole world and losing your soul.

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral? Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

To the contrary, all atheists are necessarily moral in varying degrees. They simply ascribe these motivations to social constructs that have evolved over time rather than to a creator of said morality.

Furthermore, all theists are necessarily moral in varying degrees though it seems many cling way too much to the self-serving practicality (i.e., escaping eternal hellfire and damnation and/or hitting the mega-lotto in the afterlife). The ideal bouncing around in my head would have me seeking to serve my fellowman free of any agenda beyond the insatiable, incomprehensible, and almost maddening desire to help others without expectation of any return. Now, if you were to ask how close my reality approximates this ideal I may demure from answering...

[Furrowed Brow]

There is certainly no evidence ever presented that morality is “spiritual�. Can’t say I remember seeing an argument either. I suspect those who put forwards this kind of idea think that God is the only way morality can be universal/objective and not relative. Implicit to that way of looking at morality is the idea that morality must be based on some set of rules that always hold. “Spiritual� is a wisp of supernatural smoke masking the appeal for universality. With that presumption (or some variation upon it) informing the moral spiritualist’s world view then it will I guess look like atheists and particular those atheists whose arguments indeed promote some form of relativism are missing the point and that way of looking at stuff almost by definition cannot have a sense of right and wrong.....because it fails to engage with the universal/objective rules that must surely be what makes up morality.

There are (as is often pointed out) several foundations for morality without God e.g. Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, existential ethics, evolution theory. Presumably these are rejected because either they fail the test of universality or the moral spiritualist view them as unmotivated. Evolutionary for example may indeed explain why folk are motivated towards prosocial behavior but on this view it provides no universal code of behavior a moral person has to follow to be moral. To be motivated you have to smell the holy smoke, have the spirit of God or some similar notion, and there has to be a universal moral code to be motivated towards.

So to answer the question are atheists necessarily amoral I guess that is the way it would have to look to someone determined to justify, albeit implicitly, that there is such a thing as the holy spirit, and if the holy spirit is not really real then the moral motivation cannot be really real. Which answers the question whether traditional theists' appearance of morality is merely self serving practicality? The answer is a kind of yes. It, along with an assortment of other strategies, protects and reinforces their ideology. When they say these kind of things it superficially looks like they are on the attack, whilst really it is a defensive strategy preserving their sense of what is holy. More glibly we might say criticizing the atheist allows the theists to feel better and it is a way of pushing away complex issues because it simplifies what needs to be done. Once able to discern what God wants then moral issues are not intrinsically complicated and they are a matter of right or wrong and all that then needs to be tested is personal motivation. Not to say the theists finds it easy to discern what God wants, but the universal framework means there is a right or wrong even if the believer is unsure. This puts the difficulties back on to the believer and not on to the problem. As psychological mechanisms go this is excellent for reinforcing the belief "I am right" because if the believer loosens their grip on their sense of righteousness then their sense of the holy spirit dilutes. If they are unsure what to do this is their weakness.

[LittlePig]

The ideal bouncing around in my head would have me seeking to serve my fellowman free of any agenda beyond the insatiable, incomprehensible, and almost maddening desire to help others without expectation of any return.

Give me a call. We can arrange something.

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral? Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

I don't think either is true.

Everyone is moral in some fashion. Human morality centers in the interests of the individual and expands outward to include the interests of others to varying degrees. But I don't think morality is merely self serving for anyone other than psychopaths/sociopaths.

I think there is a very clear biological basis for morality, and all animals that make decisions are moral. Social animals possess morality that includes the interests of their fellow individuals. Human morality is rather complex because our decision making is also complex and full of abstraction. The degree to which human morality extends to fellow individuals mirrors our patterns of socialization, neither fully individualistic nor hivelike.

Atheists and theists possess the same moral inclinations. Our attempts to codify, religify, and philosophize the abstractions into some self-consistent system are all after the fact. Those efforts are often driven by the very morality they propose to describe, and some of that morality is more local/tribal in its mutuality than others.

[Angel]

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral?

If you mean 'moral' as in having moral standards that one lives by, then I would definitely say atheists can be moral just as anyone else can. If you mean 'moral' as in doing things that are truly good or bad that would take an "objective" set of morals and not just any morals. Only from that scenario then the door is open for atheistic-based (or centers on God not existing) views amoral assuming that God exists and that the only source for objective morality would have to come from God.

From the naturalistic explanations I've come across for morality, I don't see that they really deal much with justifying "objective" morals or the basis for it. Also, morality would not only be a product of biology but also culture/beliefs.

Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

Unless anyone can prove or disprove God, then you can only assume or believe. As a theist, I follow the morals of my belief-system because the I've had experiences of God, and to me it's just as simple as following instructions from who I believe to be the Creator. Yes, I also feel good about it, it doesn't cause me any harm nor do I see that it would cause others any unjustified harm but this latter part are only secondary reasons.

[Goat]

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral?

If you mean 'moral' as in having moral standards that one lives by, then I would definitely say atheists can be moral just as anyone else can. If you mean 'moral' as in doing things that are truly good or bad that would take an "objective" set of morals and not just any morals. Only from that scenario then the door is open for atheistic-based (or centers on God not existing) views amoral assuming that God exists and that the only source for objective morality would have to come from God.

Why is having "Morals come from God' moral. Isn't that entirely arbitrary on "God's" part then?

That gets into the question "Is it good because God says so, or is God subject to morality from an outside source"

The next issue is 'If Morality comes from God, why do people who believe morality comes from god have such a wide variety of different morals?'?

[Grumpy]

Angel

If you mean 'moral' as in doing things that are truly good or bad that would take an "objective" set of morals and not just any morals.

Then you are out of luck, no such objective morals exist. If they did exist then all the religions of the world would have exactly the same morals, they don't. Atheists do things which are truly good without the need for such non-existent objective morals.

From the naturalistic explanations I've come across for morality, I don't see that they really deal much with justifying "objective" morals or the basis for it.

Nobody has said that it does, there simply are no objective morals, no morals that always apply to all situations, even killing other humans is not universal at all times, to all people and in every situation.

Also, morality would not only be a product of biology but also culture/beliefs.

Of course, and as society changes so will morals.

Unless anyone can prove or disprove God, then you can only assume or believe. As a theist, I follow the morals of my belief-system because the I've had experiences of God, and to me it's just as simple as following instructions from who I believe to be the Creator. Yes, I also feel good about it, it doesn't cause me any harm nor do I see that it would cause others any unjustified harm but this latter part are only secondary reasons.

I am skeptical you have actually had experience of any god, you may have convinced yourself that you have but I doubt it. But it is no skin off of my nose that you believe that, but if you try to insist others follow the directions you believe came from god you and I will have a big problem. More true evil has been done in the name of one god or another(or other ideology)than for any other cause.

Grumpy

[Angel]

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral?

If you mean 'moral' as in having moral standards that one lives by, then I would definitely say atheists can be moral just as anyone else can. If you mean 'moral' as in doing things that are truly good or bad that would take an "objective" set of morals and not just any morals. Only from that scenario then the door is open for atheistic-based (or centers on God not existing) views amoral assuming that God exists and that the only source for objective morality would have to come from God.

Why is having "Morals come from God' moral. Isn't that entirely arbitrary on "God's" part then?

That gets into the question "Is it good because God says so, or is God subject to morality from an outside source"

The next issue is 'If Morality comes from God, why do people who believe morality comes from god have such a wide variety of different morals?'?

To me this is just like an analogy between a child and his/her parent. When a parent teaches a kid how to act, you don't expect that kid to question his parents every move or to justify why this or why that. We don't expect that because the child lacks knowledge, lacks power, is dependent on his parents for much of it's safety, etc. Now how much more are we like kids to a Being with omniscience, omnipotent, who's always existed, who the Universe (and not just us) may as well be dependent on, etc and why would we ask it or Him for justification?

[Goat]

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral?

If you mean 'moral' as in having moral standards that one lives by, then I would definitely say atheists can be moral just as anyone else can. If you mean 'moral' as in doing things that are truly good or bad that would take an "objective" set of morals and not just any morals. Only from that scenario then the door is open for atheistic-based (or centers on God not existing) views amoral assuming that God exists and that the only source for objective morality would have to come from God.

Why is having "Morals come from God' moral. Isn't that entirely arbitrary on "God's" part then?

That gets into the question "Is it good because God says so, or is God subject to morality from an outside source"

The next issue is 'If Morality comes from God, why do people who believe morality comes from god have such a wide variety of different morals?'?

To me this is just like an analogy between a child and his/her parent. When a parent teaches a kid how to act, you don't expect that kid to question his parents every move or to justify why this or why that. We don't expect that because the child lacks knowledge, lacks power, is dependent on his parents for much of it's safety, etc. Now how much more are we like kids to a Being with omniscience, omnipotent, who's always existed, who the Universe (and not just us) may as well be dependent on, etc and why would we ask it or Him for justification?

Then, according to you, something is good because God says so? Is that what you are saying?

[ChaosBorders]

Question for debate: Are atheists necessarily amoral? Are traditional theists' appearance of morality, merely self serving practicality?

Atheists are not necessarily amoral. And though certainly there are some theists' whose appearance of morality is really self-serving, in my experience that is a minority. Most of the ones I know try to be moral because they think it is the right thing to do, end of story.