If, by your number 3, I can argue that selective breeding will make the human species stronger, am I justified under self-interest to pursue that?  Now the danger is how does one define “making the world better”, an old debate.  Still the essence of the golden rule includes the Musketeers call of all for one and one for all, where we help each of our fellows, not just the selective ones.  Would this be covered in your empathy point?  And so does this set of ethics resolve as a compromise between the points whenever it can’t be a synthesis of all of them?  Is this the “default” set of ethics for an atheist?

As I said before, morality is not a conscious exercise of self-interest but rather instinctive. We don’t take weighted averages of each of my four points (there may be more, I could only think of 4 on the spot) and decide which path to follow. You bring up scenarios like ethnic cleansing etc. This may be encouraged by number 3 but it would be discouraged by 1 and 2. If I create an environment of genetic cleansing and then my child is born with some defect, I will be responsible for harming him. The reason we support “Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is that we never know that someday we may not find ourselves on trial.

Different people intrinsically have these 4 factors in different amounts. Also since these are instincts and complexes rather than conscious choices (to a large extent), childhood experiences influence how strongly or weakly each of these factors manifest.

This gives rise to different moral codes. Most of us would not agree with Hitler’s moral code. But can we say he did not have one? He believed he was doing good and creating a better world for him and his people.

What about the muslims who flew planes onto the towers? Would you agree with their moral code? But can you say they did not have one? They clearly were following a moral code which was grounded ultimately in self-interest. The terrorists believed they were making the world a better place for other muslims (plus they wanted their 72 virgins).

You are right when you say that making the world a better place is an old debate. We all have different ideas of how to do that. But the fact remains that each of us does work to a greater or lesser extent to help bring about a better world according to our standards. Just because we do not agree with each other’s moral codes does not mean that we do not have them.

There is no “default” set of ethics for atheists just as there isn’t one for people who do not have a hobby (using your analogy Shnakepup). Do people who collect stamps have a better moral code than people who do not?

What does any of this have to do with religion? Religion does not give one a moral code, it simply colors and distorts ones expectations of how to fulfill self-interest nothing else. And any decision founded on faith is dangerous because:

“Misery, Iniquity, and utter destruction lurk in the shadows outside [reason’s’] full light, where half-truths snare the faithful disciples, the deeply feeling believers, the selfless followers. Faith and feelings are the warm marrow of evil. Unlike reason, faith and feelings provide no boundary to limit any delusions, any whim. They are a virulent poison, giving the numbing illusion of moral sanction to every depravity ever hatched...”, “Reason is the very substance of truth itself.”, “Faith and feelings are the darkness to reason’s light”

.....Terry Goodkind - Faith of the Fallen

I still don’t understand why you think that religion of lack of it has anything to do with having a moral code. Ultimately we are all genetically programmed to do what’s best for our genes. We as a race walk a fine line between individual self interest and the interests of the community, nation, tribe species etc. We may disagree on where the equilibrium point between these influences lie, but since there is not absolute moral code it is difficult to say that one of us is any more correct than another.

Each tribe judges the best morality to be that which benefits that tribe as a whole. Each society and nation does likewise. History judges the best morality to be that which benefits the entire race. But even in each of these cases there are dissenting opinions simply because we cannot agree on where the equilibrium point lies.

What JulianP said.

The ONLY reason we’re having this debate is because of the mistaken view of evangelicals:  i.e. that their morals come from their religion, therefore ALL morals come from religion, therefore morals cannot come from atheism, therefore atheists have no morals.  It’s a mistake at its very foundation, so why are we even buying into it?

Atheism doesn’t come with a set of morals any more than not liking Star Trek comes with a set of morals.  Nor should it.  Evangelicals don’t understand that they actually get their moral grounding from most of the same sources everyone else does; it’s just that in their case, their morals have had the serial numbers filed off and they’re confusing the enforcement with the source.

But now I’ve got an idea—I’m going to go around to people who don’t watch American Idol and then ask them, quizzically, “But then where do you get your morals from?”

But in practice atheism entails metaphysical naturalism: the belief that all that exists is made of matter and energy.

Not true. Buddhists are atheists and they are definately not metaphysical naturalists. One of my atheist friends thinks she’s a psychic. Raelians are atheists too. You cannot make any generalisation of atheists except to state that we do not believe in gods. That’s it.

What Geekmom and JulianP said.

One quick note: Who spots the fallacy of arguing an individual’s self-interest in the context of our evolutionary roots of morality?

Religious “absolute” morals are as arbitrary as they come; they’re a vapid and risible claim if I ever saw one. In general and in the particular case of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments, a list of things not to do isn’t exactly a solid foundation of a moral system. I’m glad that the what isn’t forbidden must be allowed stance of Christian morals implicitly supports the Pagan rede ("An it harm none, do as you will"). Of course, this is tempered by the fact that in practice, all too many Christians faithfully observe the 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not be caught").

I still don’t understand why you think that religion of lack of it has anything to do with having a moral code.

Hmm.  It wasn’t so much that I thought religion was a cause of an ethical code.  I agree with all the posters that religion (or lack thereof) is largely irrelevant.  Nonetheless, Evangelist Bob would argue that his religion gives him an axiom from which to base his ethics: an absolute dictum handed down from on high, but nonetheless serving as a basis.  Wherever it came from before, for EB he accepts it comes from there now.

I’m repeating myself now, but the religious affiliation for EB gives a ready reference for others to identify him with a moral code and EB can point to his reasons for that code.  We may argue strenuously that they are false reasons or a poor code, but we can’t argue that he accepts them as his reasons.  That is, at least we know where he intends to stand.

This declaration of what ethics we follow and from whence they came is missing for an atheist.  It cannot be assigned simply on the basis of atheism, unless there is one as a “default” in the absence of any other, perhaps the self-interest argument. Is the following of a Golden Rule, etc., arbitrary for an atheist?  I don’t think ethics have to necessarily be absolute to say they aren’t arbitrary.

JulianP points out identifiable, atheistic groups, Buddhists and Raelians.  Presumably they have a moral code that can pointed to.  They certainly aren’t as reviled as the blanket term of atheist.  They’ve added something on top of the atheism to describe their ethical foundation, however it may be grounded.

Either, a “raw” atheist has a moral code that exists in the absence of any other (a base state of humanity) that we can identify or we choose one off the shelf or make one up and name it.  It’s not just about labeling it, though.  It’s more about giving a response to the spectators listening to our answer to Evangelical Bob when he says that atheism is amoral and that following the golden rule is arbitrary without religion.

So far in this discussion, we’re left to nod and say, “yep, atheism is amoral, but I’m not”.  I’m not sure I agree with that, but I’m not sure why not yet.  I’m attracted to a notion of grounded self-interest as a root claim.  Ayn Rand starts from there too.  If we take self-interest as the default basis, then our answer becomes, “Bob, you ignorant slut.  Atheism leaves one to follow openly what we all follow whether or not you’re adult enough to admit it:  ethics comes from self-interest.  We each follow the golden rule because it’s good for each of us. You don’t need some crummy god for that, Bob.”

But now I’ve got an idea—I’m going to go around to people who don’t watch American Idol and then ask them, quizzically, “But then where do you get your morals from?”

Why, isn’t it from Sanjaya Malakar?  Sheesh.

Nonetheless, Evangelist Bob would argue that his religion gives him an axiom from which to base his ethics: an absolute dictum handed down from on high, but nonetheless serving as a basis.  Wherever it came from before, for EB he accepts it comes from there now.

Yes that’s what EB would argue and nothing we say is going to convince him otherwise. If you’re looking for something you can wave at him and say “See? I have a grounding for my moral code.” that’s never going to happen (I presume you are an atheist yourself).

It’s more about giving a response to the spectators listening to our answer to Evangelical Bob when he says that atheism is amoral and that following the golden rule is arbitrary without religion.

There is no response we could possibly give that will satisfy EB or his cronies. If that’s what you’re looking for good luck but I can’t help you. I learned long ago that I cannot smite fundies with my mighty logic, they wear the armor of faith.

This declaration of what ethics we follow and from whence they came is missing for an atheist.  It cannot be assigned simply on the basis of atheism, unless there is one as a “default” in the absence of any other, perhaps the self-interest argument.

As others have pointed out, you’re making this harder than it needs to be comparing apples to oranges. Atheism per se is not a complete world view or moral philososophy; it only states that the moral philosophy that an individual atheist subscribes to are not grounded in some deity whose existence is accepted on faith. Vice versa for theists, of course.

For a proper comparison, you have to discuss the kind of atheistic world views that are considered religions for the purposes of the First Amendment.

There is no response we could possibly give that will satisfy EB or his cronies.

Skimming EB’s article and comments, you seem to have gotten it right.

Is it moral to allow someone to die for you, even if they wanted to?

Is it moral to brag that someone died for you?

What if the death idea was orchestrated by the victim’s father? He created his child so he can end his creation if he wants to, right?

Is it moral to claim you died for someone when you really didn’t even die?

If you’re a Christian, it’s very likely you answered yes to all these questions. Many others have died for you and your belief but eventually you’ve got to ask yourself how many should martyr themselves before you accept that they shouldn’t have died for anyone but themselves?

Whew!  Should have subscribed to this thread when it came out!

Geekmom: “Evangelicals don’t understand that they actually get their moral grounding from most of the same sources everyone else does; it’s just that in their case, their morals have had the serial numbers filed off and they’re confusing the enforcement with the source.”

Good stuff, GM!

Evangelicals argue against atheism as an ethical foundation because in their imagination atheism is an attempt to replace religion lock, stock, and barrel.  But it isn’t; atheism only removes the firing pin, rendering the rest superfluous. 

There are various strains of humanism that attempt to do everything religion does, to replace the whole assembly, and some of those strains contain atheism as an element.  It could be argued that Buddhism is similar.

(I presume you are an atheist yourself)

BTW, yes, I am. 

There is no response we could possibly give that will satisfy EB or his cronies. If that’s what you’re looking for good luck but I can’t help you.

I wasn’t so much expecting any change from Evangelical Bob or his disciples since they’re so invested, but rather the interested, but unaffiliated spectators.  For instance, Newsweek just published a brief debate between the pastor at Saddleback Church and Richard Dawkins.  Can an open-minded person (theistic or otherwise), see a positive ethic (or set of ethics) to consider rather than just the rejection of someone else’s faith?

Elwedriddsche, I agree with you about the apples and oranges, but then a debate on ethics with EB isn’t really between Christianity and atheism, which is a non-starter, but with whatever alternative system that the atheist subscribes to.  So then what is the point of identifying yourself as an atheist in such a debate?  That provides no information on an ethical grounding other than it isn’t theistic.  Why call yourself an atheist?

BTW, I’m enjoying that we’re having this discussion on Easter.

I agree with you about the apples and oranges, but then a debate on ethics with EB isn’t really between Christianity and atheism, which is a non-starter, but with whatever alternative system that the atheist subscribes to.

I don’t think you’re right.

In my experience, the believers who raise this kind of argument are not really concerned with the finer points of moral philosophy and the nuances of secular world views, but with the fact that atheists openly defy and reject the believer’s faith and in doing so, threaten their customer base.

It all ties into the big lie of religion—that the believing people are the better people. Atheism is a straightforward in-group/out-group criterion and similar to other hot button topics, nothing said in favor of the out-group or in disfavor of the in-group is going to sway them.

Portraying and stereotyping atheists as intrinsically immoral suits the purpose of these believers just fine, doesn’t it?

So then what is the point of identifying yourself as an atheist in such a debate?  That provides no information on an ethical grounding other than it isn’t theistic.  Why call yourself an atheist?

I don’t usually bother to participate in these debates and certainly not on religious sites, it’s simply a waste of my time. It’s been a long time since I’ve posted on religious forums or blogs, but I’ve very rarely identified myself as anything at all. It’s a lot more fun to keep them guessing. In fact, with rare exceptions, I didn’t volunteer my own position, but questioned the other’s.

In my experience, the believers who raise this kind of argument are not really concerned with the finer points of moral philosophy and the nuances of secular world views, but with the fact that atheists openly defy and reject the believer’s faith and in doing so, threaten their customer base.

Again, I’m not as concerned about the evangelists, but rather the masses only marginally affiliated out of custom, habit, apathy, culture, etc.  Right now, they hear, “Christian good, atheist doesn’t know what to do.” A bit of an oversimplification, but then isn’t that how it all works?

I don’t usually bother to participate in these debates and certainly not on religious sites, it’s simply a waste of my time. It’s been a long time since I’ve posted on religious forums or blogs, but I’ve very rarely identified myself as anything at all.

I only do it here on SEB since there are few other reasonable outlets and you all are so patient with me.  My phrasing earlier misled my question:  there is no point to taking an atheist viewpoint in an ethics discussion since the concepts are orthogonal.  In other words a reply to Evangelical Bob might go, “yes, I’m an atheist, but what does that have to do with ethics?”

That’d send some casual observers head scratching.  Maybe that’s a good thing.

Again, I’m not as concerned about the evangelists, but rather the masses only marginally affiliated out of custom, habit, apathy, culture, etc.  Right now, they hear, “Christian good, atheist doesn’t know what to do.” A bit of an oversimplification, but then isn’t that how it all works?

What these masses hear is “Christians good, atheists bad"—they interpret you can’t have morals not grounded in the Christian god as you can’t be moral without being a Christian.

I wrote about this e.g. here and the original is there.

The basic point is that I’m not sure where the marginally unaffiliated masses are.

In other words a reply to Evangelical Bob might go, “yes, I’m an atheist, but what does that have to do with ethics?”

My reply tends to be along the lines of “whatever” or “shrug”. The EB’s can’t be convinced, the home crowd will side with the EB’s, and only a reason of atheists who drifts by is likely to be on your side.

Not to sound like a broken record here, but what Geekmom, DOF, and JulianP said.

Justin, you say:

suppose I am an atheist, and I have the opportunity to steal a large sum of money with a very low risk of getting caught. Then why shouldn’t I steal the money?

My parents weren’t particularly religious, yet they always taught my siblings and me that stealing is wrong. Why? Among other things, it had to do with a sense of “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours.” If all of society engaged in rampant theft, chaos would ensue and civilization would most likely seriously dwindle. Even if there is a low risk of being caught, people would be disinclined to steal due to society’s strong stance against it.

Secondly, most atheist systems of morality are powerless against the relativism in society.

Not true. Many societies have standards and practices that superficially would appear to be entirely incompatible with the mores of other societies, yet all societies share at a basic level many values and prohibitions that are quite similar. As has been demonstrated on other threads, no god belief is necessary in explaining this phenomenon.

Morality is a human social construct that has as its goal the cohesion of societies; as such, most philosophies and mindsets will have something to say on the subject. This does not mean that every mindset is inherently concerned with issues of morality, though.

Sorry got nothin interesting to add right now but…
subscribing!

Les, I know that a thread subscription feature for EE has been talked about in their forums. Are you aware of any progress? Maybe EE 2.0?

Thinking out loud, I wonder if all the hooks are there to create an extension that maintains its own subscription database… Given the hooks, the actual code probably isn’t too hard to write, but the user interface is another story…

I do feel that the religeous have a point when they blame the decline of faith as a cause of lawlessness.  Not for the reason they would cite- no religeon = no morals, but for the fact that there is less perceived consequence. The biggest deterent to crime is fear of being caught (not the severity of the punishment). 

With no “angel on their shoulder” there is less chance of getting caught.  The religeous do right not because it is right, but they are suppressing the instinct to do wrong because of fear of the consequence.

My morals boil down to “steal from no-one"- this covers concepts as well as the physical world- and “do unto others...”.  I will perform ‘good’ acts even when there is no benefit to me (or on occasion a downside for me).  I have also done the ‘right thing’ just in case- a limited Pascals Wager!  Sometimes I do stuff just to be nice.

The biggest deterent to crime is fear of being caught

Speak for yourself.

That actually came from a survey of criminals. No I don’t have the source- all I can say is Radio4 a few years ago.

That actually came from a survey of criminals.

Thus begging the question. What prevents most people from becoming criminals in the first place?

What these masses hear is “Christians good, atheists bad"—they interpret you can’t have morals not grounded in the Christian god as you can’t be moral without being a Christian...snip...My reply tends to be along the lines of “whatever” or “shrug”. The EB’s can’t be convinced, the home crowd will side with the EB’s, and only a reason of atheists who drifts by is likely to be on your side.

I’ve seen the UMN study: it’s landmark...someone actually cared enough to study the question of how atheism is perceived. 

Resigning ourselves to a notion that that no one will listen to an atheist contributes to the perception problem.  I’m not talking about the evangelicals; they’re unlikely to ever listen.  Instead I’m talking about reaching those who only hear from the Christians but are open minded enough to listen to other POVs.  Writing everyone off as unable and unwilling to listen to us is fairly defeatist.  I’m not looking to convert people, but to educate for tolerance so that my children don’t have to say “under God” to pledge allegiance to their country or so they don’t have a President (Bush Sr.) who says they shouldn’t be considered citizens.  Shrugging off the question is not exactly a useful response for a spectator who is willing to hear the answer.

Having reasonably succinct and direct answers to questions of ethics without theology is valuable.

RDN: “Writing everyone off as unable and unwilling to listen to us is fairly defeatist.  I’m not looking to convert people, but to educate for tolerance so…

Right.  We’ve been letting the evangelicals tell the story for far too long, and all most people hear from atheists is anger over how they tell it.  It’s time we told our own story, ourselves, in a constructive way so people will understand we’re not the devil, or at least no more the devil than anyone else is.