As a non-believer, what is your moral foundation? What standard do you use to determine what is moral and what is immoral?
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
30 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Don't bring harm to anyone, physically or psychologically.
chucklesIII
Level 7
May 25, 2018
1
Since I don't have a god to tell me what to do I carry a magic 8-ball and ask it critical moral and ethical questions. For instance, when I see a person in distress or hungry I ask the 8 ball "should I help this person". Unfailingly the 8 ball tells me what to do. I would never have figured this out by myself since my moral compass has no leadership unless I were to use (God forbid) my common sense and observation.
clarkatticus
Level 7
May 25, 2018
4
@SallyMc , just read your bio. I would drive to Colorado just to meet you, you are that grounded. Talk any time you want.
I have small problem with the way the question is posed. It suggests that an inherent skepticism on your part that atheists lack a moral compass and must justify themselves as to their morality. Atheists have the same moral values as anybody else. The primary difference in my mind is that atheists tend not to assert that this code was given to them by a omnipotent being. The moral code is wired into us as part of our instinctual self. It is what is necessary to maintain a healthy, functioning social presance. Humans survived early extinction by developing a heightened sense of social presance and social well-being, along with a complex communication system to express it. We are one of the most highly developed social species on the planet, as our survival depended upon it. As we alter our environment and distance ourselves from that very environment and instincts, episodes of dysfunctional, abberant social behavior is allowed to go unchecked.
t1nick
Level 8
May 25, 2018
3
I understand your concern about the implied assumption that atheists have no moral compass. The skepticism is not mine. As an atheist myself, it makes me nuts that “believers” automatically assume we are all evil and moral-less. In fact, you may want to see another post of mine:
“We non-believers are often challenged by the religious right with the accusation that we are evil because we have no morality, Their assumption is that only their (usually) Christian religion offers morality and that it can only be derived from God. Here is my answer to them. I offer this to begin a broader discussion of this topic. I also hope these thoughts will help others:”
I think this is an excellent explanation of how morals are developed in a society without god.
theheather1
Level 4
May 25, 2018
3
Generally, whatever "standards" believers use to define "morality" move me to behave in the exact opposite manner.
I think many believers are the most immoral people on the planet.
I know right from wrong, I know not to do things that will harm any living things.
I do not believe they know the same. Too much evidence to the contrary.
KKGator
Level 9
May 25, 2018
4
This is an interesting read. I wonder what others will think about it.
Since I was raised Catholic, my ideas on morality are mostly based in those teachings. Now as a non-believer, I am learning and exploring more about what morality means to me.
vcg1234
Level 7
May 25, 2018
2
Morality is purely a human, artificial construction, so the idea of a moral foundation and/or the lack thereof is flawed at the outset, imho. Having said that, I suppose I'd have to state that my general rule for living is, "Do no harm, but take no shit."
technocrone
Level 3
May 27, 2018
2
I like this^^^
Great parents and grandparents.
Sticks48
Level 9
May 25, 2018
3
Why a foundation? We have proof there is no absolute morality by the way morality has evolved with society. This isn't a bad thing, it just shows morality is man made.
When I hear foundation I think of a house foundation. It is solid, but it is also unmoving and inflexible.
theheather1
Level 4
Mar 8, 2019
1
Taking the word and using it outside of the bible, I say that to be moral is: to do no harm.
Plant1010J
Level 6
June 21, 2018
2
I may be atheist but I still follow the Golden Rule....Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
ollieberry
Level 7
May 25, 2018
1
Personally I use a mixture of moral relativism and the utilitarian model of ethics. I believe that actions that improve the net happiness, or lower the net suffering a population are good, and actions that increase suffering, or lower happiness to be bad. Where I differ from standard utilitarianism is that I don't exclusively look at the results of an action when deciding if it was moral or not, but also take the intentions behind the action into account.
Katrik
Level 7
May 25, 2018
2
My own. It's as malleable as morality.
The penalties come from others.
.
Morality, well..... "Do no harm".
Oh shit, I'm hungry.
Simply by living we do harm, so there that goes.
Slappy_Longarms
Level 7
May 25, 2018
1
I first learned the "First, do no harm" maxim in university. When thinking what it would mean outside my professional context, I realized that it would also serve as a fundamental non-negotiable rule applicable to everything i did in life. I apply it to not only my relationships with others, but in my relationships with myself.
josephr
Level 7
May 25, 2018
2
How will this affect others? I strive to not only not hurt others, but also to positively affect them.
Untamedshrew
Level 7
May 25, 2018
1
Is this trolling?
Ellatynemouth
Level 8
May 25, 2018
1
No. I seriously want to understand what, if any, standard influences people’s morality as an alternative to so-called religious morality. I was curious to find If anyone approached this philosophically.
The reason I ask is because it's only atheists that are being questioned about their morality in this way. I don't see theists in this Spanish inquisition.
I suspect you might find more interesting and perhaps more disturbing answers on the other side of the fence.
@Ellatynemouth I'm with you 100%. What's funny is that I'd take a morality that looks at the EFFECTS of one's actions over a morality that promises eternal rewards or punishments in an afterlife. The latter seems selfish and inherently immoral.
I have posted this before but here I will say it again. First of all, recongnize and accept that we are one species, one family and we are all cousins in that family, then love everyone in your family and love each cousin as the individual that they are. Strive to treat everyone the way you want to be treated. Strive to never do anything to anyone that you would not want done to you. Strive to do or cause no harm.
jlynn37
Level 8
May 25, 2018
2
It's pretty simple, actually. If I would not want it done to me, I won't do it to anyone else. The greatest wrong is to harm another for no purpose. The greatest good is to help someone simply because they need help.
sterlingdean
Level 6
Dec 3, 2019
1
Religionists often ask this question thinking that THEIR moral foundation, being derived from something beyond the human world, is superior, to a moral system based on rationality. This is a fundamental misconception about morality. The issue is not WHAT system one relies on, such as absolutism or pragmatism, but WHY one follows ANY moral system in the first place! Does one do good because good is better than bad or does one do good because of a promise of heavenly reward or fear of eternal punishment? Which do you think is more moral?
MikeInMaine
Level 3
May 26, 2018
1
Great questions. I think there is a third option. See my (lengthy) post:
“We non-believers are often challenged by the religious right with the accusation that we are evil because we have no morality, Their assumption is that only their (usually) Christian religion offers morality and that it can only be derived from God. Here is my answer to them. I offer this to begin a broader discussion of this topic. I also hope these thoughts will help others:”
[What IF - there were a way to define morality objectively and logically, at least as an ideal to strive towards?] I offer this to begin a broader discussion of this topic. I also hope these thoughts will help others:
Morality is a social construction and is different (or can be) for each culture. The foundation for morality is the survival instinct. Societal norms evolve from tradition: family, tribe, kingdom, city, state, and country; not from religion or God, although religion can be a part of the process of this evolution. Most religions evolved from, and with, tradition and therefore have virtually no philosophical foundation.
Philosophical inquiry is the true analysis and final measure of this issue. Objective, moral rules are rules that are appropriate for every society, every culture, every individual. However, they often are not recognized because religious “values” have clouded the issue. Objective morality is always in tension with capitalism, politics, and religion, as well as philosophies founded in subjectivism (relativism).
By definition, morality is human morality, since the term “morality” is not a thing. It is a concept, like “freedom,” “democracy” and “truth” for example. Only humans have the ability to make these types of conceptual judgments. No other lifeforms do. I do agree that there are many examples of other animals that show empathy and cooperate (in varying degrees) within their social groups. Some also show a fairly sophisticated use of crude tools, but this is not the same thing as forming concepts of non-physical things.
On the question of proving there is an objective way to make moral choices of right & wrong, i.e., a "Practical Truth," we must begin with an understanding of the relationship of Truth, Knowledge & Opinion.
What is the standard of value, the ultimate value, that determines what our other values will be and what our actions should be? This is a philosophical question in the purest sense.
To get things started:
TRUTH & PRACTICAL TRUTH: Decisions about what is good, right or just require a point of reference, a standard of value, to measure against. Judgments about standards of value require an understanding of Truth. Absolute truths do exist, although there are very few.
TRUTH is:
- A correspondence with reality
- Self Evident - It is Impossible to consider the opposite (a whole is the sum of its parts; reality exists; nothing can both exist and not exist, at the same time; the concept of gravity)
- Universal - it is true for all if it is true for one
- Global - there are no cultural boundaries
- Timeless - it is true now if it was ever true, and will be true forever
- Absolute - there are no degrees of Truth
Knowledge DOES include degrees of truth:
- Self Evident Truths
- Evident truths (require reason and argument to defend - includes most scientific conclusions)
- Opinions in the strong sense
- opinions in the weak sense
-
Judgments are about right & wrong, good & evil. But right or wrong, good or evil relative to what, or whom? What is needed, is a "Practical Truth" that is also Self Evident, Universal, Global, Timeless and Absolute (or as close to these as possible).
Since man alone uses reason to make moral judgments, Man's life is the standard of value [but not in the sense that Ayn Rand suggested - she got it wrong!].
PRACTICAL TRUTH therefore is:
- A correspondence with man's life
- Self Evident
- Universal
- Global
- Timeless
- Absolute
VALUE, therefore, is:
- a conformity with right desire (what is truly good for us)
- based on our natural [basic] NEEDS (food, shelter, clothing, health, education, equal opportunity)
- fulfills desires/wants only if they do not interfere with acquiring our needs or someone else's needs and are in conformity with one's natural needs
- Liberty, Equality & Justice are determined by standards based on practical truths and require a good society [Democracy is no accident].
-
PRACTICAL TRUTH APPLIED: Therefore, Government has the right to, and an obligation, to serve the common good to assure that natural NEEDS (but not 'wants'

are met.
Note too, that The Golden Rule is consistent with the conclusion of values based upon this objective, common sense Practical Truth. The evolution of morality has naturally evolved to this conclusion in most societies, even against the tensions mentioned above. Philosophy, however, confirms this conclusion is the correct one and offers us a guide to perhaps avoid many of the tensions and conflicts that often get in the way.
Sources: works by Mortimer J. Adler (mostly derived from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and what is now classified as Philosophical (or Classical) Realism. (see What is Philosophical Realism? | The Moral Liberal)
Oddly enough its a central tenet of Asatru, or Norse pantheon paganism.
"An thou harm none do as ye will"
This is my starting point, and defines my perspective on morality.
I am not a practitioner of religion, but I found this concept both beautifully simple and subtly wise.
Butcherman
Level 3
May 26, 2018
1
Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself. That's just "common" sense to me. Also the number one rule in my house. I have a list for my kids ?
PeopleSuck
Level 4
May 26, 2018
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.