For people that believe atheists have no morals

[Social Junker]

From http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html



The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick



An atheist's view of morality



"A common, though ignorant, objection raised to atheism by theists is that atheists have no basis for morality. In its simplest form, the argument can be phrased like this: if there is no God and thus no justice after death, why bother to be a good person and treat others with respect? Why not just do whatever you want, secure in the knowledge that there will be no divine retribution? Of course, the problem is that most atheists are in fact decent people regardless, but theists typically work this into their argument, concluding with a smirk that since atheists are not all evil and selfish, they must believe in God after all, even if they profess otherwise.

Of course, this is completely ridiculous. But lacking a just deity, what is an atheist's basis for morality? What entices us to do good, if not the promise of a Heaven? What frightens us away from doing evil, if not the threat of a Hell?

There are many potential answers to this question, and I do not claim to speak for all atheists. Many have invoked the social contract between government and the people, the necessity of an orderly society, the very real human-created systems of justice, and so on. But while these are valid answers, I believe there is a better one. There is a very good basis for an atheist's morality, a basis better by far than the puerile version offered by fundamentalists. It is, in fact, the same basis for morality employed by most enlightened theists, even if they do not realize it.

Simply put, the basis for an atheist's morality is respect - for himself, for his fellow human beings and for the world in general.

An atheist knows that to do harm to others is only to degrade himself. He recognizes that he is surrounded by fellow human beings who can also feel love, hate, sadness, joy, pain, and all the other things that make us human. And he realizes what a rare and precious gift it is to be alive and conscious, a gift that is all the more valuable because it lasts for only a brief time and then is gone. To be hateful, ignorant, greedy or cruel would be an unimaginably tragic waste of the priceless opportunity that everyone has only once; not only that, it would be a violation of the respect all people should have for their fellow human beings - indeed, their fellow living things - who can feel pain and suffer, just as they can.

In other words, the basis for an atheist's morality is the Golden Rule, "Treat others as you wish to be treated," a timeless, simple, obvious maxim that precedes the later religions which sought to take credit for inventing it. More importantly, it is a secular principle that relies not on the rules of any deity, but on the basic human trait of empathy. If morality must have an absolute grounding point, then that grounding point is this: That which decreases pain and suffering is good; that which increases pain and suffering is bad. Simple - no god necessary.

Naturally, this is a general rule and trade-offs must be made; for example, surgery causes a temporary increase in pain that results in a greater decrease in the long run. This is fully in keeping with the atheist model of morality, which requires people to think for themselves and use their own best judgment. Some fundamentalists would doubtless feel more comfortable with an absolute set of rules that will instantly tell a believer what to do in any given situation, no independent thought necessary, but even if this truly were desirable, such a thing could never be created in practice. It is simply not possible to foresee every potential situation, at least not for us, and if God gave us a comprehensive list of guidelines covering every decision that might ever need to be made, the book of laws would be rather weighty. (One would need a wheelbarrow to carry the Bible around.) In any event, reality is rarely, if ever, black and white. Context and circumstance must be judged whenever a decision is made. If this is moral relativism, so be it - the alternative, to blindly and dogmatically apply the same rule in every situation without ever considering extenuating factors, is far worse. Surely the theists would not claim that the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness" forces a German family during World War II to tell the Nazi enforcers, "Why yes, since you ask, we are hiding a Jewish family in our basement" - or that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" prevents the Allied fighters from attacking them. Every rule has exceptions, and if we are to decide what is right, then we have no alternative but to rely on our own empathy, logic, and common sense, guided by the general utilitarian rule of always seeking to maximize the good. This, in a nutshell, is atheist morality.

This system is in sharp contrast to the juvenile basis for morality offered by fundamentalist theists, which typically goes something like this: Do what God says and you'll get into Heaven; disobey him and you'll go to Hell.

In the first place, this is arbitrary. Who is to say what God wants people to do? The Bible? It's open to countless different interpretations, many wildly different from each other. Religious leaders? How do you know they're not just making up the rules for their own benefit? Personal revelation? How can you ever be sure you're not just talking to yourself and letting your own subconscious tell you what you want to hear? The tragic proof of the inconsistency of this doctrine is how many atrocities and injustices it has given rise to throughout history. "God told me to do it" was the justification for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Salem witch trials, and countless other events that shame all of humanity.

In the second place, this would still be arbitrary even if God's instructions to humanity were clearly defined and unmistakable. If we do things only because God tells us to do them, then morality is based on nothing more than his whim. If God told us to rape, torture and murder people - and indeed, he does give exactly those instructions on several occasions in the Bible - then rape, torture and murder would be right, and not doing those things would be wrong. (If one instead argues that God has a consistent, objective basis for making moral decisions, then an atheist can use that same basis himself and cut God out of the picture entirely.) The atheist's morality, by contrast, is logically grounded, consistent and not subject to change by divine fiat. To an atheist, rape and murder are always wrong, and will be wrong regardless of what any deity says.

Thirdly, this system offers numerous justifications and rationalizations for immoral actions, or apathy in the face of such actions, that the atheist's system does not. To name just the most obvious example, if there is an afterlife where justice will be served at last and everyone will get what they deserve, why bother instituting any sort of earthly justice? Why fight an evil dictator or tyrant if he'll eventually get what's coming to him anyway? Why try to help the poor or the disadvantaged if they will be rewarded later for their suffering now?

In a similar but more subtle vein, a theist could reason that, if God controls the universe, then nothing can happen that is not in line with his will, and if God is loving, he will not allow purposeless evil. Therefore, any evil that does happen is in line with his will, allowed as part of a greater purpose unknown to us. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that we should not try to alleviate evil and suffering in this world. God must have purposes for allowing it to happen. Who are we to interfere with his grand plan?

The atheist's moral system offers no such convenient escape hatches. In this system, this life is all we have, and no higher power is letting bad things happen for mysterious reasons of its own. Therefore, it is our duty to make the world a better place for everyone.

But most of all, the theistic basis for morality is lacking because it offers no better reason to behave than the promise of reward and the threat of punishment - in other words, a carrot and stick. It is a system of "might makes right". It assumes that people are basically immoral and cannot be trusted to do right unless they are lured into it, nor can they be trusted to abstain from wrong unless they are frightened away from it. Like untrained animals, we have to be constantly chastised by a transcendent lawgiver whenever we stray from the straight and narrow. The psychologically harmful repercussions of holding such a dim view of one's own human nature should be obvious. If we're all depraved, hopeless sinners who can't help doing evil things, why even try to be a good person?

Furthermore, this basis for morality actually denies the compassion and empathy that should be at the heart of any ethical system. Instead of encouraging us to do the right thing for its own sake, it promotes fear and selfishness. Do the fundamentalists really mean to imply that their fear of divine punishment is the only thing preventing them from doing evil to everyone around them? Are they claiming that they would never do any good if they didn't expect to get something in return? When I stand next to one of these people, is his fear of that lake of fire the only thing keeping him from lunging at me and trying to tear my throat out with his teeth? (If so, forgive me for not wanting to be around him - I don't consider that much of an assurance no matter how strongly he believes.) Whenever a fundamentalist holds a door or picks up a book for someone, is he only doing it because he's picturing at that moment the rewards he'll get for it in his heavenly mansion? If any of these things are the case, then these theists really aren't very moral people at all, are they?

By contrast, the atheistic basis for morality is one that respects human intelligence and decency. It assumes that people can be trusted to do what's right without being promised a Heaven or threatened with a Hell. Most importantly, it encourages free thought: rather than coerce people with brute force threats or accustom them to unquestioning obedience, it requires that they learn the basics of ethical behavior and come to accept them freely. Unlike the theists' system, it can be questioned, refined and changed as society changes. Although it remains based around a simple, central principle, it is flexible and adaptive, not an immutable set of rules chiseled in stone tablets. While some would charge this with being "situational ethics," that is not a weakness, but a strength. As humanity evolves, new situations are bound to come up that no one in the previous generation foresaw. When that occurs, atheist morality will be ready to meet them while theists fumble for answers in obscure passages of their Bibles. (For example, many Christians strongly oppose abortion, but there is no explicit condemnation of it anywhere in Scripture.)

Furthermore, the situational atheist morality has remained remarkably diverse and strong while the solid, unchanging rock of theist morality now seems more than a little outdated, even - dare we say it? - barbaric; embarrassingly so for those who believe in it. For example, while Christians proudly proclaim that their Bible has not changed in two thousand years, there are many parts of it that they relegate to back shelves and generally do their best to forget about. Who today follows the Bible's rules on how hard to beat slaves (Exodus 21:20-21), or what price is acceptable when selling a wife or daughter? (Leviticus 27:3-7 - females are worth about half as much as males, for the curious.) Who obeys the Old Testament's law commanding the execution by stoning of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), "witches" (Exodus 22:18), disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath? (Numbers 15:32-36)

It is verses like the above that reveal theistic morality for what it is: a cruel and inhumane relic of a primitive era. Humanity has grown beyond this, and so it deserves to be replaced with a better alternative. As we flow inevitably forward into the future, atheist morality - the only system of morality that does not rely on an ineffable carrot and an infinite stick - is the only possible choice to guide our progress in the days to come."



Just food for thought.