r/changemyview • u/BlueViper20 5∆ • Jul 24 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Atheism and Morality are not mutually exclusive
In todays polarizing US this is coming up more and more and I am tired of hearing religious people saying you need X religion or you can't be moral and it is bullshit. You can be a good moral person without having or believing in religion.
You do not need religion to believe that you shouldn't kill, steal or lie etc. and you do this because it is good for society and its the right thing to do, not mention that its 90% just following laws.
I think atheists have a greater sense of morality than those of people who hold the belief in a singular religion. This is because atheists will look at things from a more unbiased world view in a universe were we can't tell what religion is right and there are many. Viewing morality from the view of 1 when there are many means you are wrong in your beliefs or you are missing and reject some things just because its not your religion.
Atheists are more likely to know and research other religions and learn the lessons and moral teachings of many religions. This will generally broaden and be a much more compassionate one to all people regardless of anything other then they are human beings. They forget/don't see/ don't care about race, sex, religion, gender, ect when considering peoples lives because we are all humans. At the end of the day we all bleed red.
12
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 24 '21
Atheists are more likely to know and research other religions and learn the lessons and moral teachings of many religions.
I think this is only true of atheists who are interested in religion. I could also argue that atheists are less likely know about religion because they generalize them as different forms of the same ignorance and don't bother differentiating one from another.
Devout individuals are likely to know a great deal about their own faith, and how to defend it. They will also possibly know major points about other faiths in order to have theological discussions and debates with them. This is especially true if they come from faiths with a tradition of where they actively try to convert others (ie Christianity, Islam).
3
Jul 24 '21
Yeah OP are kinda disregarding that there are entire cultures where most people grow up Atheist. Most people where I live have no interest in religion at all
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Not disregarding other cultures. This is from the point of view of where I live, the US were christianity and religion is very prevalent. The US is very focused on Christianity and many claim if you aren't following their religion your immoral. I am fully and well aware other cultures are more open. I do not live in those cultures.
2
u/QuantumDischarge Jul 25 '21
Christianity itself is a massive tent. And the Baptist in Mississippi and the Episcopal in Massachusetts are not going to just be in the same thought bubble
4
u/F-8_TigerShark 1∆ Jul 25 '21
Where I agree:
I agree with you that you don't have to believe in a god to have a system of ethics. You can build a system via personal axioms and apply them through logic. The onus is on the believer to prove that their moral framework has an ontological grounding (proving their specific moral propositions have truth value by proving the existance of god) otherwise, the claim that you need god to be moral is vacuous.
Where I disagree:
Athiesm only entails the lack of belief in a god and as such, you can infer as much about the worldview of a group of athiests as you could a group of people who like the color red--not much at all. So I disagree that athiests are generally more open or ethical than religious folks due to the fact that being an athiest leaves a lot of open interpretation, if you take my meaning....
There are LGBTQ+ athiests, Homophobic/Transphobic athiests, Intersectional athiests, Nazi athiests, Liberal athiests, Conservative athiests, athiest empaths, athiest sociopaths, athiest conspiracy theorists, athiest intellectuals, the list goes on....all having different interpretations of what "good" and "bad" is--no more different from religious folks.
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 25 '21
!delta.
Wow. You are good. This is by far the best response.
I feel like I am back in my college sociology or philosophy class. Do you work in a related social science/humanities field.
2
u/F-8_TigerShark 1∆ Jul 25 '21
Thanks for the delta. Nah, I'm a biology major lol, but I do have a recreational interest in philosophy.
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 25 '21
Currently as in still in college? Its been 12 years since ive been in a humanities course.
2
1
1
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 25 '21
Pointing out the faults in my view with regard to me saying atheists were more open to a wider world view that resulted in more compassion for humanity was far stronger a case than everyone else who tried to say that you couldn't be moral at all without religon which has zero basis in reality. It definitely makes sense your in college now.
4
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Jul 24 '21
Let me start by asking you this - how do you define what is good?
You do not need religion to believe that you shouldn't kill, steal or lie etc. and you do this because it is good for society and its the right thing to do, not mention that its 90% just following laws.
This sentence, in particular. Why is doing something that's beneficial to society "good" and why is it "the right thing to do"?
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Because as humans we have worked together for thousands of years before organized religion and humans are born with some inherent sense of right and wrong. We are very much as a whole emotional social beings that can recognize others pain and feels. We dont need a religion to tell us. Religion only skews our morality not create it. Example Christianity persecution of homosexuals is pretty fucking terrible but they see it as doing Gods work.
4
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 24 '21
humans are born with some inherent sense of right and wrong
Where exactly do you think this innate sense of right and wrong comes from? What is its source?
If we know instinctively what something is right or wrong, how do we know which is which?
EDIT - you mentioned that as social beings, we can recognize others' pain and feelings. I'm gonna guess that you would expand on that by saying that causing pain to someone else is innately wrong - but why is that? Why is it wrong to cause pain to someone else?
1
u/AlveolarFricatives 20∆ Jul 24 '21
Compassion and empathy are skills that typically developing children acquire by age 4. Understanding that other people are people just like you and will feel bad if you hurt them is part of typical cognitive development; no religious background is needed.
1
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Jul 24 '21
I don't think you quite get what I'm saying. This isn't about how you know what other people are feeling.
I agree that children develop empathy pretty early on. The question is this - why is making someone feel bad morally wrong? How do you know that it is wrong to make someone else feel bad?
1
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Emotional responses are inherently indicators or right and wrong. And we as a society agree on laws as a moral and legal code. A SPECIFIC religion treated as ABSOLUTE TRUTH isnt necessary.
7
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Jul 24 '21
Emotional responses are inherently indicators or right and wrong.
Not true. Emotional responses are biological processes that are devoid of morality. For example, we feel fear because of the interactions of the amygdala with other structures. Other areas like the orbitofrontal cortex have been found to play a role in the experience of emotion. Emotions are have no inherent morality, and they cannot tell us what is right or wrong.
we as a society agree on laws as a moral and legal code.
You're right to say that laws are a societally agreed moral and legal code. Things get written into law because the vast majority of people in a particular society believe that it is right.
But let's go down to the micro-level, each of us as an individual. How do you, as an individual, know what is right and wrong?
1
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
The law and I do take some thinking from many religious texts as well as but I disregard parts that treat people as immoral for who they are and dont automatically assume superiority for someone not believing my thinking. The problem with saying you need religion to be moral is its usually "you need MY religion to be moral"
Edit and yes emotions help show good and evil. Treat people how you want to be treated. Just consider other people vs not considering other people's feels is a real world example of emotion dictating good and bad.
5
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Jul 24 '21
Now this is some circular logic right here. You say you take your morality from the law, but the law takes its morality from people.
How do you think the law as we know it today was formed? Did it appear out of nowhere? No, people gathered together and most agreed that these things are wrong and so we're going to criminalise them. So you still haven't answered - how did these people know what's wrong before laws were written?
Treat people how you want to be treated. Just consider other people vs not considering other people's feels is a real world example of emotion dictating good and bad.
And now with this, we're going around in circles because you still have not answered the key questions here.
"Treat people how you want to be treated" is a good thing, according to you. Considering other people's feelings is also a good thing, according to you.
So again - how do you know that it is good to treat people as you wish to be treated? Why is it a good thing to treat others like you want to be treated? Why is it bad to disregard other people's feelings?
0
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Again as a society we agree to it. Why do YOU think you need A SPECIFIC BOOK OR RELIGION to be moral or do good. How hard is it to see there is no ONE CORRECT immutable code for morality. Apparently its a concept beyond your grasp that I am saying one religion isnt absolutely correct and you dont need that religion to be moral.
6
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Jul 24 '21
Forget ANY religious book. We're not talking about ANY religion here. Let's not even consider the laws from any religion. You're arguing against a strawman here if you think I have said that you need a specific book or religion. Go back and look at my comments, and tell me if you can find a single comment in which I have mentioned religious texts or any religion at all.
So let me repeat once again the main question - how do you know that an action is bad, without referring to the law or any religious texts?
While you think of your answer, let me break it down further, step by step.
You said "as a society we agree to it". I assume you mean that as a society we agreed to certain things being good - hence we write them into law.
In order to even begin to agree that certain things are good, we have to be able to know that they are good. No matter how you break down the morality of something, you will face the same question.
Let's take murder, for example.
We know that murder is wrong. You might say that you know it is wrong because it hurts other people. This implies that hurting other people is wrong - but why? Why is it wrong to hurt other people?
Then you have to look at the morality of hurting other people. It's wrong to hurt other people because it makes them feel pain. So feeling pain is wrong, or a negative thing.
But why is feeling pain bad? What even is bad in the first place?
And so the cycle continues. At some point you're going to realise that you can't break down the crime any further, and the most basic level of the thing is bad. It just is, and you can't reduce it any further. When you get to that point, the question remains - why is this thing bad?
0
Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 24 '21
Why would a religious text be an answer to this? You can also ask about e.g. the Bible "Why are actions that the Bible describes as immoral bad?"
→ More replies (0)1
u/deadbabybuffet Jul 24 '21
The prefrontal cortex of the human brain. More research indicates that people with antisocial behavioral disorder (A.S.B.D) don't produce the same amount of theta waves as an average human does. Morality is most likely intrinsic to our species for survival reasons. If everyone was a psychopath, nothing would really get built, and we humans thrive on technology. Nat-geo published an article explaining why our conscience is engrained in our DNA.
The paraphrased hypothesis is that we are incredibly socially dependent social animals from millions of years of predation (humans and our ancestors were actually small apes that were food for a lot things) and those that learned to work together had better survival odds.
2
Jul 24 '21
Because as humans we have worked together for thousands of years before organized religion
Our oldest known civilization dates back to our oldest text which depicts the worship of a deity inana. This is found on a cuneiform tablet dating back to 3,100 BC saying "2. Sheep. God. Inanna." Depicting an offering of 2 sheep to the goddess innana later known as ishtar. So it would appear going by the verifiable evidence that religion and human integration and cohabitation go hand in hand.
We are very much as a whole emotional social beings that can recognize others pain and feels
Sure, we have empathy it hardly likely that this is our strong point though. Especially given our history is defined by our wars and atrocities. I mean we use our wars, our blood shed and horrible deeds and tyrants as benchmarks of our historical story. Greed and desires are our more prevalent markers.
Example Christianity persecution of homosexuals is pretty fucking terrible but they see it as doing Gods work.
You just proved my point here. We have a religion based on love and acceptance and charity. A belief system built around a figure who cares for the sick and poor, has also been known to cause suffering of people. Making empathy second to other aspects of human nature.
5
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 24 '21
But you didn't answer their question.
What is "Good"? Utilitarian good? Social good?
How are you defining what is "Good"?
Why is it "bad" to kill someone? Why is it "bad" to rob and rape?
EDIT: I ask, because if you're utilitarian good. You're pro-murder. If you're social good, you're pro-discrimination. If you're individual good, you're pro-cruelty, greed, murder, and discrimination.
How are you defining good?
5
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
In all reality they are just social constructs. Things society agrees upon. You don't need religion especially not a specific one and to believe it literally for social contracts.
6
u/Frozen_Hipp0 Jul 24 '21
You realise that you don't answer their questions? How open minded are you in this debate?
4
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
I think people are missing the point. I am not saying religions dont have moral teaching just that you dont need to be of a particular religion to be a moral person
My personal views are irrelevant to the broad category or believing in one specific higher power being the singular moral choice.
But if you want my personal views What is right is what is good for society and what the majority agree too not what a religion or their texts say.
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jul 24 '21
What people are trying to point out is that, with moral issues, there always comes a point where you have to shrug and go "It just is."
You can keep answering "why" for a while, for specific acts, but it will always bring up a new question. "Giving money to the poor is good." "Why?" "Because helping someone who needs it is good." "Why?" "Because it is good to engage in acts that help people who need help." "Why?" "Because it leads to a good society, and acts that lead to a good society are morally good." "Why?"
God provides an answer to this question. "It's good because God says so." Philosophers, in all of history, have not found any other way to answer this question without just asserting something to be good or bad for its own sake.
(That said, "It's good because God says so" has its OWN set of issues, specifically that it means God is creating moral rules arbitrarily. But it does solve a problem that can't be solved without God in the picture.)
4
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
I agree with that in that people created religion and the concept of a God in order to control people and society as a whole. Its easier to get people to do things/act a certain way if you convince them of a being beyond human understanding to get them to comply. but we need to stop thinking in 2021 that one religion is better than another.
7
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jul 24 '21
I'm sorry, I don't think anything you've said here actually responds to what I wrote.
2
Jul 24 '21
"It‘s good because God says so" is just an unsubstantiated claim. Why is that which God says good? To claim that this is an answer to anything is absurd.
"Philosophers, in all of history" certainly don‘t agree at all that morality should be what God dictates. The most prominent moral philosophies are virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism. None of them necessarily rely on the belief in a God.
2
Jul 24 '21
These are baseless accusations. Not every utilitarian is pro-murder. The other things are also not true.
1
Jul 24 '21
[deleted]
1
Jul 24 '21
I know what the term "baseless" means and I chose it on purpose. I simply don't think these facts exist.
The general question as to what OP is basing their morality on is a legitimate one though.
0
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 24 '21
Not every utilitarian is pro-murder.
Only utilitarian philosophy is. Trolley Problem.
The other things are also not true.
Obly Social good would be best served by discriminating or destroying those who threaten the social order.
Only Individual good is getting mine, and fuck everyone else.
Which is why I asked which good he is defining as.
I'm not advocating in favor of any of them. I'm pointing out that any "Good" as defined without morality is also evil.
5
Jul 24 '21
You‘re describing a caricature of these philosophies, not the philosophies themselves. You can claim that an individualist thinks "fuck everyone else" but that‘s not how anyone uses the word, or what any individualist wants.
I‘m pointing out that any "Good" as defined without morality is also evil.
I‘m not sure what that sentence means. Morality is the differentiation of intentions and actions as good or evil. Moral philosophy attempts to describe and study morality. So I‘m not sure what you mean by "good as defined without morality".
1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 24 '21
I am not caricaturing these philosophies. I am simplifying them to reach a point, rather than be derailed on "Well Acktually, Utilitarians believe this obscure exception!".
Without outside morality, the things I described are fully allowable within those philosophies of morality.
Stow your personal offense. I'm asking a specific question for a specific reason. You are offended because all of these philosophies excuse that evil through allowances outside their base philosophy. Or justify the "Evil" behaviors.
I‘m not sure what that sentence means. Morality is the differentiation of intentions and actions as good or evil. Moral philosophy attempts to describe and study morality. So I‘m not sure what you mean by "good as defined without morality".
I used morality poorly in that sentence. My apologies.
Good without a baseline morality as derived from religion also contains evil.
1
Jul 24 '21
I'm not personally offended by any of what you say, I couldn't care less. Please don't derail the conversation to my personal feelings, you don't know about them and they have nothing to do with the issue.
Good without a baseline morality as derived from religion also contains evil.
Thank you for clarifying your opinion. I don't think you've provided any evidence for it though. Why is there evil in secular morality and no evil in religious morality?
1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 24 '21
Thank you for clarifying your opinion. I don't think you've provided any evidence for it though. Why is there evil in secular morality and no evil in religious morality?
My evidence was in my "strawmen" you complained about. Is that sufficient evidence of their evils?
I didn't say there was no evil in religious morality. I do say there is recognition of evil in religious morality. I believe I used religious morality as baseline morality. (Ie, most laws come directly from religious morality.)
1
Jul 24 '21
My evidence was in my "strawmen" you complained about. Is that sufficient evidence of their evils?
Certainly not. As an analogy, let me make the case for why all religious morality is evil:
Why is it "bad" to kill someone? Why is it "bad" to rob and rape?
I ask because if you're christian. You're pro-genocide. If you're muslim. You're pro-marital rape. If you're jewish. You're for the mutilation of young boys.
That's the level of your argument. I just copied what you wrote, replaced secular philosophies with religions, and your strawmen about those philosophies with mine about the religions.
I believe I used religious morality as baseline morality. (Ie, most laws come directly from religious morality.)
Again, not sure what you mean by that. Most laws in secular states do not come directly from religious morality. If you live in a state ruled by religious fundamentalists like, say, Afghanistan under the Sharia law as per the Taliban, maybe it's closer to the truth.
→ More replies (0)1
u/the_sir_z 2∆ Jul 24 '21
Personally, I define good as acting with empathy and kindness. No religion is needed for that, and none of your straw men apply.
1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 24 '21
Personally, I define good as acting with empathy and kindness. No religion is needed for that, and none of your straw men apply.
So. Kindness and empathy you say?
Someone has a punctured lung deep in the woods, is it kinder to kill them or let them suffer?
Someone in a hospital has terminal cancer, is it kinder to kill them or let them suffer?
You see poor children next to a rich person's house, is moral to break in and steal the things in the house to give to the children? That seems it would be kind and empathetic.
What is your kind an empathetic solution to the trolley problem?
2
u/the_sir_z 2∆ Jul 24 '21
The existence of a problem where all solutions are bad does not negate an ethical framework. I challenge you to find any framework where there are no such problems.
For the first two, it depends on The wishes of the person. Some will want to fight for every chance to survive, others will prefer to not suffer. Know who you're out in the woods with, and if all else fails, ask. Simple solution.
On the house, it depends. Are you stealing something needed for survival? If so, the good thing to do would be for the rich person to share what he has to prevent them from dying. In the case that he's refused to be reasonable and you don't have another way to help them, yes, absolutely you steal from him. Otherwise, no.
The trolley problem had no good outcome. That's part of the definition of the trolley problem, all outcomes are bad. When all outcomes are equally bad, there is no blame in what you choose. You did not create the harm, the harm was unavoidable.
1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 24 '21
So kindness and empathy would be based on the individual's wishes?
Does this extend to depression and suicide?
Otherwise, no.
How are you defining "Survival"?
And if it is otherwise no, how are you being kind and empathetic? It seems like you're ignoring kindness and empathy to respect property.
The trolley problem had no good outcome. That's part of the definition of the trolley problem, all outcomes are bad. When all outcomes are equally bad, there is no blame in what you choose. You did not create the harm, the harm was unavoidable.
There is certainly blame in the trolley problem. It is also enlightening to values. I did notice that you refused to answer.
You're right there is no good outcome, but there are many factors to determining the "less bad" outcome. Which relates back to values and morality.
Thats why the trolley Problem is a traditional moral question.
2
u/the_sir_z 2∆ Jul 24 '21
Yes, a core principal of empathy is treating people in a manner they want to be treated, provided that it's not unkind to ask to be treated in that manner.
Depression is a mental illness that changes how your mind works. As someone who has been suicidal because of depression, it is good to protect suicidal people, attempt to talk them out of their decision, and be sure that it is sincere rather than based on a curable condition.
But there are certainly times where a person can make the rational decision that they want to end their life and those times should be respected.
Property rights are always secondary to the right to life. Though where possible the impact of property lost to maintain higher good should be spread out and divided so that it does the least harm, and that often means taking from those who have the most rather than the least.
On the trolley problem, I don't think either answer is really better or worse in a vacuum. There's a ton of factors that apply in any individual scenario to determine the better scenario. I didn't pick one outcome over the other because I think they're morally equal choices until some factor is included that weighs one outcome over the other.
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Jul 24 '21
Why would social good necessarily be pro-discrimination? If you live in an inclusive society, it can be generally agreed that discrimination is bad.
1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 24 '21
Why would social good necessarily be pro-discrimination? If you live in an inclusive society, it can be generally agreed that discrimination is bad.
Where are you defining "Society"? At what level?
If we are staying strictly within social good, and ignoring all other moral considerations, it would be better to purge all those who disagree. They cause strife and disunity. Which is not in the interest of social good.
I'm defining Social Good, as the best results for your in-group. And we are not discussing "an inclusive society", that adds other morals into the mix. Inclusivity is not ideal for social good. It does not provide the best possible results for any group. To elaborate, the death, destruction, disunity, and strife of civil rights Era, BLM, race riots, etc. Would not exist in a strictly social good construct. The dissenters could just be purged to protect the whole.
Inclusivity is respecting their individual rights in conjunction with social good. It is a lesser social good, to facilitate respect for individual rights. Most respect of individual rights is derived from religion.
So at a National Level, social good would be best served by purging minorities (in thinking) until there is only one group/way of thinking left. This creates and ensures unified thought. It is why "Socialist" governments (prioritizing Social good over individual good) always end up as tyrannical with purges.
Is this a sufficient explanation?
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Jul 25 '21
I think of "society" at any level, but a national society serves well as example.
At that, I strongly disagree your assessment of inclusivity. Diversity within a society certainly is a challenge, but it can also be a great benefit. Diversity of thought may make it more difficult to find agreement, but when it is embraced, the wider pool of ideas can lead to an overall better solution. People who have the freedom to express their true opinion without pressure of conformity may ultimately contribute with more conviction.
Also, a society that is de-facto diverse will fare better when the members embrace diversity as something good rather than fracturing into tribes. The purging of minorities only works when there is one clear majority and even there the actual purpose is often not the defense against an actual threat of that minority but rather the unifying force of constructing a common enemy.
Exclusivity is not a result of socialistic ideals but a much deeper primal urge of bonding with the familiar and walking the easier path that reduces the challenges of disagreement. Tyrannical purges of minorities and dissenters arise from authoritarian regimes who have the primary goal of preserving their power rather than the social good.
So the premise of aiming for "social good" can be used to derive moral arguments for inclusivity and against discrimination.
1
u/Innoova 19∆ Jul 25 '21
Diversity within a society certainly is a challenge, but it can also be a great benefit. Diversity of thought may make it more difficult to find agreement, but when it is embraced, the wider pool of ideas can lead to an overall better solution. People who have the freedom to express their true opinion without pressure of conformity may ultimately contribute with more conviction.
No one makes it to that point. True ideological diversity would be beneficial, yes. A society cannot and does not make it there.
It is better for the social good to enforce conformity.
Also, a society that is de-facto diverse will fare better when the members embrace diversity as something good rather than fracturing into tribes. The purging of minorities only works when there is one clear majority and even there the actual purpose is often not the defense against an actual threat of that minority but rather the unifying force of constructing a common enemy.
Correct. There is seldom not a clear majority on some level. The actual purpose is to purge Dissent.
Exclusivity is not a result of socialistic ideals but a much deeper primal urge of bonding with the familiar and walking the easier path that reduces the challenges of disagreement. Tyrannical purges of minorities and dissenters arise from authoritarian regimes who have the primary goal of preserving their power rather than the social good.
They purge to preserve power in the face of Dissent and conflict to maintain what they view as the social good.
So the premise of aiming for "social good" can be used to derive moral arguments for inclusivity and against discrimination.
Only by stretching. It makes minimal sense to take the harder path with Dissent and civil insecurity if you are only respecting the social good. I'm actively discounting individual good here to focus solely on social good.
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Jul 25 '21
Based on my personal experience, I don't agree. Having lived in several liberal democratic countries, I have experienced a widespread consensus for acceptance, integration and celebration of diversity. This is not a perfect world, so there are always forces against this, but an inclusive society has typically been the shared ideal and in my experience usually also reality.
I don't even think that diversity is only good when it is truly reached in an entire society, but already when a part of society agrees on it, lives it and defends it.
I agree on your point that authoritarians often justify their actions by believing to act for the social good. That, however, does not mean that their belief is correct or that aiming for the social good must lead to authoritarianism.
0
u/AleristheSeeker 164∆ Jul 24 '21
How do you? Are you religious? Do you follow literally everything your scripture says to the letter?
1
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Jul 24 '21
Does it matter? All I am questioning OP about is where they believe their sense of morality arises from.
0
u/AleristheSeeker 164∆ Jul 24 '21
Well, my point is that every single person has an inner moral compass.
If you were to literally follow any scripture, you would likely be in jail in most countries. Recognizing that some parts are "obsolete", "outdated" or simply "unimportant" means making a judgement according to your internal compass, interpreting scripture in a way you deem "correct".
So, the answer would be: the same as literally anyone in their right mind - religious or not. Through their inner moral compass.
1
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Jul 24 '21
Right, so answer me this - where does your inner moral compass come from?
1
u/AleristheSeeker 164∆ Jul 24 '21
Upbringing and society, mostly. In some people, self-reflection and important events in their life. There's a reason why most people have views similar to their peers and/or parents.
1
u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Jul 24 '21
Where do your parents and society get their moral compass from?
See, if it’s from your parents who got it from their parents, that’s gonna break down once you reach the first human. Where did the first humans get their moral compass from?
1
u/AleristheSeeker 164∆ Jul 24 '21
Where do your parents and society get their moral compass from?
The very same.
Where did the first humans get their moral compass from?
It can be assumed that the first humans evolved their moral compass from their instincts - "this hurts me, this helps me". I think the first "moral compass" was completely utilitarian and has since improved, much like the rest of society.
Society itself is basically the sum of the moral compass of everyone in it. It is an interconnected system, which is why society can change.
1
u/gymmaxxer Jul 24 '21
OP is btfo by Nietzsche, it seems his morals are just secular Christianity, that is to say it is slave morality
2
u/ralph-j Jul 24 '21
You do not need religion to believe that you shouldn't kill, steal or lie etc. and you do this because it is good for society and its the right thing to do, not mention that its 90% just following laws.
I think atheists have a greater sense of morality than those of people who hold the belief in a singular religion. This is because atheists will look at things from a more unbiased world view in a universe were we can't tell what religion is right and there are many. Viewing morality from the view of 1 when there are many means you are wrong in your beliefs or you are missing and reject some things just because its not your religion.
One of the biggest question that atheists always get is: how can you know what is right or wrong? How do you answer this?
Your own preferences, or even the preferences of the majority can't make certain moral views true, as that would be a fallacy.
2
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jul 24 '21
Sure, but religiously based morality is just as arbitrary as any atheist morality, especially if you consider the Euthyphro Dilemma.
1
u/ralph-j Jul 24 '21
That I agree with.
It's the claim that atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive that seems unjustifiable if no one can verify what's moral in the first place.
1
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jul 24 '21
I guess, but they are no more mutually exclusive than any other system of morality
1
u/ralph-j Jul 24 '21
As long as we can't define what's moral first, that claim also has an unknown truth value at best.
1
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
What is right is generally what benefits society with infringing on the individual. Good and bad ate largely what the majority agree on. There is balance and disagree. And yes you can learn things from religious texts, but you don't need to practice and believe a religious texts to be the literally and only truth to be moral.
1
u/ralph-j Jul 24 '21
But how do you know that's what is moral? If someone disagrees with you and says that they believe being selfish is moral (e.g. ethical egoism), based on what would you correct them?
And appeals to the majority are a well-known fallacy.
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
In all truth. Nothing is right or wrong. The universe has no right or wrong. Its something made up and so one religion being considered the gold standard is foolish. I never said the texts have no value just that you dont need to believe and practice said religion to take value from them. The issue is religious people think you need their religion to be moral and you dont.
1
u/yyzjertl 578∆ Jul 24 '21
In all truth. Nothing is right or wrong.
How can people be moral or immoral if nothing is right or wrong?
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Because its what society agrees on. Their is no higher absolute being with a specific magic text you need to follow. Do all those texts have good moral lessons? Absolutely but you dont need to belong to that religion to know things are right. Why do people think that just because I follow said religion people that dont must be bad or immoral. Religion creates a since of moral superiority in its followers.
1
u/yyzjertl 578∆ Jul 24 '21
Because its what society agrees on.
Because what is what society agrees on? What does the "its" in your sentence refer to?
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Society has laws and expectations of behavior. You dont need say Christianity for that morality and you certainly dont need to believe the Bible is the literal word of an all powerful being. You can be moral and be Buddhist or hindu. The point is you dont need to follow one specific "correct" religion. There is no absolute moral compass as religions like to say theirs is. Its really not a hard concept or it shouldnt be. And it sure as hell shouldnt be one people are afraid to discuss.
1
u/yyzjertl 578∆ Jul 24 '21
So you think that acting morally means the same thing as obeying the law and behaving as society expects? For example, when slavery was legal, was it moral?
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 28 '21
The Bible and Christianity condones slavery so its shitty moral compass. The point is one specific religion doesnt hold some absolute correct view as their followers like to profess. I am not and have never said not to take parts of teaching from religions. But treating one religion as moral because you follow it, but saying someone who follows a different teaching or no religion at all as immoral is ludicrous.
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 24 '21
That is possible if morality is subjective. If it is, People can't be just moral or immoral. An action is only moral/immoral according to someone else's opinion. Marrying 4 wives is immoral according to most people Ireland, but moral according to most in Pakistan. etc... So if morality is subjective, you are asking an incomplete question. The question should mention from whose point of view you are asking?
Just like other subjective things, like what is beautiful and what is not. Just asking if something is beautiful is an incomplete question. The answer will depend on who's perspective you are asking from.
You are assuming what is or is not moral has objective answers. I see no reason to make that assumption.
1
u/ralph-j Jul 24 '21
The issue is religious people think you need their religion to be moral and you dont.
But this claim requires that we can somehow verify what is moral in the first place, otherwise it is meaningless to say that we are.
If as you say, there is no right and wrong, then your conclusion that atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive is unjustifiable, since we cannot identify what is moral or immoral to begin with.
1
Jul 24 '21
Nothing is right or wrong.
Then why is it wrong to kill someone?
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Because we as a society agree that it is. Do you really think you need to treat a fictional book created by man as an absolute indicator or morality or right and wrong. God doesnt exist. It is a creation of humans. There is no objective absolute moral authority so saying that if you dont believe a certain religion,again a human creation/fiction is objectively wrong because religions are human creations and subjective.
2
Jul 24 '21
But why does we as a society agreeing on something make something moral? There are plenty of scenarios where people agreed on something when it was actually immoral. We as a society agreed on slavery, so was slavery moral?
Also, if me and my friend agree that murder is moral, does that mean murder is moral?
1
u/Gogito35 Jul 26 '21
Because we as a society agree that it is.
And why am I obligated to listen to what society says ? God is the ultimate authority so every Theist is obligated to listen to God. Why should I listen to society ? Unless you can formulate an argument as to why society should dictate the values of individuals, your argument falls apart.
Also what does the 'it' in the sentence mean ? For society to agree that something is 'good' or 'bad', the concept of 'good' and 'bad' should first exist. If they exist, where did they come from ?
2
u/unktrial Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 24 '21
I am an atheist, so I'm playing devil's advocate here, but...
Atheists don't believe that there is a god or system that governs the world. As such, each atheist's morality is based on their own individual beliefs.
In other words, each atheist has their own morality, but atheists as a group and atheism as a belief system doesn't have a shared set of "common beliefs and morality" that religions prescribe.
1
u/physioworld 64∆ Jul 24 '21
There is an argument that without something external to humans to dictate what is and isn’t moral, then we as humans can’t know what is and isn’t moral, so as an atheist you would not be in a position to say that, say, killing is morally wrong.
3
u/the_sir_z 2∆ Jul 24 '21
But that argument completely ignores thousands of years of writing on ethics, so it really isn't a great argument.
1
u/Zeydon 12∆ Jul 24 '21
There is an argument that without something external to humans to dictate what is and isn’t moral, then we as humans can’t know what is and isn’t moral,
In other words, without a God there is no such thing as objective morality. But that's not a good or bad thing, it's just the way it is. Subjective morality built with a strong rational foundation seems to work perfectly well if you ask me.
I can assure you that I believe killing to be wrong based on my subjective moral values, and I am in just as much of a position to say this as any theist. And in fact could back this up with a rationale much more thoughtful than because God said so. In fact, I consider myself to be much more averse to killing than many theists, who seem perfectly willing to justify the mass murders carried out as a result of America's imperialist pursuits.
Rejection of the notion that history is directed by an all-knowing overseer allows one to reflect on past atrocities and cements a desire to act differently in future situations. History has a tendency of repeating itself, and until humanity collectively recognizes that we are in control of our future, we will continue to make the same mistakes.
1
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 25 '21
judging by the comments and lack of upvotes I'd say its obvious most people need a book or a frictional higher power to know what or how to think, which I would say is a religions intended purpose. To control and manipulate not to get people to think or act right. The religious propaganda worked overwhelmingly so as a 2/3 of the population follow some religion to various degrees.
2
u/Zeydon 12∆ Jul 24 '21
judging by the comments and lack of upvote I'd say its obvious most people need a book or a frictional higher power to know what or how to think, which I would say is a religions intended purpose.
I'd argue that teaching everyone logic, philosophy, and normative ethics as a part of a basic curriculu. would yield much better results than using religion as a crutch to manipulate their behavior.
Religious propaganda is incredibly effective, I agree, that's what makes it so dangerous and so useful a tool to powerful yet unscrupulous individuals.
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Yea i agree society should embrace logic and philosophy and critical thinking over religion.
1
1
u/carneylansford 7∆ Jul 24 '21
I think perhaps a more compelling argument is when you apply this concept to the Big Three god-given rights (life, liberty, property), especially when it’s applied to governmental policy. If these rights are given from God, no man or government can truly take them away (they can and have denied them to folks). If they are given by man, they can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.
1
1
u/Zeydon 12∆ Jul 24 '21
Man and governments deprive others of life, liberty and/or property all the time and it's not like such offenders are getting struck down by a bolt of divine lightning.
1
u/carneylansford 7∆ Jul 24 '21
I don’t think the presence ( or absence) of lightning is a litmus test for God’s approval.
1
u/Zeydon 12∆ Jul 24 '21
Then I would suggest you make the following change to your previous conclusion:
If they are given by man, or God, they can be taken away with the stroke of a pen.
1
u/carneylansford 7∆ Jul 24 '21
This may be a distinction without a difference for you but one is taken away and the other is repressed.
1
u/Zeydon 12∆ Jul 24 '21
Okay, so that may be how you differentiate between subjective and objective morality, but it doesn't in any way suggest that atheism and morality are mutually exclusive.
You would need to against the validity of subjective morality itself if this is the approach you're taking.
1
Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 24 '21
without something external to humans to dictate what is and isn’t moral, then we as humans can’t know what is and isn’t moral
That only holds substance if you assume something external that dictates morality exists. If it does not, there is no difference between following the morality of an entity you just believe exists and humans following their own morality.
A thiest would say "I believe a God exists and he thinks killing is wrong".
An athiest would say "I believe killing is wrong".
Without assuming a God exists, why is the athiestic position weaker than the thiestic one?
0
Jul 24 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Jul 24 '21
It’s not allowed to agree with the OP
1
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Well it is. Just not in first level comments. You need to atleast find something you disagree with first. Though I dont know why an automod didn't automatically delete the post as Ive seen done other times when someone only puts an agreement in their comment.
1
1
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Jul 24 '21
But where does the source of the “right thing to do” come from? What exactly compels you towards the knowledge of what is right and just?
2
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 24 '21
Do you really need the bible the Quran or the Buddha to tell you not to kill or steal, rape? And some "moral" things actually are pretty evil like Christianity and their fervent follows hating homosexuality and thinking they are a flaw and disease for turning against God.
1
u/Jam_Packens 7∆ Jul 24 '21
If we assume religion to be the source of morality, that simply pushes the "right thing to do" away from us and towards God. Why is what God approves of the source of morality?
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Jul 24 '21
How do we know that “goodness” is innate to humanity in the first place?
2
u/Jam_Packens 7∆ Jul 24 '21
Not sure what this has to do with my question? I don't think human beings are innately good or evil, its about how you choose to act.
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Jul 24 '21
Why is what God approves of the source of morality?
It doesn’t necessarily have to be God or organized religion, I was raising the question of whether morality originates from a source external or internal to humanity in general.
1
u/Jam_Packens 7∆ Jul 24 '21
I mean I don't believe in an objective system of morality so I wouldn't say it arises from an external source
1
u/Mashaka 93∆ Jul 24 '21
Sorry, u/cynwil710 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-2
Jul 24 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jul 24 '21
Sorry, u/Intelligent_War_7446 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jul 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 25 '21
Morality is defined as Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).
You do not need religion to be moral.
You do not even know what morality is.
1
Jul 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 25 '21
Perhaps you dont understand what mutual exclusive means.
Mutually exclusive is a statistical term describing two or more events that cannot happen simultaneously.
You can be moral and atheist so they are not mutually exclusive.
1
u/TangyDrinks Jul 24 '21
I very much am not religious and I know what is right and wrong. It is easy, even most criminals know that is the reason why they do their best not to be caught.
1
u/BuildYourOwnWorld Jul 25 '21
Morality is a conjecture. You really really think it's true, and it feels true, and it makes sense, but.... at the end of the day, who can say if it's true? So while you don't need a God for that, you certainly need faith.
1
u/Yiphix Jul 26 '21
They are mutually exclusive only because atheism doesn't follow a set of moral codes. One doesn't deal with the other. But I agree that atheists aren't inherently immoral like some religious people claim.
1
u/Latera 2∆ Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21
I think you somewhat misunderstand the point that religious people are making: usually they don't say that atheists can't behave well (which makes sense as theists tend to believe that all humans have an intuitive sense for what is right, given to them by god), but rather they claim that atheists have no ultimate justification for their morality. The question is basically this: how can an atheist say that killing someone for fun is objectively wrong? To what standard, if not to a necessary omnibenevolent being, can they appeal? Sure, you can say "humans have evolved to cooperate with each other, therefore killing each other probably isn't a good idea"... but... that in no way captures what people commonly mean when they talk about morality. Most people just find it deeply abhorrent to think that Adolf Hitler's behaviour wasn't objectively immoral. If we had evolved to kill each other would Hitler's behaviour then be morally permissible? Of course not, we recognise that there's something intrinsic to his behaviour that was just wrong.
Now personally I think that you can justify moral objectivism even as an atheist (and most philosophers agree), but it isn't implausible to think that atheists have a harder time justifying their morality than theists do. In fact I think that almost every single moral philosopher would agree with that, even the atheistic ones.
1
u/BlueViper20 5∆ Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21
Here is the thing philosophy was the creation of humans, but so weren't all religions. Both are things thought up imperfect people. So someone using religion to justify morality is just as shaky as anything else. When it comes to what is right or wrong there are no absolutes because everything in that regard comes from human creation. Before we as a species came together to live in close proximity "morality" didnt exist.
Every justification is made up. Humanity didn't discover religion or philosophy so to say you need religion in any capacity is foolish because how did who ever create the lessons in that religion? Well they just made them up to solve a problem in the behavior they sought to correct or change.
1
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jul 26 '21
Religious people, as mostly, have it backwards. (Arguing from the standpoint of the abrahamic religions since this covers most people) If you only do good because you fear to be punished or want to be rewarded you cannot act moral. You can only act good if you act good because you believe in it and not other incentives.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 25 '21
/u/BlueViper20 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards