RSS
Home
Can the atheist be moral?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Symbol of Humanism with a question mark.
Having the benefit of the Bible and the ten commandments as a guide, I stuggle to see where the atheist might get his morality from because it is not externally revealed to him in any way. The code of ethics that the atheist believes in is internal meaning he draws it from his own self, his knowledge and experience, to create a rule of behavior that is universally applicable to all mankind. This is called humanism and it is the most widely accepted philosophy on ethics among atheists. And if we are to consider that the atheist does not believe in humanism, that man determines his own morality, that what other options are there? If God does not make the rules and man does not make the rules then the only other option is to say that there are no rules to begin with. And this is the very absence of morality that I believe is consistent with atheism. So for now, let's focus on humanism and its pros and cons.
Humanism does not dictate to us a specific set of laws but more of a guideline by which such laws might be made. Principles of humanism involve doing what is best for the individual and the collective group and to avoid doing harm to others. Humanists are also concerned with treating all life with dignity, the responsible use of natural resources, and an ethical treatment of animals. It promotes the well-being of humankind and the planet as a whole. Sounds good, doesn't it? In fact many prominent intellectuals over the last century have become members of the AHA, American Humanist Association, including Isaac Assimov and Kurt Vonnegut who were both presidents of the organization and a number of Nobel prize winners.
But as compelling as humanism may sound on the surface, objections are bound to arise. Are there not conceivable moral dilemmas that humanism might not be able to solve? What about something as simple as telling a lie? What if someone tells a lie that doesnt result in the harm of another in order to avoid punishment for one's self? Does that situation not fit the code of humanism? After all, humanists dont believe in abstract concepts such as justice that need to be upheld for their own sake. Only what is good for the individual and what is good for the whole exist. Some might argue its good to uphold justice for the benefit of all. But justice in this case would simply be the law, not an abstract concept. Humanists certainly advocate upholding laws. But if you can lie and get away with it and not hurt anybody and it doesnt break a law, why not do it? Wouldn't this lie be morally permissable or "right" according to humanism?
We know that one of the criteria for knowing what is morally right according to humanism is the absence of harm done to another. What happens when there is a conflict between doing good for the individual and what is perceived as harmful to the collective group? Certainly, what is harmful can be subjective, right? There are many types of harm. Physical harm, emotional harm, perceived harm, etc. Since hurt feelings are so subjective, is it okay to hurt someone emotionally to get what one wants? Hurting someone's feelings is not an illegal act. It might refer to a perception of emotional pain resulting from a breach of trust or verbal abuse or some perceived offense. Certain degress of verbal abuse are illegal. For instance you can not threaten to kill someone or insult a police officer. But there is no law against such things as violation of trust and that is exactly why adultery is perfectly legal in this country.
Marriages are legal and binding by law but adultery, that which breaks a marriage, is not illegal. So, how might the humanist view adultery? If we are not breaking the law, we have to examine if it does harm to another. Again, this comes down to perceived emotional harm based on breach of trust. Since the harm done is merely hurt feelings it is difficult to establish as true harm. Does not adultery harm the sanctity of marriage itself? Ah, but again the atheist does not believe in marriage as a sacred institution. From the humanist view adultery can only be wrong if it dissolves a marriage if a stable marriage contributes to a stable society. But doesnt divorce accomplish the same thing? Divorce is perfectly legal and perfectly accepted by humanists. Let's take a slightly different approach on this same issue.
If atheism leads us to humanism, then humanism also traces its roots to evolution. A belief in evolution is even listed as one of the six points of humanism under the current version of the Humanist Manifesto, so this should be undisputed. If we look at evolutionary theory we find that one of the closest kin to human beings is the monkey. Monkeys are notoriously promiscuous creatures, preferring multiple mating partners and mostly showing no signs of monogamy. If rampant, undiscerning procreation furthers the goals of evolution and this behavior is modeled in our closest evolutionary ancestor, then why is adultery wrong for human beings?
I imagine this argument would pose a significant challenge for the humanist, atheist or evolutionist. And instead of me putting words in their mouth I invite them to share their answers here, in the comments section.
For more info:
Related Articles:
Comments
