I get mine at Walmart. They’re kinda hard to find there, though.
I got mine from my parents, from my society, and from reading ethics. Though there are some ethics that are almost universal, there are plenty that are not. For instance in some societies it is unethical to get interest from lending money. Some say it is unethical to eat meat.
Murder is defined as not killing those who should not be killed, according to society. Forbidding killing is hardly universal. Define someone as the other - the other side, the other tribe, the other race - and killing them becomes acceptable.
If ethics were truly universal, no one would ever kill. But they are not usually arbitrary either. So, I don’t think I agree with either of the OP’s choices.
I’m in a similar position, but I can’t find anything to ground this knowledge in. If morals only serve to make our species thrive there seems to be a problem: if our position suddenly changed so that doing currently immoral acts increased our chances of survival, then would these ‘immoral’ acts suddenly change to become ‘moral’.
This is a sort of bastardisation of the Euthyphro dilemma to fit into an atheistic worldview.
Just because we ‘know’ something is unethical doesn’t mean we won’t do it, people all make lapses in willpower from time to time. I guess because unethical options can be pretty appealing sometimes. What other choice would you propose?
The golden rule is great and it’s basically what I follow, but like Larry said, it only covers the what, not the why. How is this arbitrary, non-religious commandment any better or worse than something which declares the opposite. Sure it feels right, but that just gives it with the same authority as someone who might say ‘my commandment tells me it’s ok to kill you, and it feels right to me bam’.
Diogenes the Cynic, just for example, say you were in a car crash and suffered head trauma so your sense of empathy was a little disturbed afterwards. You found that you didn’t feel bad anymore when hurting someone, hey, lets just say it made you feel great when you hurt someone. What would you do?
Actually, I think the question gets aimed at atheists precisely because theists get their ethics from an established source. Humanists/atheists have to work harder.
Although I think overall it’s a little bogus, I like the general approach of Robert Pirsig in Lila: An Inquiry into Morals. To me, it seems like an attempt to find a grounding for ethical behavior by understanding nature (in particular, evolution).
One problem with trying to use nature as a model for ethics is, selection pressures vary greatly from one species to another, so the resulting behaviors vary quite a lot.
And it’s not at all clear that human ethics can really gain much by trying to identify what general direction our selection pressures are pointing. (E.g., just because we evolved into social creatures who depend on each other to keep families and economies going, does that mean we have to develop ethics along the lines of Rawls in A Theory of Justice?)
So, what do folks think about the “natural law” approach of Pirsig or the contract theory of Rawls (if you’re familiar with it)?
(Rawls’ idea is kind of an extension of the Golden Rule, but it gives the participants an extra motive to be nice: the “veil of ignorance”. He proposes that we pretend we are all sitting around deciding how justice should be meted out, but that we have no idea who we are or what role we will have in the society we design. He proposes that in such a situation, the participants would try to improve the state of the “worst-off” person as much as possible, in case the participant happens later to fall into that role.)
The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
As for ethics, that simply derives from what is best for the common good. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as it were. I don’t go around killing people, since to have citizens running around killing each other is detrimental to society at large.
As others have said, empathy (the Golden Rule) and concern for the common good are enough. Reason covers the “why,” when the long-term consequences of actions are considered. It is enlightened self-interest, sure. Emphasis on the “enlightened,” though.
I’ll admit that much of my ethical system came to me by way of religion. With a few adjustments for time and place, the advice of Jesus has a lot to recommend it. (I wish more Christians would pay more attention to Jesus’ ideas, and less to Paul’s.) Even though I’ve exorcised the superstition that it came wrapped in, much of what I learned from religion remains. I strongly believe that there are far better ways to teach ethical behavior, but much of what religion teaches is well in tune with what my empathy, humanity, reason, and even intuition tell me is good.
Atheists: Where do you get your ethics?
Right now, it’s lying in my left pocket.
Treat others as you would they treat you.
This sounds all hunky-dory, I don’t agree. In the spirit of the GBS quote above, treat others as they expect to be treated, provided you don’t bring harm upon yourself or others. Of course, then again, I’ve to use my own definition of harm. And not that I’m religious in adhering to this.
I’ve chosen the path that says physical and mental pleasure is good, and physical and mental pain is bad. I aim to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain. Since these are both subjective, it’s difficult sometimes.
I don’t believe in objective universal ethics. Killing isn’t bad in itself. Nothing is. For each action, you look at the consequences. Nothing else. If the consequences are good, the action is good. If the consequences are bad, the action is bad. I’m opposed to the death penalty not because killing is wrong, but because every study I’ve seen shows that the death penalty doesn’t deter and might even anti-deter. If it weren’t for that, I’d be all for putting rapists to sleep just like we do with dogs that bite. For me, there’s no difference and oftentimes I’ll rather keep the dog alive than the rapist.
My basic rule is that if everyone acted in such a way, would the world be a better or worse place? IMHO, evolution has always been the main driver for moral development as I said earlier in Lobsang’s thread. I not only should act in my best interests but also in the best interests for my tribe otherwise my tribe may no longer be here in a few thousand years time.
I also spent several years in Hong Kong and China, and I noticed a distinct difference in one moral that we hold (this is, of course, not universal, just an observed trend): altruism isn’t as highly regarded there as in the west.
Around 1994, the South China Morning Post reported on the story of a well-dressed woman who collapsed in the street from a diabetic coma in Hong Kong, at about 4 in the morning. At around 4.30 a newspaper seller, who had a phone in her booth, unlocked about 20 feet from the unconscious woman. Then the commuters started passing. By the time a westerner called an ambulance, at about 8 o’clock, they calculated that something like 10,000 people had passed her, some stepping over her body. She died in the ambulance. When they interviewed the newspaper seller, she said “hey, it’s not my problem”, and all my Chinese friends whom I questioned agreed with her. The SCMP then sent underover reporters out all over Hong Kong to feign collapses. In every single case, the “ill” person was helped by westerners, except for one where they were helped by some Fillippinos.
Also anecdotally, a friend in Beijing attempted to help a man who had been knocked off his bike. As he attended to the guy, a large group of Chinese people gathered around him muttering words to the effect of “typical westerner, always sticking their noses in where they’re not wanted”.
This is not a criticism, just an observation. I found that if you are a friend, associate, or family, there is no greater loyalty to be found. But if you’re a stranger, you’re less to be helped.
jjimm, Perhaps you should read up on the case of Kitty Genovese (sp?) and subsequent experiments.
Kitty was raped outside an apartment building at night under a street lamp. Over 100 people heard her cries yet none phoned the police. When questioned, each of them assumed it was someone elses problem. This was in the good olde USA
A researcher hearing about this decided to perform an experiment where he would pretend to have a seizure in a New York Subway. Again, the same results. In trains packed with people, nobody came to his aid. Ironically, in near empty trains, nearly everyone would help him. This was an absolute bombshell in the psychological community yet somehow failed to ebb into the collective conciousness. The veracity of these studys is now beyond doubt. HK people are acting hardly any different from any other group of people around the world.
Another time, I was riding a motorcycle through the countryside in Vietnam, with my girlfriend on the back of the bike. There was a scooter with two guys on it riding beside us. The truck in front of us didn’t have brake lights, and it stopped suddenly. I managed to stop my bike an inch from the back of the truck. The other guys weren’t so lucky, and they went under. Neither wore a helmet.
The first guy’s forehead hit the underside of the truck, and his scalp was half peeled from his head; his pillion passenger got his friend’s skull knocked into his nose and teeth, smashing his glasses, which cut his face, and rendering him unconscious. There was blood everywhere. I jumped off the bike, leaving my girlfriend supporting it, and was trying to tend to the unconscious guy, putting him in the recovery position.
A crowd of people had gathered around the melée. I looked up beseechingly to see if someone could get medical help. But I found their interest wasn’t in the injured men at all: every single person was looking at my girlfriend on the motorcycle - Vietnamese women sit side-saddle, and they couldn’t believe that this white woman was wearing shorts and straddling the bike.
(Eventually the guy came round, his friend plastered his scalp back down on top of his head, and they rode off… 
)
Yeah, maybe HK and Beijing are just typical citydwellers - though it was a westerner who helped out in HK in most of the experiments - and maybe the Vietnamese people saw me helping, so decided that it wasn’t their problem. But it’s certainly an impression I got, even if it is wrong.
Well, of course, the morals christianity is based on comes from somewhere, but I still feel that you can argue that they are christian simply because they have in many ways been twisted and turned to fit the christian weltanschauung. Just to bring up an example, it is still illegal for stores on Norway to be open on sundays (and it was for quite some time in Sweden too). This isn’t really morals in themselves (unless you argue that no good christian would allow their employees to spend sunday working) but it is an example as to how religion, and specifically christianity has affected the society I live in.
- Ethics? I don’t need not stinkin’ ethics! * I will do whatever I can get away with.
MWHAHAAHAHAHAH!!!1
Since you’re so smart, getting caught shouldn’t be a problem.
I think Voyager summed it up. I’d say my ethics are from a combination of my upbringing, the people around me (family and friends) and from my own consideration of ethical issues. I’d say that’s really true for everyone, not just atheists. Yes, you can get ethical ideas from the bible, but even if you’re religious, you’re exposed to the actions of other people before you’re exposed to the bible.
That’s great. Can I have it as a sig?
Myself, I’m not quite an atheist (more like agnostic), but close enough to make the question apply. I take a very simple approach to moral questions: Be nice to people.
It’s more or less equivalent to the golden rule, but is sufficiently vague that I can get around most annoyingly specific questions and thought experiments. 
As to why? I want to be. I don’t like conflict much, or upsetting people (well, ok. Sometimes I do, but only if they really irritate me…), so I tend to try and avoid it.
Sure, it’s probably mostly social conditioning, but so what? The fact that I am conditioned to believe something doesn’t make it any less a part of who I am. As long as I’m happy with myself and my beliefs, I’m ok with their origins as well. Ultimately most reasons boil down to “because I want to” anyway.
(Yes, of course social conditioning isn’t automatically a justification for beliefs - e.g. a lot of bigotry - I just happen to think it’s as good a reason as any in this case).
Spiritual awareness, I guess. the knowing that you’re part of a whole and therefor need to take responsability for it.
that goes from dealing with people to dealing with animals and nature and self-development.
My specific theory:
the 3 Ls.
to Love
to Laugh
to Learn
is what i’m here to do.
Yes, and even **that ** is a moral code, and sadly, shared by way too many people. You can’t escape the necessity of having ethical standards; even the act of denying them is an ethical choice.
Sure, knock yourself out. In fact, start a thread describing how you knock yourself out, because that’ll encourage others to post their own self-knock-out stories and I’ve always found those hysterical.
Ah, so he has latent ethics. He’s an ethicsphobe on the surface but deep down, he’s a closet ethicist!