In the world of an Atheist who defines right and wrong?

[Jake_]

Where does your moral code come from?

The way I see it, either you don't know or you can't have one? And i don't see how such a thing could have evolved......

Anyhow, please tell me where, personally, your moral code comes from.

[Jax Agnesson]

I feel as though my ethical sense is related to my esthetic sense. Some things seem right to me, maybe beautiful or warm or in some other sense give a feeling of the sort of creature I am, or would want to be. Some things seem repellent or ugly or cruel, the sort of things I would feel ashamed of doing or being associated with.
Where these feelings come from is a matter of some complexity, the subject of some research and some reasoned guesswork; the fact that I have these senses is undeniable.

[Furrowed Brow]

Where does your moral code come from?

Dare say the same yours do. Watching and imbibing the behaviours and beliefs of friends, family and larger society, digesting the values that surround me, and over time working out which ones I like and which ones I don't like based on an inner feeling of what I feel is most right, a subject incoherent state locked in an arm wrestles with my ability to think things through logically, and my levels of energy at any one time.

Asking where my morality comes from is a bit like asking where my muscles come from. I kind of see folk who have moral certainty a bit like preening bodybuilders who don't get it they are built all out of shape.

EDIT: I like Jax Agnesson's answer and I think what they say is well orientated.

[connermt]

Where does your moral code come from?

The way I see it, either you don't know or you can't have one? And i don't see how such a thing could have evolved......

Anyhow, please tell me where, personally, your moral code comes from.

Seems that most moral codes come from society. This may or may not come from the christian god.
To those that claim morality comes from the christain god, I would say they would have to prove it if the claim's made. Which they can't, past random biblical passages that, factually, were written by flawed men.
Even within the christian movement, there isn't universal agreement on morality as a whole: the death penality, abortion, gay marriage, dancing, playing cards, etc.

Looking around at all the religious leaders and seeing how many have faltered throughout history, if I were still a christain, I wouldn't want to claim a monopoly on morality....

[Thatguy]

Thatguy wrote:

My moral code appears to be subjective, not objective or universally true. That it is subjective does not stop me from having it.

When you encounter other people with a different moral code, how do you determine which one is better? Or are they all equal? Who decides?

Sorry, I forgot I'd posted anything on this topic. I'm not very good at the whole forum thing.

The question strikes me as being "When two people with subjective moral views are in conflict, how do you decide which is objectively superior?" Each person will consider their views the right ones. If all works well, they'll listen to each other, appeal to commonly held moral and factual opinions, and try to work out a mutual understanding. If they can't, then they will disagree, each thinking the other wrong. As a society, we should (again, subjective opinion) look to see how much disagreement there is on a moral question and, where there is significant disagreement, err on the side of allowing each person to make up his or her own mind and act accordingly. Where there near universal agreement, we can consider enacting the moral opinion into law. For instance, we almost all agree that killing someone for no particular reason is significantly uncool. So it's ok to legislate this morality. We should be less eager to legislate against abortion since there's significant difference of opinion whether this is a wrongful killing. Others disagree and say that since a potential life is at stake, we should legislate. Am I right and are they wrong? I think so. They don't. Neither is objectively correct, so we have to reason and emote together to try to work it out. Since it's such an intractable issue, we'd better learn to live with differences of opinion.

[Oh Lord in Heaven. I then forgot that I'd already responded. Does my ineptitude know no boundaries?]

[tmaester]

I am not an atheist, but I would assume that most of an atheist's morals would originate from the law of the local government. In most countries the laws put in place by the government are based on the countries religious laws. Certainly in England and America many laws and, in turn, the very concept of laws come from the Bible and other Christian texts. So even though the atheist made not no it they will likely practice Christian laws and therefore have a moral code based on the Christian beliefs.

[Haven]

I am not an atheist, but I would assume that most of an atheist's morals would originate from the law of the local government. In most countries the laws put in place by the government are based on the countries religious laws. Certainly in England and America many laws and, in turn, the very concept of laws come from the Bible and other Christian texts. So even though the atheist made not no it they will likely practice Christian laws and therefore have a moral code based on the Christian beliefs.

Most Western countries, including the UK, Canada, France, and the US, have laws based on secular values that emerged from the Englightenment, not on the Bible or religion. The modern concepts of equality and human rights came from the Enlightenment, not the church or from any religion.

[Thatguy]

I am not an atheist, but I would assume that most of an atheist's morals would originate from the law of the local government. In most countries the laws put in place by the government are based on the countries religious laws. Certainly in England and America many laws and, in turn, the very concept of laws come from the Bible and other Christian texts. So even though the atheist made not no it they will likely practice Christian laws and therefore have a moral code based on the Christian beliefs.

What Haven said plus:

Few, if any, of the moral views attributed to Christianity originated with Christianity. Most of our moral views are shared across cultures and existed long before the Bible. Many even originated before there were people- other animals share some of the basics.

Christianity has had a great influence on Western thought. As have many other sources, some secular, some from other religions. Our morality would probably look different without Christianity. But much of it would be the same. Likewise, the moral thought of Christians would be different today without the contributions of writers both secular and from other religious traditions. So whether you realize it or not, the Christian morals you hold today is largely based on paganism and secularism. Heck, the very word "law" comes from pagan norsemen who came to England in part to rob the churches. I'm comfortable with multiple sources for my moral perspectives, I'm not sure that people who feel their morals are handed down unchanging by an eternal God should feel the same.

[Chase200mph]

Ahhh, the great existential dilemma - I am my own god and I know that I am not godly....

the Christian God is assumed by them to be the source of all goodness.

The existential response:
I find goodness coming from myself.
I am therefore god (or as good as) and choosing for the whole world.

Why did satan fall again?

Peace, Ted

The road to hell is paved with Good intentions.


Why should I accept your choosing for me? I find my own goodness for me better than your claims for goodness for me.

Answer: When one has nothing to add, then throw in a quote so all may think you wise……if they don’t by it, then they’re not of the spirit, if they persist the wisdom was never there, god works in mysterious ways, if they make a fool of you in public, stand fast that slings and arrows of Satan. Sounds a littlelike to much of these verses to me…..Did the men who Jesus used to preach His gospel - men who were, "uneducated and untrained men" - seek to change those characteristics, or teach others to become educated and trained? (Acts 4:13) Why did Jesus say, "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mark 10:15)

[Chase200mph]

I am not an atheist, but I would assume that most of an atheist's morals would originate from the law of the local government. In most countries the laws put in place by the government are based on the countries religious laws. Certainly in England and America many laws and, in turn, the very concept of laws come from the Bible and other Christian texts. So even though the atheist made not no it they will likely practice Christian laws and therefore have a moral code based on the Christian beliefs.

Answer 2000 years of Christian atrocities disagrees with you here….society dictates morals as the bible has NONE! Test this with and you will see….

[Alueshen]

I believe that there are objective moral principles. I think the confusion exists because people have subjective experiences of morality.

All values reduce to a set of facts about our experiences in the world. Science is the best method we have for looking at facts.

A morality that isn't in the hands of any single entity or person, is imo, what would make it stronger then any "code" or rigid set of rules. In science a single person can undermine rigidly held beliefs if they have repeatable and verifiable evidence.

This makes secular religion far superior to a morality that asks it's adherents to accept they have no morals and that they must adapt those of their transcendent law giver. A law giver that can and has made acts such as rape, slavery and murder moral in the past.

I don't believe that morality is a ridged set of unchanging codes. This is because morality is related to our understanding of consciousness and how conscious creatures experience the world. Since our understanding changes we must adapt our moral ideas and change it if new information necessitates it.

No moral system will ever be comprehensive enough, or sufficiently reflective of the full scale of human experience, to provide a set of absolute rules that would instantly tell a person what to do in any given situation. This simply cannot be done and would not be desirable even if it could be. Trying to remove the need for human judgment from a moral system only causes errors to occur in one direction rather than the other. We will always have to weigh the competing factors and relevant principles, determine what course of action is likely to produce the least suffering and the greatest happiness both now and in the long run, and make a decision on that basis; but there is no straightforward algorithmic procedure to achieve this.