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?

Clarification - mini - the post about Kant, putman and cooperation made sense. The last one not so much.. Are you saying we therefore shouldn't need laws?

Intrinsic sense of right and wrong.

That's all you need to know. I don't need a religion to tell me how to behave. I just KNOW.

Enlightened self-interest:

Treating other people the way you would like to be treated because one day you might be the other person.

It is better for everyone if everyone looks out for the group not just themselves. This fosters caring and sharing.

It's nice to be nice.

Because if you provoke another group, they're more likely to attack your group. You don't get lions being randomly hostile to anyone that's not in their pride. They'd pick off the odd lone male who was a threat, that's all.

Or you do, but only if you're reasonably sure of victory and need to expand your territory. Big game of Risk. And we like to give a moral justification to seal it - witness Afghanistan not just harbouring people who might bomb us but also look at how the Taliban treats people.

Evolution. We are, essentially, pack animals. So within our pack, it is in our best interests to cooperate, help and bond with each other. Originally this would probably have been your extended family, then maybe your settlement.

As we grow in intelligence and understanding of the world, we would ideally understand that we are actually all one species (which wasn't always the case) and our pack should grow.

We're not there yet but I like to think we're heading (slowly) in the right direction. And my view is that we won't get there until the various religions die out, as they promote difference and exclusion rather than inclusion.

anotherviper, good question about within and without the group. I think history partly answers this, first small tribes, then kingdoms, nation states and finally the global polis. As we have evolved our social connections have gone global. Things like the internet help and globalisation in general. We have access to information and we realise that our cheap yummy coffee comes at a price.

oh laws, I am not sure it could have been Hume or Locke (not certain) who said that man in his natural state was at war with all. ie men could not be trusted to act ethically, his argument was that humans were basically "desiring machines" driven by the need to possess things. This is why liberals argue that we need the rule of law. Essentially though, if you pick apart the law (liberal construct) something like 2/3rds of all laws in liberal democracies relate to property relations. This assumes that, we are greedy avaricious thieves incapable of even basic empathy.

I don't think Atheists are inherently good people and I don't think Religious people are either.

What religion has is a long-standing structure - based on hierarchy, power alliances, patriarchy and (with a few exceptions) 'faith' - that scripture should not be questioned, that authority should not be questioned and that those in power are right by virtue of their position, not their deeds. This structure has been responsible for acts of genocide and crimes against humanity for centuries but more importantly it has been unaccountable. And when atheist societies adopt this organisation - the same thing happens e.g. Stalinism.

I guess what atheism has on its side is resistance to hierarchical organisation and much (not all) atheism is allied with secularism and science which encourages questioning, evidence and empirical observation - rather than authority and faith.

I also think yes, if you do think that this life is all there is and you only get one go at it, you do act with more consideration to what is in front of you. The start of my journey to atheism was when my Sunday School teacher told me that I should love Jesus more than my mother. This was frightening and horrible and alien to me.

mini you've obviously read a lot on this - are there any books (for a beginner) you'd recommend? (Judging by some of the reactions I've had I think I be less likely to offend others if I read rather than post on mn)

tondelay that's interesting about the structure/hierarchy & resulting unaccountability leading to crimes against humanity.
How old were you when the teacher said that? :(

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?

You mean lots of people with religion view women as less important, unworthy etc.

It could be argued that equality is an atheist value, not a Christian/Jewish/pick your own religion value.

How do you reconcile your views with what is said in the Bible? The Bible is NOT a good guide to morals, unless you think slavery is OK as long as you give your slaves a day off once a week.

Morals are not set, you can see that in the way laws have developed over the years so in the 1980s it was still illegal to be a homosexual male in Scotland. Society has changed and homosexuality is not looked upon as a disease/sin/aberration anymore, not in the UK, but look at other countries and it is a crime and then look at why it is a crime and it is to do with religion, Islam in Iran, Christianity in Uganda and Russia.

Living by a book of rules is not morality, it is obedience.

If your book tells you to rest on Wednesdays, to make people from Wales and France your slaves, to honour your uncle, to kill witches, and not to eat turnips, and you do what you're told, that is not demonstrating that you are a moral person, any more than a Satanist who had been indoctrinated since birth to obey rules to sacrifice virgin hens on a full moon is immoral.

Morality requires an understanding of what you are doing, and why, and an acceptance that you are in charge of your own behaviour.

Atheists have morals because they're people.

A largely athiest society is more likely to have realistic, working morals that support the whole society. A largely religious society is often living by a code that is outdated and excludes whole sections of society.

Just look at parts of Ireland and other Societies that have religion at it's core.

Because hurting people is wrong. No further reasons needed. We'll always argue among ourselves about the details.

Here's a thought, "Why do religious people need the threat of eternal damnation in order to do the right thing?"

If you find that a ridiculous question, then you have a notion how offensive I find OP's Q.

Because humans are social animals and working together and caring about your social group is generally in the best interests of the group and often the individual.

So it is basic human nature.

I get pretty peed off with religious people who think their "values" are somehow their own bright idea, rather than something all decent people come up with as reasonable life rules. It was the one attitude that used to annoy me when I was a governor of the local primary school, which also happened to be a church school (from my point of view it was a church school for historical reasons - just like most primaries in the area, and not because the population it served was particularly religious).

Tempted to say many (but not all) religious people seem to act as if they don't actually have to be moral because they have their religion to validate them.

Like other people have said why do religious people require the threat of eternal damnation to be moral in the first place. Sounds like they don't trust their own judgement very much.

funny this is - religious people often talk about being inclusive, when often societies dominated by religion tend to be anything but inclusive.

If you're following someone's rules without engaging your own reason then you're not being a moral agent. If you use your own reason to reinterpret the bible (and thankfully 99.99% of you do) then you are using your own reason anyway, just like those without a faith. So we're actually pretty much all the same

I'm another that would question why a religious person would ask this question. For me that implies that the person feels that their morals come from their religion and that they can't trust themselves. Are they only moral because of the fear of eternal damnation.
I believe that we are moral as it helps our species survive and frankly as an adult I don't need somebody to guide me in making decisions over what is right or wrong in life. I'm also quite able to take responsibility over any errors of judgement I have made.
I work in faith school and I struggle with the idea I often hear during assemblies that implies that the school has a greater morality/caring attitudes than other schools merely because of their faith. I don't believe it is true and feel it perpetuates the attitude that people without faith have lesser morals.

My morals come from my parents and up bring and further along my interpretation of the world. I don't think morals form differently wither religious or not.
I wonder sometimes if having morals as an non religious person is more self then if you are religious because you can if you choose divorce your self from parts of your religion eg Catholics who think gay marriage is fine.

Or am I confusing morals and doctrine?

because we are (allegedly) the most intelligent species on the planet and most of us want to look after each other. The pay-off for this is that it encourages others to look after us.

'do as you would be done by' is not the prerogative of the believers. Nor is 'what goes around comes around'.

try some of these for size:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Ten_Commandments

I don't think the OP was being offensive at all. Though it is true that Christians do sometimes use it to be offensive. Usually though you can tell the difference.

I think people covered most of it. Partly the evolutionary urge to cooperate. On top of that we have worked out logically that if we didn't outlaw murder and theft (and teach our children never to do it) we'd need to be on guard the whole time. It's a practical thing.

On top of that you can get a bit more philosophical. I don't know if our current set of morals/laws and our way of life are the best possible. So to me it makes sense to allow everyone as much freedom as is possible without infringing on other people's freedoms. That way everyone can try living the way they think works out best.