Atheists Lack Morality, and This is a Good Thing.

What moralists do not realize about morals is that there is an alternative to morality. Ethics and morality often overlap, yet ethics do not have additional mythology attached. Moral claims are derived from the concept of an immortal, supernatural being and implore people to behave in a certain way so as not to offend that being. Ethics, on the other hand, deal only with people in the here and now. It does not presuppose an afterlife and does not need one. Ethical people do not act for a detached sky god; they act for themselves and for all humans around them. In this way, since the aims and principles of ethics are directed improving the lives of, or at least not harming the lives of, breathing human beings, whereas morals are chiefly concerned with not offending a magical space creature, ethics are indeed superior to morals for human happiness and the easing of suffering.

Atheists do not need to defend themselves as being moral. They are not and cannot be. They can, and often do, subscribe to something which has much more tangible effects in the here and now.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• atheists
• morals
• ethics
• supernatural
• god
• present
• mythology

[pbatusa]

Is it "ethical" for one man to marry another man?

Is it "ethical" to abort living babies?

It is "ethical" to go to war?

Is it "ethical" to lie, cheat, or steal?

Is it "ethical" to clone living things?

Is it "ethical" to terminate human life?

Is it "ethical" to legislate religion? or not?

Is "ethics" about what does or does not "hurt" mankind?

Morality is not necessary for a healthy society? That an "ethtical" point-of-view.

The earth is round; so are ethics. We end up where we started.

[bhbs]

@pbatusa Not sure what your point is, but let's give this a shot. 1. Absolutely. 2. Killing babies is unethical. A woman deciding to abort a fetus isn't. 3. Sure. Depends on the war. Stopping Hitler? Highly ethical. Vietnam? Not so much, 4. Nope. 5, Not sure. Sheep? Fine. People? Nope. 6. Depends on the context. Murder is wrong; euthanasia isn't. 7. Not sure what you mean. 8. Hm... yes? It's about treating people with respect. 9. Nope. It's a rational POV. 10. I don't know what that means.

[bhbs]

If you think anal sex is not immoral, then, unfortunately, you're on the wrong side of what my country (USA) typically figures to be moral and immoral acts. Most people in America would consider the act of anal sex, especially between two men, to be immoral.

I'm drawing a line between the typical understanding of morality and what I know to be considered ethical.

The varying from person to person and situation to situation is true, of course. Yet, does that mean we can never judge anything?

[chaOsMastaGuru]

I think you're using a rather unorthodox definition of morality.

If you just change your definition of morality to something that's not restricted to deities, you'll find that your opinion on morality lines up with the opinions of the atheists you are arguing against right now.

[bhbs]

I'm not so sure I am. If you take the deity out of morality, then what's the difference between morality and ethics?

That's kind of the central point I'm making here.

[chaOsMastaGuru]

Ethics is defined as the philosophical study of moral values and rules, so I'd say they are more or less one and the same.

[bhbs]

Then anal sex is morally okay?

[pbatusa]

@bhbs says, "Not sure what your point is, but let's give this a shot"

Reply) Good answers. Pretty good. ( I'm old) .. so on: "Murder is wrong; euthanasia isn't.." I have a personal interest in the guidelines of the Club of Rome on that one. (as well as the others) but still ...

Thanks, for the thoughts.

[chaOsMastaGuru]

um... why not? Don't say "morally okay" or "ethically okay" because the judgement on what is right and wrong varies from person to person, and from situation to situation.