Non-religious Morality
 

All:

Some very religious people argue that religion is necessary for one to have a moral compass. They argue that without a beleif in a god that has certain expectations for how you should behave (and can observe your actions when other people cannot), there is no reason not to lie, cheat, steal, harm others, etc.

What do you think? If you are an athiest or agnostic, on what do you base your personal sense of morality?

I do know one thing: Religious persons are nearly four times as likely to care for the poor than their atheistic counterparts (And even constitute about 90'ish% of all non-profit relief funds).

...But, no one really cares about that >.>

On the Golden Rule.

I don't want to be stolen from, physically attacked, murdered, lied to, etc.

So then why should I do these things to other people?

I think that in all reality, murder is harder for agnostics and atheists because we are not assured salvation if we kill enemies of the religion, and because death is much more final when there isn't an afterlife.

Additionally, strong Theists can justify any action they take by saying that it doesn't matter what people here (on Earth) think because God is the only one who has a right to judge them. By contrast, I know that the people here on Earth are the only ones to be effected by (and judge me based on) my actions, so I work to avoid doing things that would harm others.

Well, IL, I won't disagree with you, but it's not exactly what Racnad is asking about.

I have no belief in a god, but my moral compass is pretty highly attuned, I think. Rather than god having expectations of me, I have them of myself.

Show me a reputable source which claims such. The difficulty with an assertion such as yours is that it is easier to measure contributions from an organization like a church because they are mandated by law to keep financial records. Unfortunately for you, there are very few "atheist" organizations which keep such records. NO study has been done to defend your claim, and understandably so; it'd be nigh impossible to do so.

Your claim is made even more obviously tenuous by the fact that you used "nearly 4 times" and "90%ish" - meaning you didn't actually read ACTUAL numbers from a REPUTABLE source, but made it up (or someone else made it up, and passed it on).

Yep. Which is even rougher going than it was as a Christian. It was nice knowing that I was forgiven for all my sins... but these days, I know I have to work to reverse or lessen the harm I've done to other people and myself (which is my equivalent of "sin"). And work is a lot harder than forgiveness... which is how it should be, in my world. Also, as JinnKai said, there's no afterlife, so there's a lot more impetus to make THIS one worth it, every last minute of it.

Well, over 90% of the population of the Earth is religious. I'd call that dead even, assuming you didn't pull that stat from thin air.

I base my morality on a few things:
1) The good of the pack: One of the innate traits of humans is that there is an innate loyalty to the pack, to do good for your family, friends, and community because ultimately it's good for survival. This, in my opinion, means that if a neighbor's car needs a jump, I jump the car. They get to work on time, do well, and the whole is benefited (assuming my neighbor isn't driving to go kill someone or rob a bank). This probably explains why I'm socialist.

2) Empathy: One of those wonderful things that seems to come with being sentient is the ability to perceive and comprehend the feelings of others. If I see someone who is sad, I understand sadness myself and I make a connection between my own feelings and those of the person who is sad. This helps in backing up the golden rule. If you comprehend the emotional experience of others, it's easy to sympathize and thus treat them the way you yourself would expect to be treated.

3) The law: Yes, the morality of the land is supposed to be the law. I use the law as a guide to live by, usually. This is unless the first two override the law. If the law says it's okay to torture, the second rule overrules it. If the law says it's okay to let the poor suffer, the first rule overrides it.

Because millions of years of evolution has given us the ability to reason.

Maybe. But I very highly doubt that. However...since you know these "facts", perhaps you would be willing to share your references with the rest us. I, for one, would find that a most fascinating read.

Wait a minute...
Let's say, for arguments sake, that you have 100 people. 90 of whom consider themselves "religious", whereas the other 10 identify with atheists and agnostics. Let's say that all of them donated to a non-profit relief fund. Of course you could say that religious persons constitute about 90% of all non-profit relief funds, and be technically correct. You could also say that 100% of the non-religious persons contributed to non-profit relief funds.
And of those same 100 people...if the religious ones (90% remember) are only 4 times as likely to care for the poor than their atheistic counterparts, that's pretty dismal.

Consider the possibility the morality preceeded religeous belief. Frankly, how could it be otherwise?

I forget who said it but the quote goes something like...

'When people say we need more religion, what they are really saying is we need more police'.

Religion may contain some good morality lessons but its not the source of human morality.

Religion is responsible for the deaths of billions of people throughout history. The ideas and motivations for ethics and morality have little to no formal connection to any organized religious tradition. Stoicism from the Greco-Roman is a key factor in what became the Catholic interpretation of a "moral code" despite the Stoics' aversion to religious dogma. The morality argument frequently used by religious hacks is simply one more method of ensuring their continued ignorance and illogical claims of superiority.

This is exactly how I feel.

In fact, I will go further and suggest that an atheist's morality is stronger than a religious person's as we must do the right thing without fear of an eternity in Hell or some other supernatural retribution should be fail to live up to standard.

I'm an atheistic Buddhist. I won't go into detail, but the Golden Rule plays a lot into it. I don't need to believe in a vengeful or fatherly God to have morality, I merely need to observe and learn what is good and what is evil. It is based on my experience; it is being attuned to suffering and knowing its cause and how to at least try to alleviate it.

Once I know what causes my own suffering, I can determine what may cause others' suffering. I cannot even begin to help others unless I understand it for myself.

This is my moral "compass."

I'll simply note that Confucianism is extremely powerful ethical system which -- egads! -- lacks a diety. The idea that we'd eat each other were it not for Sky Gods is not only absurd but ethnocentric.

As it is written in the Analects, talk about ghosts and things like teacups circling the sun is unproductive.

...Because, you know, I've got nothing better to do than to make up false statistics. I could have said "3.6 times more likely" and "87%", but those figures would be incorrect as that's not what they are. Hence why I said "nearly 4 times" and "90'ish". Also, I love the claim "No study has been done to defend your claim". Really. I do. Because, you know, it's not like it's not possible to, you know, ask someone of they're a theist or not and look at their non-profit contributions for the year >.>

You're right about one thing, though. I don't have the exact statistic on-hand, but I can find it (Won't be too hard. I know exactly where to look).

Anyway, to the two people who've claimed it's harder to be a moral atheist than a moral theist... Just what the hell are you smoking? To assert such a claim you would have to at least acknowledge that there's some repercussions in a disbelief in God-- But you don't (And won't). You, as an atheist, have no predetermined standard upon which you live. Like I've said in other threads, it's much easier to be a moral atheist than a moral theist, because you aren't REQUIRED to abide by any set of rules and regulations.

my moral compass:

if the roles were reversed, would i be happy with what is being done to me. if i don't want it done to me (lied to, stolen from, etc) i don't do it to others.

i am required to follow these rules because i would hate myself if i didn't.

I think you are missing the point.

The fact that it isn't required and that there are no consequences to my choices *is* difficult. I don't have a book that I can point to tell me how to live a "moral" life. I have to come to these conclusions on my own, through experience (usually hard earned). In my experience this is a harder path to walk than one that comes with a guide book and threats of eternal damnation if I fail to follow the instructions found inside.

Compound this with my firm belief that this is the *only* life I have. There is no redemption or do over for screwing it up.

Believe it or not, some Atheist firmly believe in Karma and the kicker is that it actually comes down and kicks you in the ass in this life, not in the next. For someone who accepts a reality that takes this into the lifestyle, it can be far more compelling than eternal damnation. One need only look at the Pat Robertsons and Osama Bin Ladens of the world to see just how powerful a scriptural based morality is on the human mind.
In my own life, I try very hard not to piss off "that which is", and keeping my own Karma intact goes a long way toward that goal.

The predetermined standard upon which atheists live is the one built by theists. Whether they were pagans, monotheists or atheists, there have been many who contributed to what we understand today as morality and ethics. Atheists evaluate this and make their own judgements based on experience and other forms of learning. There are few, if any, born and raised in North America who completely escape the influence of the foundational Judeo-Christian values upon which this society was built. These are the rules and regulations that act as a baseline.

Atheists merely say something along the lines of: "You were right about this, but wrong about that. Thank you, and no thank you."

And Charlatan has an excellent point. It reminds us that this isn't easy for anyone. Besides, trying to determine who has it harder isn't only beside the point, it is something that is unmeasurable. We could spend our time more constructively, I think.

Upon a full reading, and better understanding of your claim....I think you are obviously correct. Throughout my life I have rarely met a Theist who actually follows the guidelines set before them by the faith they follow, and thus must assume it is a very difficult criteria to live up to. In fact my own path led away from a Catholic life because of the inability of Nuns to do so, as well as my own. After watching the priesthood become visibly corrupt the issue of this difficulty becomes all the more clear.
So in my mind at least, the question of actual morality and what it is in practice comes to the forefront. Its all good and fine to read the manual, but if you don't understand it, or cannot follow the directions it is a useless document. If however, you look at the pictures, and can easily see what piece connects to another...you can still build the entertainment center even if the instructions are written in Chinese.
Claiming it is harder for a Theist to follow moral principles does not in any way add respect to them, and in many ways makes the Theist seem corrupt. Personally, I think it makes sense to take from scripture those things that make us a better person (whatever that is), and toss the leftovers away. Asking God to hold your hand just seems like a cop out to me.

I base my morality on three things:

1. Is what I am doing (or about to do) necessary for me to reach my goal?
2. Do I have the means (financially, physically, etc.) to carry out my intentions?
3. Is there a high risk in being caught and punished for what I do? If the risk is great, does the reward outweigh it?

If you cannot answer 'yes' to all three questions, then chances are that you will not commit the crime/sin/whatever. This can apply to anything immoral/illegal from speeding to murder. Try it out the next time you hear about somebody being arrested for something. The first two questions are rather straightforward. The third question will come down to whether it was an act of civil disobedience out of protest, a feeling of invincibility in thinking that they sufficiently covered their own ass so they won't be caught or convicted in a court of law, or in extreme cases, a sociopath who is indifferent to the possiblity of being caught and to the punishment they may face, no matter how severe it is.

Placed in the context of religions, these three questions still apply, however in most cases, the third question will always be no because of their assumption that their actions are constantly monitored by God (or the cosmic forces that manipulate Karma) and the risk of a less than satisfactory afterlife (or simple poetic justice) will outweigh any desire that is fulfilled by committing a wrongful act.

i don't worry about being caught, it has no real barring, because i will know myself that i did wrong, and i don't want to live with that on my conscious.

I believe in a concept I call "moral maturity." That is the ability look beyond one's immediate situation and make consisitant descisions in your own long-term self interest and the interests of those you care about.

If you lie and cheat, you may get ahead in the short term, but the longer term result of your actions is that people will not trust you, you won't do as well in your career and you won't have quality friends. So being trustworthy and true to your word will get you further in the long term.

Another principle I live by is to imagine the world you'd like to live in, and live as closley as practical as if you live in that world. I'd like a world where you can trust everyone, where you don't need looks on your doors, where everyone takes responsibility for their lives and actions.

Well, since I don't live in the world, I do lock my doors. But I can still live my life and treat others as I did live in that world, and pick friends who live the same way.

The problem with morals derived from God is that not everyone agrees on exactly how God wants people to live. By definition, anything that God asks of you is moral, and history is full of examples of people who believe that God had instructed them to lie, cheat and commit violence against others.

If you had the opportunity to steal something you wanted with a very low probability of getting caught, would you do it? If your definition of sin is not derived from religion, then what makes it a sin, if you're not going to get caught & punished?

No religion based in the Judeo-Christian scheme of things (that I know of) requires you to follow a set of rules and regulations. They're all very proud of the idea that God gave us free choice, and the ability to obey or not obey, believe or not believe. Further still, many of the JC religions offer a forgiveness for sin; so long as you repent, you're still A-OK. Frankly, that sounds just like the moral compass used by atheists. You're asked to abide to a set of rules by a book, and we abide to a set of rules from ourselves. You can break rules, and so can we. There's no enforcement agency for either set of rules. If you believe that God will 'enforce' these rules after you die, we too can believe that we'll be 'enforcing' punishment on ourselves in this world for our moral slip-ups. And likewise, if you can transgress and be forgiven, so can we.

The only difference between the rules and regulations and their enforcement is that atheists allow the enforcement (and punishment) to be handled by themselves, whereas theists allow the enforcement (and punishment) to be handled by God.

Demonstrating that equally vague numbers are fallacious does not support your claim. You could've used 94% and 4.2 times more likely, and it wouldn't have added any credibility. My point was that if you had the study on hand (and weren't just reciting a lie by rote) you would've been more likely to specify; out of x number of theists surveyed, y were likely to "care about the poor." And so we're clear, I wasn't implying that you were deliberately making up false statistics, but that you were perhaps reciting a false statistic (lie) passed on by another or that you had misunderstood or misrepresented an otherwise accurate survey.

If you know exactly where to look, you may have it on hand by now. Care to share?

Umm.. I assume you've heard of the Ten Commandments?

The Judeo-Christian family of religions is incredibly diverse. There are almost as many variations of Judeo-Christian belief as there are Judeo-Christians. Almost any statement about the way "All Judeo-Christians" or "all Christians" believe can be shown to be false.

Some are, as you described, big on free choice, with God providing general guidlines and suggestions on behavoir, while other prescribe a rigid system of morality.

I don't believe one can say that being a moral theist or a moral athiest is easier. It depends on the individual.

Some people tend to see the world in black & white and prefer a structured system of right & wrong to be given to them from some authority.

Other people are not comfortable with arbitrary rules being given to them, and prefer to develop their own moral principles.

You might also call that karma. I do. :)

I have.

Name one JC religion that doesn't believe God gave us free choice. If you can, I'll eat my words. It's the whole basis of JC religions.

Been there, done that.

When I was putting my car back together, I would always spend a few hours on the weekend prowling a pick 'n' pull junkyard for parts. Every once in a while I'd come across an item that they'd charge an arm and a leg for, most of the time it wouldn't cost that much less than a new part from the dealership. But I needed it to get my car running (Question 1 answered). So I'd pull the part and bury it in a ziploc bag I had with my hand tools and place it in my toolbox (Question 2 answered) and continue on buy the bigger parts that I pulled. When I left the junkyard, they'd check my reciept and make me open my toolbox to see if I was making off with anything. Even though the part was right there in the ziploc bag, the never noticed it. They'd punch my reciept and send me on my way, and my car would be one step closer to becoming functional again (Question 3 answered).

It's all about those three questions. It's not whether or not I have the opportunity to steal something, it's whether or not I need to steal it in order to take care of business. It's not just stealing, it's anything. It could be adultery (1. Do I or the woman I'm fooling with have a sexual desire that needs to be fulfilled? 2. Do I have game? 3. If we play our cards right, can we continue this without being discovered? Is the sex going to be worth the risk of ending the relationship with our SO?), or an act of vengeance (1. Am I angry enough over what was done to seek an eye for an eye? 2. Do I have a weapon of opportunity? 3. Can I dispose of the body, can I get a good trial lawyer, or is what I'm about to do worth a 25-to-life prison sentence?), or whatever. If you can answer yes to all three, then you can pass go and collect $200.

To me, sin is merely what the law/commandments/sharia/etc. says is wrong.

This should not be confused with what I personally find objectionable because there are cases in which a violation against a person is not viewed as wrong before the holy laws (i.e. 'honor killings'), and there are cases where actions that violate no one is forbidden by holy laws(i.e. gay marriage).

In essence, most things are wrong simply because somebody tells you that it is wrong.

Here's a scenario for you...

You're at a party with at least 25 guests. You enter a bedroom by yourself to drop your coat on the large stack of coats on the bed. You notice the edge of an iPod in one of the pockets on someone else's coat. (If iPods aren't your thing, substitute anything which 1) you'd like to own or own another of, 2) is expensive, and 3) could easily fit in your pocket.)

Applying your test the answers are 1) yes, I'd like to have an/another iPod, 2) Yes I have the means to slip it into my pocket, and 3) It could have been anyone at the party, so the owner won't know it's me, and since I don't know all of the other guests, might not even know me.

Is there any reason to not steal the iPod?

I belongs to this gentleman:
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia...sus_nigger.jpg

In this case, I could justify stealing his steroids.

It depends on how you define "free choice." No one can deny that people have the ability to sin. But I would not consider any church that preaches that God will damn to hell people who have abortions, practice homosexuality, or fail to attend the correct church to believe in "free choice." Is it really free when you'll be sent to hell for your choices?

I acknowledge that not all Christian Churches teach this. But many do.

Well, I'll say it again... in my world, it's karma. I may or may not feel guilt about stealing it, but I really think that all our actions come back to us in one form or another. That's not anything spiritual... just a belief I have. Stealing an iPod would hurt someone, even if they never find out it's me. And if I have any definition of sin left in my head, it's that sin = hurting other people (or myself), particularly for selfish reasons. That's my compass, I suppose.

As for this: Well, I know you say that not all Christian churches teach this. But the fact is that NONE of them should, because if they're truly Christian, they're supposed to teach that one choice over all (the choice to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, etc) makes up for all the other choices that "send you to hell." That's the center of any Christian doctrine, I'm quite sure about that.

Thing is, what happens if you don't make that Very Important Choice to be forgiven by God?... yeah, here comes hell!!! :D (And it's that aspect that I have a problem with.)

Nope no reason at all. The desire to have this iPod is what's driving you to steal it. The opportunity has presented itself, and since the likelyhood of you getting caught is minimal, there is really nothing stopping you from snatching it up.

I'm pretty sure that's how my CD walkman disappeared from a house party years ago.

As for karma, I find it interesting that most of the time it's in reference to the malevolent kind (karma's a bitch!), like the kind of karma you hope a serial killer gets when the police are unable to stop him.

Nobody ever mentions karma in the sense of, "I saved a kid from a speeding truck and then the following week I won the Powerball lottery! Karma is great!"

How about that you'd like to have a video iPod but in your present financial condition it's hard to justify paying $300 for one?

If I really really really wanted it that bad, and the opportunity presented itself, it would probably disappear.

You really have to throw a different scenario at me because I cannot imagine that there's anything out there that would push me to snatch it up simply to posess it.

I don't believe in any sort of metaphysical karma. That said, I believe the concept of karma references the fact that you breed the kind of environment you live in. Sure, you may not get caught stealing the iPod, and I don't think karma will "get you back" for doing so. But, if you're the kind of person who would steal an iPod like that, chances are you're surrounding yourself with other factors in your life which are similar.

Strictly speaking, there's no reason not to steal it. Considering the broader implications, there are plenty. Stealing that iPod would not be an isolated incident of that kind of behavior.

Well-said. That's what I meant by my belief in "karma" not being anything spiritual... it's just a matter of treating others as you wish to be treated, I suppose. And I would not like for other people to steal from me, or do me intentional harm. If they do?... well, that's their own problem, though it does hurt. But I am not going to operate at that level.

The real interpretation of karma, in my understanding, is much more complicated than the context we usually use it in. And most often is meant in the context of good and bad deeds done over the course of multiple lifetimes.

Baraka could probably elucidate on that more with more detail, though.

One thing that needs to be understood is whether you're stealing as a means to accomplish something else (I stole this car because I had fifteen minutes to get from Harlem to Wall Street to diffuse a bomb) or whether you're stealing just to possess the item (I stole this car because I liked the paint). It speaks of your character when you do the latter.

When you use thievery in a hypothetical situation, you cannot limit yourself to just physical items. I'm sure at one time or another one of you have piggybacked your laptop onto an unsecured wireless network and committed bandwidth theft. You needed to get on line for whatever reason (1), the network was available and unsecured (2), and it's damn near impossible for you to either be detected or caught (3). It's still theft, is it not? You are using something that you did not purchase with your own funds, correct?

Is the wrong you commit a means to an end, or is it the means itself? That's the question.

Well, I'm not an expert by any means, but my mother is a Theravada Buddhist (Thai) and I've seen it throughout her family... their constant desire to be born into a higher form in their next life, and to avoid being born into something that is a lower class (e.g. closer to the ground... a snake would be their worst nightmare).

Much of their religion and culture centers around that kind of karma, going so far as to give alms to the Buddhist monks every morning and doing as many good deeds as possible, to make sure they are making up for any "sins" they may have accrued in this life. Mothers hope that their sons will enter the monkhood, at least for a short time, to accrue more merit (which adds to their mothers' karma, since women are seen as somehow more sinful than men, yay)... everything is about "making merit."

Now, I am not saying this is a good way of living, not is it even based on pure Buddhist doctrine (quite distant from it, in fact). But my mother's family (and many Thais) believe in it to the utmost... and they structure much of their morality around the idea of not wanting to incur bad karma and be born as a snake the next time around! Fair 'nuff, I guess.