# Atheist Morality
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 12, 2000, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302 "2000-05-12T03:23:08Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Beeto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beeto)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/1 "2000-05-12T03:23:08Z")
OK let’s see here. I’m an atheist and until lately I’ve always had what could be a “good christian morality.” This meaning I didn’t steal, lie, cheat, and I was generally very giving to others. Just lately I’ve been thinking, “Why in the world shouldn’t I steal or lie?” In the search for an “emperical” morality the first thing I decided was that anything that benefited me was good. Anything that harmed me was bad. This is what I have figured to be the most logical basis on morality. But to follow this to it’s logical end it would mean that if I knew that I wouldn’t get caught stealing then I should steal. For some reason I would like for someone to put a hole in this theory. Maybe it’s because I was raised beleiving what my parents taught me and now it’s ingraned, or maybe it’s because the argument isn’t sound. What do you think about this? And what do you other atheists base your morality on?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/2 "2000-05-12T03:37:34Z")
_sigh_
Beeto, could you possibly do a search through the archives on this topic? It’s been brought up _and_ answered numerous times in the last few months.
---
### Author:  [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/3 "2000-05-12T03:51:18Z")
I’ve been rarin to add my two cents on this topic, so here I go. Morality is defined more by the society in which you live than anything else. Atheists don’t say ‘Jesus H. Christ!’ any more casually than the average theist, though there’s no reason for us to be any more careful with that name that there is with any other. We are shaped by who we knew and followed as kids, and if you grew up with a strict, puritanical group, you become strict and puritanical, even if you also grew up around crystals and tofu without being exposed to mainstream faiths. I’ve seen some foul-mouthed amoral Christians too. Atheists are just people, but people who don’t have anywhere special to be on Sunday/Wednesday/Saturday. I hope that helps. BTW, you can find tons of resources on various philosophies on Yahoo or Google (Yahoo has categories, which is nice, but Google usually gives you better results if you’re after a specific thing. Google is at [google.com](http://google.com) in case you didn’t know.)
---
### Author:  [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/4 "2000-05-12T04:54:00Z")
Try my page:
[http://fatmac.ee.cornell.edu/~ben/atfaq.html](http://fatmac.ee.cornell.edu/~ben/atfaq.html)
-Ben
---
### Author:  [@Cabbage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cabbage)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/5 "2000-05-12T06:50:19Z")
I’m agnostic, and the same question has occurred to me. I don’t think theists can properly claim that god is the source for morality, though some of them do. If god, on some whim, condones murder, is that enough to make it moral? I don’t think so. Morality is not some set of arbitrary rules created by god. An act is not moral or immoral simply because god says it is; an act is moral or immoral simply because it _is_. Without god, morality still exists; morality transcends god.
---
### Author:  [@junebeetle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/junebeetle)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/6 "2000-05-12T07:41:01Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> _sigh_
> Beeto, could you possibly do a search through the archives on this topic? It’s been brought up _and_ answered numerous times in the last few months.
> \*\*
So ignore it!! A lot of new people would rather participate in active debates rather than slog through archives. Just because a topic has been debated recently, it doesn’t mean there aren’t any new ideas to be added to the mix. This is not GQ where questions can be answered with finality. If this forum were not cyclical in nature, we would quickly run out of relevant topics.
**Beeto** : All I can say is that atheism does not preclude moral principals. There’s a part of the brain that yearns for the greater good — call it the superego if you want. It’s part of our wiring that allows humans to be social animals. This niche is normally filled by religion, but you can still subscribe to moral guidelines if you do not believe in god. Without them, atheism is emotionally unsatisfying.
- JB
---
### Author:  [@W4NDER](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/W4NDER)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/7 "2000-05-12T08:43:14Z")
First of all, I second junebeetles motion that some of these topics ahould be discussed forever. Part of the reason for chat boards is getting crap off your chest. Something you can’t do reading an archive.
I participated in this exact same discussion over 10 years ago I can’t remember how many times on I can’t remember how many Bulletin Board Systems. Should we put those , um, (I guess we call them “threads” now?) online today? and tell everyone who bought a modem in the last 10 years to shut the hell up? grr, grumble, bitch and moan.
Second of all, my take on morality. (10 deep breaths, count to 10 slowly , back to the OP…)
The primary moral is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
If everyone stole, you’d have to spend your whole life guarding your stuff. Since most people don’t steal, inspite of the fact that all cars and most homes have easily broken into glass windows, you can dedicate your life to collecting more stuff, instead of guarding the stuff you already have. This also gives you time to sleep.
If everyone murdered, you’d have to spend your whole life watching your back. Since most people don’t murder, you can spend your life looking ahead, not behind. And you get to sleep.
When one person breaks the rule of “do unto others”, things suck. If everyone breaks the rule, we degenerate into a condition of animalistic behavior, living for the moment, guarding our stuff and our backs, never having time to post messages on the internet.
So hang in there, maintain your moral philosophy, and feel better knowing that because you stole nothing today, lots of people get a good nights sleep.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/8 "2000-05-12T11:55:19Z")
Ten years ago??
I’m saying that this has been discussed heavily a few times in the last couple of _months_! When the hell did research become such a burden? I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be brought up at all, I’m just pointing out that, if our opinions on the subject are truly wanted, a large font of information is there for the taking.
Now, if the purpose of this thread is merely to see if a large fight can be started between the atheists and the religious, I can see where an honest(and easy!) gathering of info might not be wanted.
---
### Author:  [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/9 "2000-05-12T12:09:00Z")
**W4NDER** has almost posted my take on it. Living together in society requires us all to abide by certain rules. I can only steal from you if I recognize your right to ownership of your property. I can only murder you if I recognize your right to life. It is of no personal benefit to me to recognize your rights. However, it is of great benefit to me to have you recognize mine. So, we agree to recognize each other’s rights in order to protect our own. Sort of a treaty.
In this case, if I steal from you, I have just violated the terms of the agreement, and no longer have any cause to expect you to recognize any of my rights.
Honesty is a somewhat separate issue: I don’t lie because I wish to be believed. As long as I tell the truth, you never have reason to doubt my word. Once I have lied, and you know it, you have cause to doubt everything I say in the future.
Hope this helps.
-VM
---
### Author:  [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/10 "2000-05-12T12:33:05Z")
What is the justification behind “anything that benefits me is good”? The OP doesn’t explain the rationale behind this. Emperically speaking, why does the outcome for another person have to have a weight of zero?
Personally, my ethics are based on my own _creation principle_, my own _forced decision principle_, the importance of \*justice[/]i and the _Ethics of the Spirit of Osu_.
_Creation Principle_ states: “Seek out and do that which creates but does not destroy. Avoid that which destroys.”
_Forced Decision Principle_ states: “When two goods are in conflict one must win out over the other.”
_Justice_: "Justice is the basis of all action. Most everything can be derived from the concept of justice.\*
_Ethics of the Spirit of Osu!_ is: "Fight the good fight, because it is worth fighting no matter the cost. Persevere.\*
---
### Author:  [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/11 "2000-05-12T12:34:53Z")
Just to clarify a little bit further my first point,
The assumption made by the OP is an ethical code who basis is selfishness. Selfishness is not commonly considered to be a redeeming ethical quantity. Why would anybody expect to derive a sound ethical code from an inethical basis?
---
### Author:  [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/12 "2000-05-12T13:40:04Z")
Well, I’m moral because I expect others to be moral. Simple as that.
Also, I can recall when this question was first being asked, and answered, on this board. So I imagine that **slythe** is right when he posits that the purpose of this is to cause a shouting match.
Then, there’s this:
> [@](#):
>
> Atheists don’t say ‘Jesus H. Christ!’ any more casually than the average theist,
Speak for yourself. My epithets are liberally salted with that particular phrase. Not so much because I want to anger or shock, just because I prefer the flexibility allowed to me by using proper names.
> [@](#):
>
> Atheists are just people, but people who don’t have anywhere special to be on Sunday/Wednesday/Saturday.
Y’know, I rather like the sound of that.
Waste
Flick Lives!
---
### Author:  [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/13 "2000-05-12T13:44:18Z")
I’m not an atheist, but my religion doesn’t provide me with a moral code, so it comes out to the same thing. Nevertheless, I have a moral code, and I don’t need reason to justify it to anyone since it’s my own moral code and it arises from my own conscience.
It’s my opinion (as expressed in the Can Science Find the Truth thread [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22864](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22864)) that ethics cannot only be derived from reason, because reason doesn’t operate in that way. Reason is a process, not a foundation. You have to put ethics in to get ethics out, so either way you have to start with some ethics. Claiming that your ethics derive from reason is like claiming that you can derive science without observation. Facts come from facts, and ethics come from ethics.
I don’t do things which are insults to my soul. Not being a psychopath, I’m well-served thereby, ethically speaking.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/14 "2000-05-12T13:52:47Z")
> [@](#):
>
> The primary moral [imperative] is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
Adequate, so long as you are not a masochist, or some other psychotic.
What I like best is Jesus’ moral imperative: **“Be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”** That is the only moral imperative I have ever heard that is what Kant called “categorical”.
I recently learned that many (like Gaudere, for example) who call themselves atheists have a very strong moral character, and I also learned that that is because atheism is a brain thing (synaptic discharges), while love is a heart thing (spiritual expression). The brain, in matters of God and morality, is irrelevant. It is only the heart that matters.
For the benefit of newbies, I’ll share what God told me as I prayed about Gaudere. I seldom pray in that manner, but I had reached my wit’s end after explaining to Gaudere why she is in Hell, and why she cannot possibly be happy. Even as I explained, I knew I was wrong. I knew she was _not_ in Hell, but in Heaven. I knew she was _not_ miserable, but happy. I cried out to God, “How can she possibly be happy when she refuses even to believe in you! She’s an _ATHEIST_, for cryin’ out loud.”
He responded to my spirit, **"I am the Love Everlasting. Whatever men say about me with their minds is vapor. I cannot be known by the mind, but only by the heart. Stop dividing the world between theists and atheists, and start dividing rightly, as I do. There are those who love, and those who don’t. Those who love, they are my disciples."**
This new understanding gave me an enormous peace.
Morality _does_ come from God, but not from any “intellectual” interpretation of Him. Morality comes from Love, the Love Everlasting, and is planted in the hearts of those who love. Theist or atheist (i.e., what we believe with our brains) is irrelevant. What is relevant is what we hold in our hearts.
---
### Author:  [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/15 "2000-05-12T14:42:42Z")
**First…**
**slythe** , you sighed:
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> Beeto, could you possibly do a search through the archives on this topic? It’s been brought up and answered numerous times in the last few months.
\*\*
That comment sparked an exchange about whether or not topics should be debated more than once, and then you said…
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> I’m saying that this has been discussed heavily a few times in the last couple of months! When the hell did research become such a burden? I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be brought up at all, I’m just pointing out that, if our opinions on the subject are truly wanted, a large font of information is there for the taking.
\*\*
I don’t know about you, but every time I post a thread in GD, I do it because I want to express my opinion on the matter; reading a dead thread is about as exciting as reading a textbook. Which would you rather do, read a book on religious philosophy, or discuss it with someone as erudite, opinionated and expressive as **Libertarian**?
**Second…**
I’m not trying to earn a reputation by bringing him up all the time, but I think Heinlein settled this issue. His greatest character, Lazarus Long, penned two aphorisms:
[list=1]
[li]“Don’t count on a man’s better nature; he may not have one. Count on his sense of self-interest instead.”[/li][li]“The only sin lies in hurting other people. Hurting yourself isn’t sinful, it’s just stupid.”[/li][/list=1]
(From somewhere in _Time Enough for Love_ as well as _The Notebooks of Lazarus Long_.)
This just about sums up my views on atheistic morality. I guess I am in agreement with **W4NDER** regarding the Golden Rule. The only reason society works as well as it does (heh) is that we all grudgingly respect each others’ rights out of our wish to have our own respected. That’s Heinlein’s point in Aphorism #1.
Aphorism #2 brings God into the equation by assuming that, if I behave immorally, God will punish me. Therefor, I decide to hurt neither myself or others; to do so would be sinful.
**Beeto** , how’s that?
[hijack]
**Libertarian** ,
[disclaimer]No offense intended.[/disclaimer]
Do you really believe that God spoke to you? I mean, the “dialogue” you describe is interesting to me. When I pray, I never feel like I am speaking to God directly, or that He answers me in any literal sense; I feel instead that the cathartic process of prayer has helped me deal with issues I face in my personal life.
That is how I read the “dialogue” you describe.
[/hijack]
---
### Author:  [@Beeto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beeto)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/16 "2000-05-12T15:25:54Z")
First of all I did search through the archives and read a bunch of threads. However these didn’t answer my question as I would have liked. That is why I posted this.
Now…
Glitch:
> [@](#):
>
> What is the justification behind “anything that benefits me is good”? The OP doesn’t explain the rationale behind this.
I think that I can say that what everyone wants in life is happiness. This happiness can come in many different ways but it almost always comes down to this. When I said “anything that benefits me is good” I should have said anything that makes me happy is good. To me this makes sense. I know that this is selfish but what makes being selfish unethical?
I believe in evolution and under this belief I think that those who behaved in a selfish manner were able to bear more children and thus spread their genes. These people would convince others to trust them and then later take what the others had. In general this would make them more prosperous than those who didn’t steal.
Some people may say that these people couldn’t be happy because they would have seen how they upset others or that they know stealing is wrong in their hearts. But I think that you can make yourself feel bad about stealing because you have already developed a morality. In developing a new moral system you must make your mind a clean slate and forget all previous beliefs about right and wrong. So you can’t say stealing is wrong just because it is. This is confusing I know, you may have to ask me for clarification.
Also I think when it comes down to it, almost everyone will do the selfish thing. I liked the quote from Heinlein
“Don’t count on a man’s better nature; he may not have one. Count on his sense of self-interest instead.”
In my experience people always act in their own self interest even if they say that they don’t. Just as an example, when someone is caught with drugs and the police try to get them to turn in their friends for a reduction on charges almost everyone does. Before they are caught they will say things like, “I don’t rat.” I’ve heard (and I’m not saying this is fact) that in Utah around 90% of people caught will turn in their friends for a reduction. Why do these people act differently when they are in danger?
This is why I think that people should do what makes them happy. When posting this topic I mainly wanted to know what basis people used in developing their moral system. If it is the golden rule then why do you think this is right? I know that an atheist can have a moral system I simply want to know why you chose yours.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/17 "2000-05-12T15:46:30Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Do you really believe that God spoke to you? I mean, the “dialogue” you describe is interesting to me. When I pray, I never feel like I am speaking to God directly, or that He answers me in any literal sense; I feel instead that the cathartic process of prayer has helped me deal with issues I face in my personal life.
God speaks to the heart, where our spirits reside. If the brain is open to the heart, it will then hear His words; otherwise it won’t. Often, the brain overwhelms the heart in its attempt to apply irrelevant intellectual interpretation to matters that are spiritual, not intellectual, in nature. You can no more hear God with your brain (or ears) than you can see color with your feet.
Typically, this is the nature of God speaking to me. First, my heart changes. Then, my brain has a new understanding, and sees things in new ways.
Our hearts are open to whatever we hold most dear, and it is where we store what we most treasure. Our _real_ lives, after all, have nothing to do with our dying cells. Our real lives are our eternal spirits. The brain is the vessel of the intellect, but the heart is the vessel of the spirit. Open your heart — not your brain — to God, and you will hear him.
**"Where your treasure is, there your heart is also."** — Jesus
---
### Author:  [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/18 "2000-05-12T15:57:50Z")
As someone stated, it is most people’s intention in life to be happy. It is my intention as well. Therefore, my moral code is structured to get me the maximum happiness. Two things give me that:
1. The Golden Rule. It works in several ways, the most meaningful to me already described in this thread. That is, if I don’t steal, it will encourage others not to steal; if I don’t murder, others may not murder. Every hurt you cause has a ripple effect that brings others closer to desperation, or cynicism, and maybe closer to causing hurt themselves. And there are other things that are included in this as well - as smartass said, if I don’t lie, people are more likely to believe me. I’m not sure how well I described that.
2. For some reason, I enjoy being nice to others more than being nasty. It _feels good_ to do a good turn. I don’t know why this is - am I “hard-wired” that way, was it my upbringing? I don’t know, but this part of the discussion is often left out. If it makes you feel good to treat others well, then that is just as valid a reason to do so as point 1 (if what we are looking for is happiness).
PeeQueue
---
### Author:  [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/19 "2000-05-12T16:15:01Z")
You know I like you, Lib, but the heart is merely a muscle for circulating the blood through the body. You can no more hear with it than you can smell with your eyes. Anyone can go on at length with all sorts of talk about heart-brain communication and invisible beings, but it’s nothing more than speculation.
---
### Author:  [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2000, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302/20 "2000-05-12T16:17:17Z")
Beeto: I would be interested in your answer to my second question.
Why is it necessarily so that the outcome for another person has a value of zero?
What makes selfishness unethical is that it assigns a value of zero to the consequences of our actions on others. In order to make that a basis of an ethical code, I would hope that the ethical developer would have a solid reason for doing so.
> [@](#):
>
> I believe in evolution and under this belief I think that those who behaved in a selfish manner were able to bear more children and thus spread their genes. These people would convince others to trust them and then later take what the others had. In general this would make them more prosperous than those who didn’t steal.
Not unless those that didn’t steal execute the theives. Immorality does not necessarily equal prosperity. Also, you make a grand assumption that the theives will be ability to convince other to trust them. Once sure. Maybe twice. But reputation is a part of human culture. Eventually nobody will trust you. If you haven’t gained sufficient power to simply take what you want by force whether they trust you or not, then you’re dead.
> [@](#):
>
> In developing a new moral system you must make your mind a clean slate and forget all previous beliefs about right and wrong. So you can’t say stealing is wrong just because it is. This is confusing I know, you may have to ask me for clarification.
Even wiping the slate clean, what is the basis for assigning the consequences to others a value of zero?
> [@](#):
>
> In my experience people always act in their own self interest even if they say that they don’t.
Always is a pretty powerful word. I would beg to differ. Why do I teach martial arts and firearm self defense for no profit? Why would anybody become a fireman or police officer? There are innumerable examples of selfless acts.
> [@](#):
>
> Just as an example, when someone is caught with drugs and the police try to get them to turn in their friends for a reduction on charges almost everyone does. Before they are caught they will say things like, “I don’t rat.” I’ve heard (and I’m not saying this is fact) that in Utah around 90% of people caught will turn in their friends for a reduction. Why do these people act differently when they are in danger?
The fact that people can be made to act in a selfish manner under various degrees of pressure, which will vary from person to person, does not establish either the ethicity of selfishness or that people always act in this way.
> [@](#):
>
> This is why I think that people should do what makes them happy. When posting this topic I mainly wanted to know
> what basis people used in developing their moral system. If it is the golden rule then why do you think this is right? I know that an atheist can have a moral system I simply want to know why you chose yours.
Concerning my moral system, read my post above and feel free to ask any questions you wish.
As for the Golden Rule, please see my thread “Golden Rule Flawed”. You should be able to find it with the search engine.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheist-morality/19302.md?page=2)