Universal moral ethics

Are ethical values subjective (atheist angle) or universally metaphorically objective (religion) how can universal moral values exist in a atheistic nihilistic culture if atheism is purely natural selection and has no defining law for human behaviour, there's no right or wrong all is permitted.

All moral values in western society come from Judeo/Christian literacy, these values are important because they're psychologically correct for the human conscious and therefore universally correct.

Without these values that are found in religious texts, humanity would be chaos as all morality is subject and open to various interpretation in an atheistic culture.

Religious people are not exempt from immoral actions, history has proven that religious followers usually have a egotistical approach to life and have little to no humanity towards people outside their group. As individual's studies in psychological behaviour has more less proven to a degree that we all are aware of right and wrong regardless of upbringing and the religion we relate to.

I personally believe that we are animals by nature and regardless of being aware of right and wrong... Some if not a lot of us consciously chose to do harm to our selves and others simply because of the thrill involved.

Your argument is weak, considering how religion changes their morality all the time...

It's obviously subjective and has nothing to do with religion.

I think in any civilized society, free of religion or any sort of moral policing (basically a vacuum of moral preaching), there is always going to be an innate morality to just about every* person. I feel the big ones, like don't murder, don't steal, etc are part of our genetic memory/makeup. Humans are herd animals, social creatures, and you don't want to upset the herd.

I mean George Carlin said it better than anyone. It's not hard. Keep your dick in your pants and/or significant other, and don't kill anyone.

*obviously I don't mean literally every person; there are outliers such as sociopaths, psychopaths, and so on.

oh it's this again

Why do you conflate atheism with nihilism? Atheism is lack of belief in a god or gods.

And most of the European ethical/moral heritage comes from paganism/heathenism. Most European cultures were significantly developed before they were forcefully converted to Christianity, and most have a large part of their heritages that have survived in some way into modern times (just look at Christmas, it has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity... everything comes from Norse/Germanic paganism).

The morals contained within Abrahamic religions are ethically ancient, heavily patriarchal and severely violent. Have you actually read the Bible? The things it advocates for (i.e. slavery, executing people for negligible offenses) or doesn't forbid (i.e. rape) are morally repugnant by any standard, modern or ancient. Paganism had more respect for women and didn't treat them like property/objects to be bought and sold.

subjective, although we have inclinations towards things depending on environment

Moral values do not come from christanity, humans were around well before some religion was thought up...

Ethical values are intersubjective. They pertain to discrete states and conditions which are subjectively interpreted by autonomous individuals, who then go on to share their interpretations with other interpreters, which then changes the interpretations of both. They are dynamic and malleable, yet still grounded by our nature.

@Chrome-: Atheism is not nihilism, nor is it merely natural selection. In fact, I've seen more Christians argue for social darwinist principles than atheists.

Of course there's right and wrong. If you hurt someone they react negatively and that hurts you, regardless of whether some book tells you it should or not. What's more disturbing to me is the idea that people think that, without a book telling them so, hurting other people would be perfectly acceptable.

Which values, exactly, are psychologically correct and how so?

Humanity is chaos and, on the whole, chaos is fine. Can you point to one single example of a Christian faction that didn't either break off into a different faction or spring up as a result of a previous faction breaking up? If Christian values are so completely perfect then why aren't we all Eastern Orthodox, or some different version from before that? Why do all these different factions interpret the Bible in different ways, and then go around telling every other faction that their way is wrong? After all, your assertion is that universal values prevent exactly that.

@Chrome-: There's a lot of keywords in your post, op, which may give people the idea you are informed. However, the premises in your arguments are so flawed it's apparent you haven't trained in the basics of logic (on an academic level...not an attack!).

There's already a few good responses, and I have some work, but it really irks me when people claim morality FROM religion. As an atheist, I love discussing morality and ethics. My first recommendation would be the Nicomachean Ethics. Later we can get into Bertrand Russel, but I have some work to get ready for in the meantime.

Uh no.

It's simple... Don't do shit you wouldn't want done to you. Empathy creates morals.

It's really not. Life throws you a lot of curveballs and not all of them can be resolved by following the golden rule.

Why is it so important for religious people to believe (and have other believe) that their religion is responsible for the existence of morals and values?

Also, nice try on beginning the post as if you were actually asking a question and then proceed to answer it yourself on the next sentence.

There are instances in the Bible where it is clear that rape is not to be tolerated.

There are always exceptions to rules.

Such as? Usually when you make a claim like that, it's best to back it up with hard evidence.

Let's not forget the Ten Commandments, where God has three (?) commandments about forbidding humans from insulting him, but nothing against rape.

@shellcase86: were about, can you quote it ?

Atheism has no dogma. It's only the lack of belief in god(s), there are no moral guidelines associated to atheism. It doesn't say anything about who you are as a person. Many atheists are humanists though.

Morality comes from empathy.

And data has repeatedly shown that irreligious people tend to be some of the most moral people out there. Granted correlation does not equate to causation, but it goes to show religious dogma is not necessary for morality.

@thehig1: @foxhound_fox: In the book of Deuteronomy, there is an account that a man should be killed if he forces himself onto a woman and she cries out/resists and there was “none to save her.” (Deuteronomy 22: 23-27)

This would indicate that rape/sexual assault is immoral in God's eyes.

@shellcase86: but if it happens in a town and the women doesn't scream she should stoned to death too.

@thehig1: True. In that instance she wasn't raped, but consented, and is also guilty as an adulterer.

How about an accurate translation...

Deuteronomy 22:23-29

"If a virgin is engaged to a man and another man meets her in the city and has sexual relations with her, ²⁴ you must bring the two of them to the gate of that city and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry out though in the city and the man because he violated his neighbor’s fiancée; in this way you will purge evil from among you. ²⁵ But if the man came across the engaged woman in the field and overpowered her and raped her, then only the rapist must die. ²⁶ You must not do anything to the young woman—she has done nothing deserving of death. This case is the same as when someone attacks another person and murders him, ²⁷ for the man met her in the field and the engaged woman cried out, but there was no one to rescue her.

²⁸ Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered. ²⁹ The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives."

Rights of women in the Old Testament are hard to find. Hell, for the most part, they are essentially property to be bought and sold by men and disposed of (killed) when they no longer meet the man's expectations, or commit an offense/crime.

If God deemed rape a serious crime, he would have put it alongside murder in the ten commandments. Period.

It's immoral to not like chocolate.

You're arguing punishment, in this instance. Which is not the same as permitting behavior/wrongs.

The original point was, "Have you actually read the Bible? The things it advocates for (i.e. slavery, executing people for negligible offenses) or doesn't forbid (i.e. rape) are morally repugnant."

Rape not being explicitly referenced and forbidden in the ten commandments you reference does not equate to rape being morally excusable or tolerated without some form of consequence by the remaining body of work of the Bible.

So instead of addressing the issue of a rape victim being put to death is morally acceptable, you begin a semantics argument to distract from it.

The Ten Commandments are considered by most Christians as the source of all morally just behaviour, and without them, they would go on to commit all those crimes. Which kind of explains the prevalence of sexual abuse among conservative Christians.

If you are playing Devil's Advocate here, I can understand, but if you actually support this trash...

Which version? Exodus 20, Exodus 34 or Deuteronomy 5?

lol

@foxhound_fox: Yes, I agree that many Christians place too much emphasis on the ten commandments while ignoring Jesus' words regarding morality.

Death of a rape victim is certainly horrendous, did not mean to detract from that point w/ my semantics.

@Chrome-: When it comes to what is morally right or wrong, I personally don't think religion plays any part in determining your moral actions. I know of plenty of Aethists who treat others with more care and respect than certain devout Christians. I think there's a pretty clear universality in moral decisions regardless of the faith you believe in. If anything, history has shown to us that many immoral of acts in the past have been done with justified religious intentions.

We still believe that harming others and stealing is wrong and immoral; as is kicking a puppy, regardless of our faiths. Even if you do argue that religion plays a factor in those beliefs, what about the number of murderers out there and rapists who were raised of a certain religion? What went wrong with them?

Christianity does not endorse rape. Also Christians are members of a NEW TESTAMENT church. This means we are not bound by the laws of the old testament(i.e. Ten Commandments, sacrifice rituals, etc.) The laws in books like Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. do not universally apply to informed Christians today.

Also TC, you can't call ethics "universal" and then say it originates from Judeo/Christian literacy. No sir.

Not a difficult question. Go look at the "morality" of tapeworms or flies or snakes. They have none. Why? Because their biology dictates it. The reason they exist is based on their capacity to grow and then reproduce. A "sense of morality" provides no survival advantage, therefore they don't f***ing have a sense of morality.

By contrast, humans are by nature a social species that requires interaction and help from other members of its species. That is a biological fact. And the fact that we have to rely on each other OR ELSE WE F***ING DIE is why we have social rules and morals and languages.

Biology is largely responsible for dictating morality. It's "subjective" in the sense that it's not "universal". Each species is going to have different morals (or more commonly, NO MORALS) based on its biological needs. But morality within a species THAT HAS "MORALS" is sort of "objective" since the development of "morals" is a necessity for the species surviving. If they didn't have morals, they'd be extinct (or more accurately, probably never would have existed in the first place).

Ultimately "morality" is just a tool for survival. Talking about "morality" is like talking about the existence of fins or gills or legs. Some species need 'em, some species don't. But in any case, even when "morality" exists, it's not as if the species that have "morality" just decided to make "morality" because we're just so awesome. Or because God thinks we're the best. That'd be like snakes deciding, "f*** legs, having legs is evil!" It doesn't work that way. If having legs worked better for snakes, then snakes wouldn't have legs. And if not having morality worked better for humans, then humans wouldn't have morality.

Atheist culture at least from my knowedge does not wage war against other countries killing millions of innocents in the process.

The so called 'moral standard' is often a double standard

Up

Well as long as you stand on the right of the escalator and walk on the left, and other simple things like that, then I believe that you have a moral standard, religious or atheist.

For this we need to establish a sort of understanding of right and wrong. If we look at what anyone considers right or wrong it is perfectly aligned with what they ultimately want or don't want to happen given the situation. So it's quite simple. Something objectively good is something that we can all agree on that we want it to be, or at least practically objective in all the ways that matter to us.

The ethics can be objective in that we all ultimately share lots of desires and dreams, and exceptions are sometimes not a problem when it comes to ethics. Like most of us would like to have some form of safety, and it can be OK to allow people who don't want a form of safety to break the rules. There are so many similarities between all of us that I think you could make a list of objective ethics.

For example: There isn't a person on Earth who doesn't try to make the best of things given his or her situation. It may not seem that way at all, at first. But if you list all the reasons that someone may seemingly not follow that rule, you will find the answer will fall into one of two (or you could make it even one) categories: A lack of control (over oneself or the situation), or a lack of insight (understanding or knowing). So you can build objective ethics about safety or empowerment around that.

You could also objectively state that allowing a person to improve his/her understanding or insight in itself is ethical and limiting a person's understanding can be unethical, however there are always exceptions because of freak situations that you cannot think of when writing rules and ethics can clash. Like a person only learning of something very dangerous and not the effects of it is an enrichment of that persons understanding but it can be unethical in that particular situation. Or a person wanting to learn everything about you, that can clash with our (probably) universal desire for safety. I don't think any list of objective ethics can therefore be absolutely perfect or practical.

It's partially a limitation of our language. All forms of language can be interpreted in multiple ways and it is always model (a shorthand description or depiction) of reality so it will never be a perfect description of something real. You cannot perfectly describe ethics so there will always be critics who are right.

As an example of something objectively unethical I think if you take puzzle pieces out of the big puzzle that is this world, which seems to be the only way we can somewhat understand something because the world as a whole is so tough to oversee, that any attempt to hide information by a governing power that would allow the people to understand their policies is objectively unethical. But maybe it is a temporary necessary evil if you want that government to exist among other governments. So if you would assume that is true to humor me, what are objective ethics worth in such a case? There will usually be other things that groups of people will state are more important.

I guess it could function as a sort of moral compass and destination, a utopia. But for that to work the people as a whole will have to have a say in matters, eventually, represented by someone or a group of people without a lack of understanding and control. The only way I could see the people as a whole governing instead of a group of people who have limited insight is by having an artificial intelligence represent us all without a lack of understanding or control. No human could oversee all that data and objective ethics would have a very limited amount of power until we get to that point.

@Chrome-: Do they come in a box too? With wrapping and a ribbon?

That was quite an elaborate way to phrase the question "How can atheists have morality when it's Christianity that teach it"

Which is such a silly question that it's sad it's still being asked.