This is one of the questions atheists get asked all the time. Some people seem to think that without a divine authority to spell out a moral code, there's nothing to keep atheists from deciding it's morally acceptable to do anything they think they can get away with. Perhaps it would even be true if atheists, like children, acted without thinking about consequences. We are not, as a rule though, thoughtless people. We are aware of the consequences of our choice in a society that often looks down on those who do not profess a theistic faith and most of the folks I know who became atheists did so only after a lot of thought and, for want of a better word, soul-searching. We tend to put a lot of thought into our ideas about morality too. That's why you'll find the numbers of atheists in prison to be proportionally far below our representation in the general population.
.jpg)
Atheists are, however, a diverse bunch so I can only speak for myself on what constitutes my moral code. It's pretty minimalist as far as rules go. It basically consists of one precept: "Do not do unto others that which is hateful to you." You may recognize it as the version of the Golden Rule stated by Rabbi Hillel (circa 110 BCE-10 CE). From that basic idea, everything else flows, or as Hillel put it, "All the rest is commentary." I don't see any contradiction in an atheist borrowing an idea from a rabbi either. Hillel thought his statement was able to stand by itself without a mention of God and so do I. Unlike Hillel though, I don't think every good thought springs from the mind of God. I'm willing to give some of the credit to Hillel.
People cannot live together without having some rules of behavior. Anarchy is, after all, rather stressful. Some of these rules take the form of laws enforced by threat of punishment by the authorities. Others take the form of culturally defined moral codes enforced by community pressure. Both address the methods and limits of human interaction and both are necessary for any society to function.
So where is God in this? These codes, civil and moral, both evolve out of necessity. There's no requirement for them to be handed down from on high. The threat of God as an enforcer of moral codes through divine reward or punishment is just another way a community pressures obedience. It can be argued that this validates God's role in making a moral society. Considering that 8-10% of America's general population consider themselves to be atheists but only 0.209% (2/10ths of 1 percent) of America's prison population does, that argument seems pretty dubious.
So why, without God, does someone like me have such a conventional moral code? Why don't I run wild or apply "situational relativism" to my standards of behavior?
The answer is because I recognize that the consequences of behavior provide their own moral imperatives. Even if I thought I could get away with amoral behavior, I recognize that there is an implicit contract between myself and the society I am a member of. I benefit in many ways from cooperating with my community. I have a vested interest in keeping it functioning. Too many people thinking they can get away with breaking the rules undermines the whole structure and its collapse would hurt me and those I care about.
That doesn't mean I can't oppose rules and codes I think are unfair but there are ways to do that that don't go against the Golden Rule. There are those who think you can act immorally in order to achieve a moral end. Suicide bombers think that because they act in God's name, what they do isn't even immoral! In the Old Testament, Abraham feels the same way about sacrificing his son Isaac at God's command. I am a thinking man and this is no kind of morality I could buy into!
You might also enjoy these:
Comments
WELL said, Hugh!
There is some points here that I probably would agree with. However, there is something I would like to ask. I would like to ask what were you trying to mean when you said the following: "The threat of God as an enforcer of moral codes through divine reward or punishment is just another way a community pressures obedience." I wonder if you were trying to say whether you mean that people mentioning that God will send people to hell is more of a threat and put pressure on those who don't believe that God exists or if you were trying to imply something else.
Hello Stacy. Hmm, I see I didn't phrase that well. What I meant was that religion, through using threats and rewards, is another method (like having laws) that societies use to keep people obeying the rules. In that respect it has value to a society just as it also does as a means for reinforcing group identity. I was referring here mostly to the effect on believers though and I didn't have any specific religion in mind. These effects of religion are (in general) applicable across the board and valid throughout history.
If I am reading you correctly, you are saying: "I follow moral laws because of the consequences of not following them, societal pressure and the belief that not being moral will undermine and destroy society."
I have to point out here that your only argument FOR being moral is that there are consequences (like prison) if you are NOT moral. But what if you are powerful enough to be immune to the consequences? Or what if you can work yourself into a position where you are too strong to be assailed by the enforcers of the "golden rule?"
Consider that if you rob a man of $50 at gunpoint, you will be incarcerated for years, but if you rob a millions of their wealth through taxation, usury, "redistribution of wealth," credit manipulation, fraud etc. the peasantry will turn out and hail you as a hero as you jet off to your summer palace (vis a vis Franklin Raines, Ted Kennedy, George Bush etc.).
In other words, why should the powerful be moral?
Hello Eugene. You are fixating on just one reason I gave for behaving morally; that if we want to live in a civil society, it behooves us to cooperate with it. That's hardly the only reason. Humans are by nature social animals and aren't comfortable acting like lone wolves. As for those who ARE comfortable as lone wolves or those who power corrupts, the evidence, such as the prison statistics I quoted, demonstrates that religious belief doesn't restrain them any more than fear of real world punishment does and probably even less well than that. Conversely, that same evidence suggests that people (wealthy or not) who THINK about ethics and morality instead of just accepting rules handed down to them by civil or religious authorities, behave better and go to prison less frequently.
Hugh: Can you clarify this for me a little more - are you saying another reason we act moral is because we are "social animals?" Ie. we are "naturally inclined" to do so? Morality is so subjective and varies so wildly from culture to culture that it is disingenuous to claim we are "naturally inclined" to a particular set of moral laws.
Furthermore, I take exception to your reasoning regarding prison statistics. Incarceration rates examine only those crooks who got CAUGHT and went to prison. The true theives are our politicians, CEOs, fraudulent religious leaders etc. who commit MASSIVE crime on an immense scale everyday, but are actually PRAISED for it. Look at Ted Kennedy: never produced a single product, lived off of your tax money his whole life, killed a girl and got away with it, raped another and got away with it. Examples abound!
I am not insisting religious people are more moral than non-religious ones. I am saying morality is a fiction only the weak must obey.
Yes Eugene, social animals are those that have evolved to associate in groups as a survival strategy; like wolves, elephants and humans. Cooperation though, is only one strategy individuals in a group employ. In every population there is a percentage that work only for individual benefit, sometimes to the detriment of the group. That's why we have lone wolves, rogue elephants and, assuming for the sake of argument that your characterization of him is correct, Ted Kennedys. If a certain percentage of anti-social behavior did not also constitute a valid strategy with a group, it would not survive over the laong haul.
I also don't regard morality as a fiction. It's a concept and concepts have a reality all their own. If it wasn't a useful concept, it too would die off over time. I don't think morality is all culture-based either. I don't think attitudes about murder and theft vary that much across cultures. It's only when you get down to individual cases... (continued)
(continued) ...that attitudes get a little fuzzy. And even there I don't think attitudes vary as much as you might think.
As to morality being only for the weak, societies have a mechanism for dealing with individuals who go too far. A pack of weaklings, united in purpose, can take down the strongest individual. No king, however cruel and well-armed, can long rule without at least the tacit consent, or at least acquiesence, of the governed. Justice may be long delayed, but it is rarely permanently deferred. Examples of this abound too.
Well, history proves that atheists can be moral without religion influencing their behavior. Take Stalin, Hitler, and Mau for instance. They were each moral – well – moral in their own way. They each established officially atheist states, purged religious leaders from their nations and, in short, established their own relative morality.
Small fry atheists (relatively speaking) like Castro and the nut in North Korea, also established officially atheistic governments and were moral in their own way.
Now, of course, most atheists don’t commit crimes against humanity, but darned if all of the atheistic governments to date have committed crimes against humanity.
Yes. Atheism works very well from a relativistic moral standpoint. It's was proven in the 20th century and continues to be proven today. China is a great example of atheism at work in society. The atheist Marx knew what he was talking about.
Oh yeah! I almost forgot about the French Revolution.
Natural law indicates that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings - atheists and theists alike can recognize the natural law. But what besides punishment in this life binds an atheist to live by the natural law?
Atheistic dictators completely disregard the natural law. They replace it with their own morality. Without the threat of punishment, what makes an atheist choose good in lieu of bad?
If we are simply an evolutionary accident, as the “new atheists” claim, then our thoughts, dreams, aspirations, and ideas are chemical and electrical activity in our brains. We don’t have free will. We only think we do. Atheist E.O Wilson put it this way, “…the hidden preparation of mental activity gives the illusion of free will.” Steven Pinker said, “The self…is just another network of brain systems.”
Following the atheistic materialism logic: Alarmingly atheistic dictators have brain activity that prompts them to brutality. They need your religious code that’s based on the natural law. But the threat of punishment is not present and they don’t have to worry about the next life. Good for them. Bad for everyone else.
Any thoughts?
Apart from the equally materialistic evagelical alternative, you can tell from the writtings of the early church fathers, and other Romans that if you lacked faith in Zeus or Apollo, you were likely amoral and damned to Tarturous. In other words, religions change, but not the debate.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!