Why do atheists have morals?

[anotherviper]

I know this could come across as goady, but I don't mean it that way, it's a genuine question meant respectfully, and I'm sure there are people out there who have thought about this already who can help my random ponderings.

It vaguely occurred to me the other day with the faith schools threads, and again more recently from a book I've been reading. Obviously atheists do have morals, (which is what several posters were at pains to point out on the threads), but my question is why? Where do they come from?

What I mean is, if there's actually a being who created humans and who said, for example, 'you should treat other people as you'd like to be treated' that is then a good reason for people to do so and to believe that everyone should. But if there is no such being, how can one human being claim that another should behave a certain way? Surely it's just a matter of opinion, and one person's opinion is as valid as another's?

Another example, I'm fairly sure most people on here would agree that women should be treated equally to men and that it's wrong to pay women less for the same job, or to not bother educating them as they'll just have babies etc. But lots of people historically and throughout the world wouldn't agree with that view, and what makes one view more correct than the other if there's no absolute?

I've just deleted the rest of what I was going to post as I was waffling on - but it was along the lines of how can we say that there are such things as human rights, why should everyone agree on them?

[TondelayoSchwarzkopf]

"Without religion, you would still have good people doing good deeds and evil people doing evil ones. But for good people to do evil - that takes religion." Steven Weinberg

[matildasquared]

The atheists I know have very strong moral codes, specifically because they don't believe there is a father figure up above somewhere who will forgive and grant grace and generally clean up after us. They believe it's up to humans to create a good world and a good life.

[anotherviper]

tinkerbell yes, that makes sense - cooperation and empathy conferring a survival advantage. Although it doesn't enitrely explain why we would strongly feel empathy for those who are 'other' ie outside our own tribe? (In terms of evolution I mean)

funky why is it a good way of living? Why not do whatever serves you best personally? Yes, because we feel its wrong to do so - but my question was why?

finicky yes exactly, where have these morals come from? Why are so many universally agreed when many of them compete with a pure 'survival of the fittest' view? That's my point - but I think tinkerbell addressed it.

[Inertia]

Or to put it another way - would believers behave in a totally immoral way if their main aim was not the selfish preservation of advantage for their eternal soul? I imagine most of them would think they'd still follow certain morals even if they could be sure their god wasn't looking.

I agree with posters above — it conveys evolutionary advantage to the species to behave in a co-operative way (shared food supplies, a wider gene pool for reproductive purposes, the protection offered by a large group) . It would make sense for moral codes to grow from the success of these co-operative groups.

[Belalug0si]

How does believing in a religion definitely mean an individual has morals and what moral values are they anyway?

I think that people know right from wrong without a religious construct. Also religion historically has been used to give moral justification to acts which could be argued to be immoral.

Anecdotally some of the most amoral and immoral people I've know have been quite religious. Why shouldn't atheists have morals - religion doesn't own them?

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Great quote Tondelayo, I've not seen that one before

Mind you I think some religious/wise ancient writings can inspire good deeds and well lived lives, but you have to use discretion, and not just take it all as gospel as it were.

[anotherviper]

selks well that is the question isn't it - why do humans have morals at all, there's a potential explanation as I said in the op, but if that's not the case then why is there so much basic agreement of how people should behave? I don't see what's odd about that as a question. Maybe I should've said, where else could morals come from in terms of an evolutionary explanation or something (but I doubt there'd have been the flurry of replies!)

[Eghamite]

Atheists were made in the image of God.

[eddielizzard]

i take responsibility for my choices and actions and answer to myself. that's a far better reason for morals than some mystical being imo.

[southeastastra]

it's just a natural reaction isn't it, to do good and help others? it's a bit sad that we need religion to see this isn't it??

if we do wrong we don't need god or some other invisible being to tell us this, we just have a chemical reaction that makes us understand

[BrownSauceSandwich]

I'm an atheist. I don't find this question goady, or inane, or offensive, as some people seem to.. In fact I think it's one of the questions that elevates atheism from the, fingers-in-ears-ner-ner-ner-ner-ner-all-believers-in-god-are-idiots mentality to something a bit more intelligent.

I suggest you go and read up on the Social Contract. You'll find that philosophers have been asking this question, or something like it, for hundreds of years. And I think it's at the root of why society has needed to create god/religion.

[eddielizzard]

err no. we're made from the dna of our parents.

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

I'm just enjoying the tussle and tangle in this nest of vipers tonight anotherviper

I'm feeling very angry tonight actually, but it's not personal, it's life

[anotherviper]

Urghh, I knew some people would misunderstand what I meant and take it as implying atheists have no reason to have morals - bela my question was about how they can have come about, animals don't (as far as I know?) have morals - the best explanation is along the line of tinkerbell & inertia up thread, saying that it would have conferred a survival advantage for the groups that developed that way.

Won't post for a bit, off to look at the links. Sorry I obviously riled some people, wasn't the intention.

[eddielizzard]

i think your title was goady tbh.

i think it has to do with consciousness, self awareness and empathy.

probably empathy the most.

[BehindLockNumberNine]

Because morals don't spring from religion (and it is patronising / arrogant to assume they do?)

Morals come from the law, society, awareness of others' feelings, own inner feelings of guilt, knowledge of right vs wrong, intelligence, empathy, learned consequences, cooperation and a whole raft of other attributes which we humans are blessed with.

Nowt to do with religion as far as I am aware...

[herethereandeverywhere]

Because morality and religion are not inextricably linked.

Because morality is absolute (ie: regardless of your 'beliefs' or your lack of them, the same things are always right and wrong).

Because it is possible to learn a sense of right and wrong (a moral code) from anyone, it does not need to be a person who speaks on behalf of a religion. So children raised in faithless homes can still learn a moral code.

I find the idea that people without religion won't know what to do from a moral perspective quite . A bit like a question my 4 year old might ask. Actually, I'm doing her a disservice there.

[MiniTheMinx]

I think Kant used transcendental deduction to arrive at moral "facts" the famous example is to do with deceit, it is impossible to lie when making a promise because they cancel each other out.

Another interesting read is Putman "creating facts and values" she makes the argument that theories are like facts, we come to accept a theory as though it were a fact and through consensus it becomes established and all the time it remains unchallenged it is as good as any moral "fact"

I am inclined to think that human beings are essentially cooperative because we are complex social creatures. As we become more specialised and have greater technologies we may become more alienated from self and others but our need for them is still as great as at any other time. For this reason as self interested individuals our interests are best met by reciprocal relations.

[stinkingbishop]

Religion is, in part, simply the moral codes most of us live by instinctively formalised and named and explained.

Most morals come from self interest, whether consciously, or in a selfish gene way. I'd rather I wasn't killed/robbed, so not doing that to other people improves my chances of survival, as else I'd be a member of an anarchic and dangerous group. Coveting oxen is just going to make me miserable, so best not to do that either. Being nice to people makes them like me, so more likely to help me find a new cave when mine gets flooded.

That's not to lessen the wonder of our morality - au contraire, it's further evidence of nature's marvels.

So, I guess whether religious or not, morals are an investment in our future safety and happiness. Either that we won't be languishing in some imagined furnace, or that we won't be chucked into a very real one. I guess religion is like taking out an extra insurance policy for society. If you're worried the literal danger isn't enough of a disincentive, then weave stories about a bigger, scarier one.

[theeternalstudent]

A certain amount of our morality has evolved and has an evolutionary purpose. So, it's innate, it's born within us. Then as others have explained we have societal and legal laws, the ability to think and logic and reason coupled with empathy and feelings of responsibility and the need to do right. We do the right thing and adhere to laws of the land not because we are scared but because it's within us to do so.

[MiniTheMinx]

In terms of religion, stories precede religion and yet if you study the structure of story telling, whether it be films, novels or folklore you find the bible contains the same structure. It seems to me that the bible is like any other story, it meets the need we have to make sense of our lived lives. But it is the work of men and therefore like any other narrative...fiction. Almost all the commandments are based upon existing relations and even the jewish mitzvah are based upon common sense and the idea of perpetuating dominant ideologies of its time.

[MiniTheMinx]

theeternalstudent why do we need formal laws if its within us to only ever do good? That reminds me of the liberal numpties who believe in the rule of law because man in his natural state is at war with all. If you are arguing that we need formal laws then this contradicts any notion that humans have reason and can act ethically.

[anotherviper]

mini what you say makes sense, thank you :)

awimba yes the link is good, says in more detail the same sorts of things as tinkerbell and inertia, about how we've evolved as social beings to cooperate and so empathy is a big advantage in that way. The question that that leads me on to tho is, shouldn't hostility to all outside our own group confer similar advantages to cooperation within our group? Why do we then think that would be morally wrong?

eddie yes, I agree the title does sound goady, which is what I was worried about but couldn't think of a better way of putting it. Suggestions some people have made would have been better. But I did try to explain I didn't mean it that way.