Morality is not something innate or something that evolution programmed into us.
Subjective morality, ethics, and values are ever changing based on the culture of the society. It is never set.
We had slaves. Slaves are now bad.
Japanese used to kill themselves in the face of dishonor. Suicide is now bad.
Fighting for control of land was widespread. Now needless aggression is bad.
Even take another extreme: Ancient Romans and Arab societies used to rape young children. Now we call that pedophilia.
It’s clearly apparent that evolution did not change us in such a short time. Morality is clearly not something that is set in stone unless you adhere to a faith. Otherwise, it is easily editable depending on the society and the culture engulfing it.
Even in the U.S., the culture has changed the moral views very drastically in just the past 50 years.
So, the question. Why be a good person if you are an atheist?
At the end of the day, we have two main potentials here:
- There is a God
- There is not a God
If there is a God, there is an afterlife. Thus, there is an incentive or reason to be a good person.
People are innately selfish. We have “the selfish gene” for a reason. Humans act based on incentives.
Even being good for the sake of being good is a personal incentive. It makes you feel good to help other people, which is why you do it. If it did not, you would not have an incentive and would not sacrifice your happiness to help others.
But if you get enjoyment out of helping others, it’s not a sacrifice to do it. It’s an incentive to increase your own happiness.
Which is why we see floods of people helping people when it is incentive-convenient for them, but not in other times.
So, under the first option:
There is a God
We have a clear reason why people would “be good”. (If your definition of being good is following a religious text, regardless of religion in question. I’m not debating if one religion is good or not, but it does provide a benchmark).
They have set moral codes, which are clearly not innate (as discussed above. Think sex: everyone innately desires it, whereas religious people fight against fornication). And they have a clear incentive to be good/better for their God.
Now, under the second option:
There is not a God
Under this possibility, there is no clear reason to “be good”.
Since moral codes are easily changed over time culturally, the ethics and values of people that are without a set moral code (non-religious/non-pagan/etc) also are easily changed over time.
Secularism is typically the answer to this question, which is pretty much a “Build Your Own Morality” workshop.
So the question again: Why be good as an atheist?
You have a clear incentive to do the opposite. By doing “unethical” things (as generally agreed upon culturally), you could increase your own standing, get more money, or generally be more successful in this life. Which is all you have under this belief; earthly life is supposedly all there is.
So your objective should be to increase your happiness to the maximum during this life. That is the incentive.
And under this mindset, morality is clearly negotiable. Something one person finds ethical may not be ethical for the next, as secularism indicates.
So, why not just throw the morals/ethics completely out the window?
In a way, an atheist following a moral code is much like a religious man following God.
Atheists claim religious people make up a God in their head. Yet if atheists hold to a moral framework, they are simply making up morality in their head, too.
Both groups are closer to each other than they think. It’s a coping mechanism of life. We all need something to hold on to.
An atheist can, and many do, choose to be moral/ethical people. But… why? That indicates to me they may not be thinking about this topic too deeply.
Swipe a phone, do something unethical. Make a better life for yourself. That’s literally your incentive. Change your morals if you need to. They’re negotiable, anyway. After all, you just make them up in your head and find ways to justify them based on life experiences or cultural pressures. They are supposedly not innate in our species or in nature (God’s revelation). It’s chosen based on your feelings. Change your feelings, and then the moral code can be made malleable.
Well, now I’m telling people to become horrible people, so let’s hurry along and focus just on the question: why be a good person as an atheist?
I guess it’s just not to be a douchebag because of some made-up sky morality. That’s about the only true reason I can think of. Otherwise, the approach is simply contradictory to the nature of man, which is a fallen, self-interested creature.
Any atheists care to chime in and help me understand this one?
So I appreciate and respect the atheists that choose to be good. But I still can’t help but to think they’re idiots for doing it.
Ask a deep, well-considered question, and get a bunch of boring, predictable, autistic responses that are both ignorant of the topic at hand while feigning the intellectual and moral superiority they claim to hate in the religious, and also completely missing your point. Such is the Internet.
You posit this question very interestingly. I’m no philosophy expert, but wasn’t it Aristotle who sussed out the existence of an objective good that all men should follow? An objective benchmark above and beyond human understanding, and human CAPABILITY to understand? Like people who are either agnostic or atheistic, many pre-Christian pagans like Aristotle acted in ways that weren’t exactly in accord with the pantheon of gods.
So your idea that there’s SOMETHING even the non-religious or those openly hostile to religion feel–call it a conscience or just a gut feeling–has been debated for millennia. To blithely claim one doesn’t need an “imaginary sky fairy” and that all religion is just invented by the weak-willed misses the point in its entirety, which is: “So what IS it then?”
The person is just a superhuman specimen of willpower and morality just because? Right . . . .
And then there’s the idea that society creates ethics, which is laughably unworkable and outright dangerous. Play it out: if a given society believes drinking the blood of children is a morally acceptable way to prolong one’s life, then hey! Let them do their thing–who are we to judge? And if that belief comes to YOUR nation and enough people agree with it and it gets codified into law, well, I guess that makes it right. Today’s sin is tomorrow’s virtue.
This is using absurdity to make a point.
So as you ask: What IS it? Like you, I’m yet to encounter a satisfactory answer.
“Both groups are closer to each other than they think. It’s a coping mechanism of life. We all need something to hold onto.” This is a very profound point, one I never thought of in those terms.
Oh of course, but what would be the fun of the internet without the occasional lames?
Exactly! That is the question. And whenever you ask it: you never get an answer. Because inherently, there is not one that is actually justifiable.
Which we have already noticed, hundreds of times over, across civilizations ranging from Byzantine to Rome to Ottomans to America.
As always, love your insightful comments Alex. Hope everything is going well!
Everything is going fantastic AK. Had a great Thanksgiving and the wife and kids are doing well. I have a lot to be thankful for!
That’s awesome to hear, thanks for sharing.
Are you confessing that you need someone else to tell you what’s right and wrong? That if you didn’t believe that you would find no reason to be good, kind and empathetic to other fellow humans?
I’m an atheist and I don’t give a shit about being empathetic to other humans lol
my “right and wrong” isn’t yours, buckoo
I wouldn’t call any of this “unethical”. It is just different beliefs on morality. It’s not unethical to steal in many places in Africa. Same was true in soviet satellite states under communism. So saying “do unethical things” is kind of without sense. It’s not unethical if we don’t consider it unethical
That’s the entire point of this article. Secularism results in different individuals who will have different moral beliefs, thus negating the whole “point blank right and wrong” thing. Morality gets overrode to becoming just be a bandwagon fallacy of the prevailing culture instead of something grounded and unchangeable. Africa being a perfect example.
It’s simple about not being an asshole.
We all live on this rock together.. We don’t require an imaginary man in the sky to tell us how not to be a dick to people. The consistent desire of religious people to provide reason that they have a god, makes them mostly unable to understand that we don’t require a superior authority to know whats generally right and wrong in this society. Can we do evil.. yes everyone can. Can a person do evil and say it was their god telling them.. yes.. but by doing so they try to share or absolve themselves of the blame. Atheists don’t do that.. we only have ourselves to blame if we do bad.. we don’t need the additional scapegoat to blame when we do something that’s considered bad. God id simply a figment of mans imagination created for the purpose of a higher moral authority then they are obviously capable of themselves.. and as someone/thing to blame for anything that goes wrong “It was gods will that you got cancer”.. “God has a plan.. and having your child die in the crib was his intention”…
The question then is: why not be an asshole, if it benefits you?
But what is the reasoning behind you “feeling bad”, if morally you don’t need to hold that position?
As for the god/religious people part, I don’t actually care about that. I’m just looking for an atheists introspection. Regardless of religious people’s failing. Their failings don’t change your philosophy.