Since a few members on this board are foolish enough to believe atheists have no morals, I find it necessary to create an entire thread regarding "morals.'
Below is an article by Clark Lind, an Atheist who goes in in debt about the subject. I challenge all theists to read this article and attempt to prove atheists have no morals.
I am asked this question quite frequently when people find out that I am an atheist. It is amazing that some people would follow "morals" and "ethics" because supposedly if they don't they consider themselves sinners. But they can't grasp that as a rational, reasoning individual, I choose to be moral and ethical because it is the right thing to do, not because I have been commanded to be this way. Anyone who accepts the command Do Not Kill without question, would just as easily accept the command Go Kill without question.
"But you believe that we are nothing more than advanced animals, and the animal world is dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest; how can anything be considered right or wrong? Good or evil?"
In a dog-eat-dog world where might is right, survival of the fittest is indeed the rule: a cheetah could not hope to live very long if it took an antelope's feelings into consideration. The argument then, is not about survival of the fittest, but about the nature of different animals. As the arguer stated, we are "...nothing more than advanced animals." And after making that acknowledgement, he drops it from his argument.
We are indeed advanced animals. The key word here is advanced not animals. In all of nature, man has reason as his primary means of survival. Free will is a feature found in only one of earth's animals: man (so far to be seen). Free will¤meaning that man has the ability to choose his own way¤is a uniquely human quality. We are not just animals responding to outside stimuli; we can choose our responses.
Free will is the basis of ethics. Free will is the basis of morality. Any morality not based on free will, is simply a commandment. A system of ethics based on "thou shalt" is not a rational one (based on reason). A system of ethics that puts the good of society over the good of the individual, is not an ethical system. As Ayn Rand puts it, ethics provides, "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions¤the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." (Peikoff, 1993)
Because man has free will and the ability to choose, he can determine his own goals in life: he can determine which values (out of many) he will pursue. If there were no difference in the outcome of his actions, man would have no goals or values: no matter what he did, the results would be the same¤he would not be able to choose between alternatives. There is no good or evil¤no right or wrong¤when there isn't any choice but to do a thing.
The nature of man is the basis of an ethical system. Any system of ethics must address three basic questions:
For what end should a man live?
By what fundamental principle should he act in order to achieve this end?
Who should profit from his actions? (Peikoff, 1993)
An ethical system based on the nature of man and the nature of reality, answers these questions with:
The ultimate value is life.
The primary virtue is rationality.
The proper beneficiary is oneself. (Peikoff, 1993)
Man can choose between good and evil actions. But why should he? Why should he choose good actions over evil actions; doesn't it become a matter of perspective now? Good for whom?
The fundamental flaw working behind any survival of the fittest (might is right) philosophy is that it is based on zero-sum. Meaning that all of the values in the world are limited (fixed at the current levels). Meaning that in any contest, there are winners and losers. And once again, they drop the key ingredient: the nature of man.
Man can create. Man can make new things where none previously existed. Man's life is not zero-sum unless he chooses it to be. A cheetah is not called evil because it kills in order to survive. A man who kills to survive is considered evil because he has a choice in his actions.
Everyone has the right to his or her own life. Choosing to initiate force against someone is evil. Everyone has a right to believe whatever he or she will. The "majority" has no right to determine what the "minority" will believe or think; no mob has any rights over any individual simply because they think or believe differently. Everyone has the right to keep what he or she earns or creates. No one has the right to what someone else has. This last point is what ethics and morality are all about.
The good is leaving people alone to live their own lives by their own efforts.
To answer the question, how can I have morals if I don't believe in God is simple: I choose to let others live their own lives according to their own wishes and desires. I have no right to tell anyone how to live or what goals and values to seek. I don't need any commandments to tell me these things; they are based on reality and the nature of man (reason), not revelation, superstition, or mysticism.
A system of ethics based on commandments is a fallacy, simply because you can still choose not to follow them.
Below is an article by Clark Lind, an Atheist who goes in in debt about the subject. I challenge all theists to read this article and attempt to prove atheists have no morals.
I am asked this question quite frequently when people find out that I am an atheist. It is amazing that some people would follow "morals" and "ethics" because supposedly if they don't they consider themselves sinners. But they can't grasp that as a rational, reasoning individual, I choose to be moral and ethical because it is the right thing to do, not because I have been commanded to be this way. Anyone who accepts the command Do Not Kill without question, would just as easily accept the command Go Kill without question.
"But you believe that we are nothing more than advanced animals, and the animal world is dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest; how can anything be considered right or wrong? Good or evil?"
In a dog-eat-dog world where might is right, survival of the fittest is indeed the rule: a cheetah could not hope to live very long if it took an antelope's feelings into consideration. The argument then, is not about survival of the fittest, but about the nature of different animals. As the arguer stated, we are "...nothing more than advanced animals." And after making that acknowledgement, he drops it from his argument.
We are indeed advanced animals. The key word here is advanced not animals. In all of nature, man has reason as his primary means of survival. Free will is a feature found in only one of earth's animals: man (so far to be seen). Free will¤meaning that man has the ability to choose his own way¤is a uniquely human quality. We are not just animals responding to outside stimuli; we can choose our responses.
Free will is the basis of ethics. Free will is the basis of morality. Any morality not based on free will, is simply a commandment. A system of ethics based on "thou shalt" is not a rational one (based on reason). A system of ethics that puts the good of society over the good of the individual, is not an ethical system. As Ayn Rand puts it, ethics provides, "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions¤the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." (Peikoff, 1993)
Because man has free will and the ability to choose, he can determine his own goals in life: he can determine which values (out of many) he will pursue. If there were no difference in the outcome of his actions, man would have no goals or values: no matter what he did, the results would be the same¤he would not be able to choose between alternatives. There is no good or evil¤no right or wrong¤when there isn't any choice but to do a thing.
The nature of man is the basis of an ethical system. Any system of ethics must address three basic questions:
For what end should a man live?
By what fundamental principle should he act in order to achieve this end?
Who should profit from his actions? (Peikoff, 1993)
An ethical system based on the nature of man and the nature of reality, answers these questions with:
The ultimate value is life.
The primary virtue is rationality.
The proper beneficiary is oneself. (Peikoff, 1993)
Man can choose between good and evil actions. But why should he? Why should he choose good actions over evil actions; doesn't it become a matter of perspective now? Good for whom?
The fundamental flaw working behind any survival of the fittest (might is right) philosophy is that it is based on zero-sum. Meaning that all of the values in the world are limited (fixed at the current levels). Meaning that in any contest, there are winners and losers. And once again, they drop the key ingredient: the nature of man.
Man can create. Man can make new things where none previously existed. Man's life is not zero-sum unless he chooses it to be. A cheetah is not called evil because it kills in order to survive. A man who kills to survive is considered evil because he has a choice in his actions.
Everyone has the right to his or her own life. Choosing to initiate force against someone is evil. Everyone has a right to believe whatever he or she will. The "majority" has no right to determine what the "minority" will believe or think; no mob has any rights over any individual simply because they think or believe differently. Everyone has the right to keep what he or she earns or creates. No one has the right to what someone else has. This last point is what ethics and morality are all about.
The good is leaving people alone to live their own lives by their own efforts.
To answer the question, how can I have morals if I don't believe in God is simple: I choose to let others live their own lives according to their own wishes and desires. I have no right to tell anyone how to live or what goals and values to seek. I don't need any commandments to tell me these things; they are based on reality and the nature of man (reason), not revelation, superstition, or mysticism.
A system of ethics based on commandments is a fallacy, simply because you can still choose not to follow them.
