Atheists and Morality

[Ruv Draba]

I'm an atheist and have been since my early teens. My reasons are more rational than moral - I simply see a lot of deceit in the major religions. Atheism by itself doesn't offer much by way of moral guidance, personal development and wisdom. Atheists have to look elsewhere for those things (if they choose to look at all).

Elsewhere (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2323165&postcount=30)I recently made the assertion that the atheists I know personally don't tend to look very hard or very far for moral guidance, personal development and wisdom (there are exceptions, but I don't know many). My stock of inspirational atheistic role-models is rather small. This created a minor furor among those who feel that they're either better than my opinion admits, or that I shouldn't disparage them if they're not.

I opened this thread because I think it's useful and encouraging to list the self-sacrificing, disciplined things that atheists do out of compassion and love of humanity. Theists do a lot of this stuff (and take credit for a lot of it too!) Let's hear tales of atheistic inspiration. I'm not looking for tales of rock-chucking here (we do plenty of that), or the fact that an atheistic doctor saves lives just as a theistic doctor does, but rather tales of atheists doing exceptionally compassionate or self-sacrificing things.

I have a small stock of tales I'll add when I have the time, but for now, over to you.

(And in a related matter, if you're an atheist where do you look for moral guidance and wisdom? How much are you willing to sacrifice to attain those things?)

[rwam]

I'm an atheist and have been since my early teens. My reasons are more rational than moral - I simply see a lot of deceit in the major religions. Atheism by itself doesn't offer much by way of moral guidance, personal development and wisdom. Atheists have to look elsewhere for those things (if they choose to look at all).

Elsewhere (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2323165&postcount=30)I recently made the assertion that the atheists I know personally don't tend to look very hard or very far for moral guidance, personal development and wisdom. My stock of inspirational atheistic role-models is rather small. This created a minor furor among those who feel that they're either better than my opinion admits, or that I shouldn't disparage them if they're not.

I opened this thread because I think it's useful and encouraging to list the self-sacrificing, disciplined things that atheists do out of compassion and love of humanity. Theists do a lot of this stuff (and take credit for a lot of it too!) Let's hear tales of atheistic inspiration. I'm not looking for tales of rock-chucking here (we do plenty of that), or the fact that an atheistic doctor saves lives just as a theistic doctor does, but rather tales of atheists doing exceptionally compassionate or self-sacrificing things.

I have a small stock of tales I'll add when I have the time, but for now, over to you.

(And in a related matter, if you're an atheist where do you look for moral guidance and wisdom? How much are you willing to sacrifice to attain those things?)

Hi,
Something you said, caught my eye. You say you're an atheist because you see a lot of deceit in the major religions. Do you not see any deceit among atheists? Are you saying atheists do not lie?
Rob

[Ruv Draba]

Do you not see any deceit among atheists? Are you saying atheists do not lie?Quite the reverse, Rwam. Please see this thread (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100915)for further discussion.

[Dommo]

He's not saying atheists don't lie. In fact I'd say that we atheists lie a lot(as do all people), only we're willing to admit it ;).

I think for me, something that is irritating is that so many people do charity work as means of "being right with god". That's not to say thatatheists are pure either, as some of them do charitable works as a means of enhancing their reputation or whatnot. It's just all of these charities that are driven by a religious purpose seem hypocritical. If I'm doing something out of charity, I don't really expect any form of compensation, whether in this life or the next.

Myself, I teach underpriveldged teenagers every summer. The pay is awful, the food isn't very good, the hours are incredibly long, but it is rewarding to know that you might be the person that helps the kid get out of the destructive cycle they're currently on. Seeing the homelives that these kids come form is pretty shocking. It's amazing how many have parents that are abusive or are drug addicted zombies. Yet, some of the most intelligent kids I've worked with have come from this program.

I don't teach for the pay(I make 300 a week, and work about 100 hours a week), but I teach because the idea of helping someone reach their potential appeals to me. I do it because I feel better about myself for doing so, as the knowledge that I've got isn't mine, and the best thing I can do is try to propogate as much of it as possible as a means of "earning it", as I wasn't the one who discovered any of the principles I teach, I merely learned and understood them. So perhaps, I do have a selfish reason for doing what I do, but at the same time I also understand that what I know, is only due to others imparting knowledge onto me, and I try to continue this tradition.

[loquax]

I don't get my moral guidance from anywhere. I do what I want to do. I've done nothing exceptionally altrusitic in my life, but I'm only 21. So far I've spent six months working as a counsellor at a summer camp in the states (for no money, what I get paid goes towards plane tickets), I've volunteered at MENCAP playgroups, I'm a certified life-guard and higher-level first aid giver, I used to mentor kids with reading difficulties at school, and if I see a homeless guy on the street I'll buy him a cup of tea.

On the flip side, I enjoy recreational drugs every now and then. Some might call that immoral; I certainly don't. IMO alcohol is the most dangerous drug, which is why I don't really drink, but Jesus was all about the wine, so I'm probably safe in God's eyes.

Religion is a bad place to look for morality. A lot of the ten commandments condemn atheism and worshipping other gods as worse sins than committing crimes. That's a very backwards way of looking at it, and won't help anybody, especially if you can lead a life of sin and repent on the deathbed.

[Ruv Draba]

Thanks Dommo. A really good story.

I have a story that came out of a Hypothetical about assisted suicide. (For those who don't know, Hypotheticals (http://www.abc.net.au/programsales/s1162191.htm)are a kind of fictional trial in which a narrator works with a panel to explore the ethical, social and legal consequences of some social dilemma. I understand that law students practice these as moots - and of course Crime programs throw them up as well.)

In this particular story an atheist believed conscientiously in the right (in fact, the obligation) to help his wife die if she suffered a terminal disease and was in great pain. (While not every atheist may hold this position, it's a position that may well be easier for atheists to hold.)

The self-sacrificing element is not that he'd help his wife die. It's that he chose to help her, knowing that he'd be caught and punished.

It was just a hypothetical. It didn't really happen to the panellist. But what impressed me was the passion and conviction with which he chose his path. (And subsequently of course, others have faced this same choice for real.)

[Dommo]

I do thins like that a lot Ruv, and I tend to be self-sacrificing by nature.

I think a lot of this comes from both my upbringing, as well as the way my mind works(I'm an engineer, so I think in a more realistic fashion by necessity). I understand from what I do for living, that choices have to be made, every decision has a consequence, and all decisions carry an unknown risk. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that engineers are probably in a unique position to talk about this kind of thing, as the best we can ever do is make VERY educated guesses.

The nature of what we do makes exactness, and absolutes impossible, so the best we can work with are likelyhoods(as I've kind of mentioned in a different post). We function by trying to model the world as best we can, but at its heart I know that I'm taking real liberties in simplifying reality.

Life is largely like that. I try to take the limited knowledge that I have, and use it to make what I percieve as being the best decisions. If you really want to learn about life, play a lot of Texas Hold'em. Trust me after a few real life tournaments, you'll learn more about the truth of life in that game, then you will ever learn reading philosophy, the bible, or any other book. The reason for this, is in the vast majority of the cases your information is severly limited and you can only make guesses as to what the truth is. However the more you play, the more you understand that poker as in life, is a combination of choice and chance. Chance might play a huge role, but in the long term choice will always win out. The lucky player may win occasionally, and even destroy the most talented players, but the guy who will actually make money in the long term is the person who can make good decisions.

Perhaps, Ruv, you should head to a casino and learn about life by gracing a few poker tables. You might gain more insight on life by dropping a hundred bucks, then you'd realize.

[rwam]

Quite the reverse, Rwam. Please see this thread (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100915)for further discussion.

I read your other post, Ruv. Quite thoughtful, indeed. Although I'm one who believes there's a God out there who "loves" us, I share your frustration with organized religions. Once they transform a spiritual relationship with a Maker into a corporate institution of spiritual dispensing, somewhere along the way they often become more devoted to their agendas instead of to God.

[ResearchGuy]

. . .tales of atheists doing exceptionally compassionate or self-sacrificing things. . . .
That might be a tough thing to research, as atheists do not necessarily trumpet their atheism. It is possible to simply reject the superstitions and mythologies and to go about the business of life -- including concern for others because it is right, not because some imaginary being dictates it (or for that matter dictates the shunning or murder of those who favor a different imaginary being).

For that matter, how many started out as nominal believers (raised in a church-going family, or in one that at least made a nod toward some religion or other) and came to reject the mythology/superstition without making a big deal of it? It is possible to simply drift away from the mythology.

--Ken

[Ruv Draba]

If you really want to learn about life, play a lot of Texas Hold'em.LOL. My company has poker nights every few months in which we play for charities. Texas Hold'em is one of our favourite games (Anaconda is another). My staff wanted to play to keep the money but I told them that I wouldn't support a game where one person comes away feeling good and prosperous and n-1 come away feeling bad and impoverished. If we play for charities then everyone can feel good. The competition is vigorous, but no longer (to my mind) purely selfish. It's also very good-spirited. We've never had a graceless loser.

Er... I'm not sure that this is an example of atheistic self-sacrifice but it is an example of one atheist's approach to balancing choice, chance and morality in (what's meant to be) a reasonably benevolent work environment.

[Ruv Draba]

That might be a tough thing to research, as atheists do not necessarily trumpet their atheism.Mmm.. I have quite a few examples where I suspect that the protagonist is an atheist but don't know for sure, so I can't submit them here.

The 'closet atheism' question is a real issue. Unless they're rock-chuckers or especially candid or you catch them with an evangelist at their front door, many atheists don't really have much reason to talk about what they think. Indeed, there's a lot of disincentive in some quarters.

From a community perspective I think this is a bit regrettable - to the extent that atheism may have some valuable contributions to make on moral and social issues, it's hard to realise those contributions when most voices are individual and separate.

From an 'inspirational stories' perspective though we can still collect stories about what the 'noisy' atheists do or don't do... and perhaps some candid stories that 'quiet' atheists will admit to in this forum that they might not in a broader community. It should still give us a reasonably representative idea of what we're thinking.

[Melisande]

(And in a related matter, if you're an atheist where do you look for moral guidance and wisdom? How much are you willing to sacrifice to attain those things?)

I can only speak for myself, but I look mostly for moral guidance in plain common sense.
Wisdom is harder to come by, but I think it's mostly attained through experiences of life. I find it hard to attain wisdom through other peoples experiences just because they are not my own.

I'd also like to add that (and again only speaking for myself here) the longer I live, the more conscious I've become of my choices - and the consequences thereof - and that it sometimes makes me hesitate to go down a specific path. If common sense can't help me as a moral guide in those situations, I search myself for inner strength and courage. If I believe that I'm strong enough to handle a difficult path I will take it. I might not gain anything from choosing this path, in fact I might stand to lose a lot, but I might decide to take it anyway just because it's harder and the experience that I stand to gain might very well be worth it.


I opened this thread because I think it's useful and encouraging to list the self-sacrificing, disciplined things that atheists do out of compassion and love of humanity.

I wish I could add to your list, but I'm not known to be a very disciplined, self-sacrifying, humanitarian or loving person. To tell you the truth I've been called a bitch more often than I care to remember. But I did list a few things I do in this thread; http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2336716#post2336716

I don't do them for any of the reasons you suggested, I do them simply because I feel they are the right thing to do, right now, in this stage of my life.

[AMCrenshaw]

He's not saying atheists don't lie. In fact I'd say that we atheists lie a lot(as do all people), only we're willing to admit it ;).

I think for me, something that is irritating is that so many people do charity work as means of "being right with god" Why is it irritating? Same end as anyone, why do the means matter?. That's not to say thatatheists are pure either, as some of them do charitable works as a means of enhancing their reputation or whatnot. It's just all of these charities that are driven by a religious purpose seem hypocritical. If I'm doing something out of charity, I don't really expect any form of compensation, whether in this life or the next. (Many Christians see helping as a reward in and of itself. That the consequence of being right with God is love and compassion.)

Myself, I teach underpriveldged teenagers every summer. The pay is awful, the food isn't very good, the hours are incredibly long, but it is rewarding to know that you might be the person that helps the kid get out of the destructive cycle they're currently on (And see, you sound just like many Christians I know ;)). Seeing the homelives that these kids come form is pretty shocking. It's amazing how many have parents that are abusive or are drug addicted zombies. Yet, some of the most intelligent kids I've worked with have come from this program.

I don't teach for the pay(I make 300 a week, and work about 100 hours a week), but I teach because the idea of helping someone reach their potential (What do you think the goal of a lot of religions are? Think past the atheist dogma of Religion and deceit, and think about the real goal of spirituality.) appeals to me. I do it because I feel better about myself for doing so, as the knowledge that I've got isn't mine, and the best thing I can do is try to propogate as much of it as possible as a means of "earning it", as I wasn't the one who discovered any of the principles I teach, I merely learned and understood them. So perhaps, I do have a selfish reason for doing what I do, but at the same time I also understand that what I know, is only due to others imparting knowledge onto me, and I try to continue this tradition (And where do you think you got that tradition, hmm?).

I merely wanted to mention how Christlike you sound here, which I find absolutely fascinating.

[Higgins]

I merely wanted to mention how Christlike you sound here, which I find absolutely fascinating.

Obviously Christ Himself was an Atheist since He would not have been
wandering around believing in Himself or expecting to save Himself etc.

[AMCrenshaw]

Obviously Christ Himself was an Atheist since He would not have been
wandering around believing in Himself or expecting to save Himself etc.

Although I should consider this comment for its sarcasm (which is excellent), I will reply to it this way:

First, you already know Christ was born Jewish.

Second, Could Christ's message have been for people to create a union between body and spirit? Or between Self and God? If this is the case, then hasn't his real gift been to exemplify his own message - say, by his existence as One with God or as "totally human and totally divine" ?

I know what typical doctrine is. But consider a non-dualistic approach to Christianity and see what happens. It's scripturally sound; however, if that's not your thing I understand.

[Ruv Draba]

Although I should consider this comment for its sarcasm (which is excellent), I will reply to it this way: I read Higgins' reply as satire, pointing out that you were thread-hijacking. Your reply certainly hasn't improved the discussion.

I have friends who are zealous (in Australia we say 'one-eyed') football supporters. The best compliment they can give of another team's achievements is that they're 'nearly as good as the best my team ever did'. It's a very human, very tribal foible, but not high in generosity or open-mindedness, I think.

Good is good, and a credit to those who do it whatever their religious beliefs. All the major religions have a lot of good they can take just credit for; they don't need to steal credit for things that they didn't do.

Please take this particular debate elsewhere.

Thanks, Ruv.

[AMCrenshaw]

I will take this debate elsewhere, but of course, I wasn't at all trying to "thread-jack." Due apologies. And satire/sarcasm, either way...I read it in fun-nature. Just as I spoke.

But there are serious points in there, on both sides. Sorry you didn't get what I got out of it.


Also, in spirit of the original post on this thread:

A man named Sherwin Wine (he wrote Judaism Beyond God) was an atheist/nontheist who still valued the Jewish culture. More importantly, instead of paying lip service to any deity or to a Rabbi, he went around the world to help children, to spread messages of peace and love in places I don't think I'd go right now. Basically, he had a sense that the concept of God as typically understood was not doing the job to appropriate ethics. Or, as many would point out, that the ethics were carried out for selfish reasons. However, he was very outspoken against Capitalist abuse against the already-poor; he, after Ehrenreich (she wrote Nickel and Dimed ) became very well known, was well-noted in his own right.

The sect that he started revived that ethic without the dogma attached to it. And, of course, more importantly one of his main aims was to liberate the low castes of society, so to speak.

Lastly, I almost forgot, he died probably a year or two ago on a trip to Africa, where his organization was donating food and installing water pumps, I think. Oddly enough, I think he died in a bus accident...

[escritora]

I opened this thread because I think it's useful and encouraging to list the self-sacrificing, disciplined things that atheists do out of compassion and love of humanity.

I never keep tabs, but I know this: people always think I'm Christian because I have lots of compassion. What they call compassion, I just call living my life. When I reveal I'm an atheist, their response is usually..."But you are spiritual, right?" My response is no.

People are always shocked to hear that and tell me I have "Christian values." Ha! As to not offend Christians in general, I'll leave that alone. That said, these same individuals that state I have "Christian values" are not 1/10 the person I am. Each will readily admit that.

[Mr. Anonymous]

It stands to reason that an atheist would be less self-sacrificing than say, a christian.

For instance. You have the opportunity to save a child, but doing so will cost your life. A christian is far more likely to do the "self-less" act, because he believes he will not only be rewarded for it, but also believes that there is nothing to fear in death.

An athiest, on the other hand, believes that this life is his only life, and that his only reward for saving the kid will be being turned into food for worms. Naturally, an athiest would be more careful with his one and only life than a christian, because he has everything to lose while a christian stands only to gain (eternity in paradise surrounded by friends, family, in the presence of god, etc).

So, while it IS true that more believers would probably save the kid than athiests, the athiests that did choose his life over their own would be far more self-less than the christians who did the same. In fact, one might reason that a christian sacrificing himself is really not all that self-less, considering that he stands to benefit. True self-lessness comes from a lack of concern over one's self... So yea. My 2 cents.

[Mom'sWrite]

It stands to reason that an atheist would be less self-sacrificing than say, a christian.

For instance. You have the opportunity to save a child, but doing so will cost your life. A christian is far more likely to do the "self-less" act, because he believes he will not only be rewarded for it, but also believes that there is nothing to fear in death.

An athiest, on the other hand, believes that this life is his only life, and that his only reward for saving the kid will be being turned into food for worms. Naturally, an athiest would be more careful with his one and only life than a christian, because he has everything to lose while a christian stands only to gain (eternity in paradise surrounded by friends, family, in the presence of god, etc).

So, while it IS true that more believers would probably save the kid than athiests, the athiests that did choose his life over their own would be far more self-less than the christians who did the same. In fact, one might reason that a christian sacrificing himself is really not all that self-less, considering that he stands to benefit. True self-lessness comes from a lack of concern over one's self... So yea. My 2 cents.


Seriously? Christians are more likely to be more self-less than non-believers? Wow, that's a mighty big conclusion based on what evidence?

A self-less person will put others' needs before their own. Period. That doesn't sound particularly Christian or Jewish or Rastafarian to me. That sounds like love to me. Fortunately love is a feature anyone can practice no matter what they believe.

[AMCrenshaw]

To be clear, love (in Christian terms, but probably in any term) is self-less. Period. But love is supposed to be the center of Christian ethic.

I'm learning it's the same throughout, however.

[Mom'sWrite]

I'm learning it's the same throughout, however.

Nice save. I would hate to think that only Christians are credited with being able to practice love, self less or otherwise.

Virtue, love is not the sole property of Christians or any religion or no religion. People are as good or as bad as they will be regardless of their professed ethics.

Old saying that remains true for everyone "Watch what they do and not what they say." A good person will do good things for family and community, a bad person won't. We all live on the sliding scale between the poles of good and bad, which explains why I have Kevlar sewn into the butt of my pants.

Ruv- I see your point in starting this thread but while on the one hand it shows that altruism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, it does a real job on humility. Rest assured that non-believers give of themselves in whatever ways they wish to, just like everyone else.

[Just Jack]

I got my morales from rational thinking. It is true that while I don't believe in a god, it doesont mean that religion didn't at least point out some good guidelines for living.

I have no belief in any kind of deity, at all. But that doesont mean that the gods of the major religions are right about a lot of things. Whether or not the ten commandments were written by a god or not, I dont care. But they do make sense to me.

I used my own experiences as well, and came up with a morale code of my own. (which doesont really differ that much from the morale code of a religious person)

I try to help out and love my fellow humans, no matter what they believe. I think that both atheists and theists will agree that the world today needs more love, regardless of your beliefs.

Just a thought.

[Dommo]

Anonymous.

I could make the counterpoint that much of the violence and horrible things in this world only occur because people believe in an afterlife. Would terrorists be willing to commit suicide to murder people if they thought that all they'd end up as, was worm food as you put it as opposed to getting to bang a ton of virgins?

In a heat of the moment situation where child is at risk is an unrealistic argument to make, and there are many factors to take into account. Is the potential rescuer a relative? Do they like kids? And so on. Would I be willing to risk my life for a child that wasn't mine, or known personally to me? I'm not sure, as I've not been put into that situation. Would I be willing to do it if many children were at risk(I fall on a hand grenade that lands in the middle of a gaggle of kids)? Much more likely, but I'm still not sure.

We all inherently value our lives more than those of others, and it takes A LOT to get one of us to willing sacrifice our lives. I highly doubt that you Anonymous, would be willing to save the life of murderer. You see, the point is that lives have relative value. At some point most of us come to the conclusion that X amount of lives is enough to warrant self sacrifice. I might not throw myself in front of a bus to save 1 kid, but to save 10 I probably would.

It's a thought not many people want to think about, as it inherently implies that a human life has a specific value. In truth it does. We value children more than a child molester or murderer. However things get complicated when that child molester just so happens to be the best brain surgeon in the country, and who's death would cause the deaths of countless others. There in lies the problem.

I do what I do, because I choose to do so, and because typically I get some kind of benefit from it. I teach because I feel it is something that needs to be done, and because I feel it is a duty to me as a vessel of the knowledge I've attained, because I did not earn it, I learned it. I didn't come up with the mathematical principles, someone else did, however I do not want the knowledge to be lost, so I try to propagate what I know to the next generation. So for me, in the case teaching, I do it out of duty, and I do it because I feel it's something worth doing. I benefit by knowing that I perhaps might be the one to get a kid out of poverty, and that I actually did try to make our world a bit better.

[Mr. Anonymous]

Mom'sWrite,
Seriously? Christians are more likely to be more self-less than non-believers? Wow, that's a mighty big conclusion based on what evidence?
It's an argument that makes sense to me. Whether we are aware of it or not, we are always looking out for ourselves, consciously and subconsciously. I believe it makes perfect sense for something as significant as belief in afterlife, god, etc to influence all other aspects of our lives. Do not misunderstand me. I'm not saying that only christians can be "self-less." But what I am saying is that christians, and other types of believers have more to gain from being "good people." That's all I was trying to establish.

A self-less person will put others' needs before their own. Period. That doesn't sound particularly Christian or Jewish or Rastafarian to me. That sounds like love to me. Fortunately love is a feature anyone can practice no matter what they believe.
I used christian as an example to stand in for any similar religion (Judaism, Islam, etc that has a concept of good and evil, rewards for good deeds and punishments for bad).

As for love. Very few people in this world can claim to love a stranger as much as they love themselves. Such a viewpoint is encouraged by certain religions, and is therefore more prevalent (at least that's what it seems to me) among believers of said religions.

Dommo,

I could make the counterpoint that much of the violence and horrible things in this world only occur because people believe in an afterlife. Would terrorists be willing to commit suicide to murder people if they thought that all they'd end up as, was worm food as you put it as opposed to getting to bang a ton of virgins?

I concede that you have a point. I will be the first to say that religion can be used as a potent brainwashing tool, and that some of the greatest atrocities in human history have been done in the name of god.

In a heat of the moment situation where child is at risk is an unrealistic argument to make, and there are many factors to take into account. Is the potential rescuer a relative? Do they like kids? And so on. Would I be willing to risk my life for a child that wasn't mine, or known personally to me? I'm not sure, as I've not been put into that situation. Would I be willing to do it if many children were at risk(I fall on a hand grenade that lands in the middle of a gaggle of kids)? Much more likely, but I'm still not sure.

In the hypothetical situation, it is only one child. A complete stranger to you. Perhaps it wasn't the best example to use. However, my point was simply this.
1) If I believe in heaven, I am not afraid to die.
2) If I die to save a child, then I will go to heaven for my self sacrifice.
Ergo, why not save a life and go to heaven? Win win. I realize that in a spur of the moment situation you wouldn't be sitting there, thinking all this through, but I also believe that our beliefs and convictions, the things we come to hold as truths to our existence, do influence our actions, not just on the conscious level, but on the subconscious one as well.

We all inherently value our lives more than those of others, and it takes A LOT to get one of us to willing sacrifice our lives.
Exactly. A eternal paradise is something that would constitute A LOT.

I might not throw myself in front of a bus to save 1 kid, but to save 10 I probably would.
Perhaps. But do you do that out of "selflessness?" Or do you do it because you would be unable to live with the shame and guilt of letting them all die while you live on? Can it really be considered "selfless" then?

I do what I do, because I choose to do so, and because typically I get some kind of benefit from it.
The key to my argument. What greater benefit is there than eternal paradise?

I teach because I feel it is something that needs to be done, and because I feel it is a duty to me as a vessel of the knowledge I've attained, because I did not earn it, I learned it.
Ah, a teacher. You have my greatest respect, sir. You are a brave soul. lol. Slightly off topic, but what made you decide to become a teacher (just curious, as the thought has crossed my mind).

I benefit by knowing that I perhaps might be the one to get a kid out of poverty, and that I actually did try to make our world a bit better.
Some would argue that even the most charitable acts can not really be considered selfless.
Take, for example, the man who donates money to charity. Donating money makes him feel good, and proud. He feels like he's done something important. So he donates again. And again. And continues feeling good. His benefit is not just that he is helping others, but he is also feeling good about himself. On a subconscious level, he may come to associate giving to charities with a state of mental wellbeing. Is his action then, truly selfless?

The last thing I wanted to do is offend anyone. However, I did want to establish that, humans, as with all animals, have certain survival instincts that lead them to look out for what they believe to be in their own best interests. An atheist and a devout christian/jew/muslim/etc both have the opportunity to save the child from the bus. And there are members of both groups that would save the kid, as well as members of both that, when it comes down to it, would not. But the Christian/jew/muslim undoubtedly has more to gain, and nothing to lose, while the exact opposite is true for the atheist.

So, what is the cliffnotes of all my rambling? Religion can be a very powerful external motivating force for doing good deeds, while for an athiest, that motivating force needs to come from within.

Please don't misunderstand my argument. I am in no way trying to say that atheists are immoral, whatever. I am an atheist myself, after all.

[Dommo]

Mr. Anonymous

So, what is the cliffnotes of all my rambling? Religion can be a very powerful external motivating force for doing good deeds, while for an athiest, that motivating force needs to come from within.

That is exactly why a charitable act by an atheist is so meaningful. I personally am an agnostic(it's a philosophical thing), but that's beside the point.

I'm not disputing religion as a motivational tool, as anything that can convince someone to off themselves is pretty motivational in my book. I just think there is a certain honesty that comes from being a secularist and doing charitable work that isn't found when it's tainted by religious purpose. Don't get me wrong, at some point charity is in a way a selfish act(as it is done for a personal benefit), however as a secularist I can say that the reasons for doing what I do are my own.

I don't do charity because some higher being is threatening me with damnation. In a sense I'm not giving god a bribe, so that I can get my VIP pass through the Pearly Gate. Sure it can be argued that both myself and the religious person are acting out of self interest, only I'm not paying anyone(the religious person is paying god).

Sure this might seem like a bit of a small point, but because I'm only doing something for myself and for those I'm helping, it makes the help feel genuine. With religions involved, you get something analogous to corporate sponsorship. I don't proselytize anyone, the people I work with don't, all I do is attempt to teach math, physics, and chemistry to high schoolers every summer. Our objective is to teach, not indoctrinate.

Teaching isn't a full time job for me(am a Mechanical Engineer by training), but it's something that when I get old and gray will probably do full time. I don't aim to force anything upon anyone, however I do offer what I know freely, because if there is one redeeming thing that the major religions did(Catholicism and Islam primarily), it was the preservation of knowledge. Civilization is built upon the idea that knowledge can be passed on, but I personally view at as a duty of every educated person to teach to ensure that this happens effectively. If not as a full time teacher, at least to their kids. It's depressing when I meet parents and they can't even help their kids work out fractions.

What scares me more than anything is the danger of ignorance and the lack of foresight that currently plagues society. Out of all the threats that exist on this world, ignorance is probably the most dangerous. Even now when we have to the tools to more effectively combat this, very few professionals like myself are willing to put in the time to pass on knowledge. Personally, I think ignorance is probably the root of all evils. Ah, well I'll end my rant, since I think my soap box is getting a bit too high.

[JimmyB27]

Mom'sWrite,
Seriously? Christians are more likely to be more self-less than non-believers? Wow, that's a mighty big conclusion based on what evidence?
It's an argument that makes sense to me. Whether we are aware of it or not, we are always looking out for ourselves, consciously and subconsciously. I believe it makes perfect sense for something as significant as belief in afterlife, god, etc to influence all other aspects of our lives. Do not misunderstand me. I'm not saying that only christians can be "self-less." But what I am saying is that christians, and other types of believers have more to gain from being "good people." That's all I was trying to establish.

I might not throw myself in front of a bus to save 1 kid, but to save 10 I probably would.
Perhaps. But do you do that out of "selflessness?" Or do you do it because you would be unable to live with the shame and guilt of letting them all die while you live on? Can it really be considered "selfless" then?

Can it really be considered selfless if you are only doing it to buy your way into paradise?

Actually, there is another motivator for an atheist to perform such an act, if you really don't want to believe that people will do these things out of basic human kindness. I do not believe I am going to be anything other than worm food when I die (please note the difference between this statement and 'I believe I will be wormfood' - I am a weak atheist ;)). This is true whether I die now, or when I'm 110. I'll be gone, no more me. So what is the motivation for anything I do? Why not just top myself now?
Well, atheists can, in fact, live on in one sense. Douglas Adams lives on in the minds of everyone who has enjoyed his wonderful books, and also in the minds of the people who knew him. Legacy is the equivalent motivator for an atheist. And what better legacy than to be remembered as the guy who gave his life to save a child?

Having said all of that, I honestly don't believe these 'motivators' are why someone might sacrifice themselves for another, atheist or religious. I think that, in such a situation, it would be a snap, unthinking reaction. You'd simply do it or not - with no such analysis as we have attempted here.

[Ruv Draba]

It stands to reason that an atheist would be less self-sacrificing than say, a christian.That's a whole flaming can of worms there, Mr A, that probably needs a separate thread. It begins with the question: "If you expect to be rewarded for your virtue, is it truly virtue?" I won't cover that here, but please feel free to spawn your own thread on it if you'd like.

There's certainly a big gap between what people believe about the world, the values they aspire to and their behaviours. It's actually very difficult to predict what kind of person will subscribe to a particular belief-system, because the ideals (which are often mythologised) may or may not be adhered to in the individual. But there are some external and objective things that we can observe. For instance...

Theists have a great deal of social infrastructure through which to do charitable works. Very often, membership of a religion requires or expects contributions of money or goods or services to maintain that infrastructure. There's no question that a very large proportion of the world's charitable activities are undertaken through sectarian agencies.

My interest, and the reason for my original post is not to claim that atheists are somehow morally superior to any particular theistic group, but rather to offer a place in which to acknowledge the morality (both in deeds and values) that atheists may hold. I posted this especially because theists often believe that atheist are simply self-interested or amoral. In my experience that's not true.

[AMCrenshaw]

Some would argue that even the most charitable acts can not really be considered selfless.

Take, for example, the man who donates money to charity. Donating money makes him feel good, and proud. He feels like he's done something important. So he donates again. And again. And continues feeling good. His benefit is not just that he is helping others, but he is also feeling good about himself. On a subconscious level, he may come to associate giving to charities with a state of mental wellbeing. Is his action then, truly selfless?

I wanted to add to this: that in trying to better society, one is bettering society for oneself.

The last thing I wanted to do is offend anyone. However, I did want to establish that, humans, as with all animals, have certain survival instincts that lead them to look out for what they believe to be in their own best interests. An atheist and a devout christian/jew/muslim/etc both have the opportunity to save the child from the bus. And there are members of both groups that would save the kid, as well as members of both that, when it comes down to it, would not. But the Christian/jew/muslim undoubtedly has more to gain, and nothing to lose, while the exact opposite is true for the atheist.

So, what is the cliffnotes of all my rambling? Religion can be a very powerful external motivating force for doing good deeds, while for an athiest, that motivating force needs to come from within.

I love the last line of your cliffnote. As a nontheist it is often difficult for me to find common ground with a religious theist. Have you heard the quote, "Make the inside like the outside" ? Its converse is true, considering your statement.

My one question is: Do you think there is a Good virtue in all humans, just as there is an animal aspect?

I do want to mention that the animal instinct of survival, anyway. I learned that it helps create the basis for human-community, which is to say, that an atheistic community would seek to find the most effective manner of preserving humanity.

[Flapdoodle]

I'm an atheist and have been since my early teens. My reasons are more rational than moral - I simply see a lot of deceit in the major religions. Atheism by itself doesn't offer much by way of moral guidance, personal development and wisdom. Atheists have to look elsewhere for those things (if they choose to look at all).

Elsewhere (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2323165&postcount=30)I recently made the assertion that the atheists I know personally don't tend to look very hard or very far for moral guidance, personal development and wisdom (there are exceptions, but I don't know many). My stock of inspirational atheistic role-models is rather small. This created a minor furor among those who feel that they're either better than my opinion admits, or that I shouldn't disparage them if they're not.

I opened this thread because I think it's useful and encouraging to list the self-sacrificing, disciplined things that atheists do out of compassion and love of humanity. Theists do a lot of this stuff (and take credit for a lot of it too!) Let's hear tales of atheistic inspiration. I'm not looking for tales of rock-chucking here (we do plenty of that), or the fact that an atheistic doctor saves lives just as a theistic doctor does, but rather tales of atheists doing exceptionally compassionate or self-sacrificing things.

I have a small stock of tales I'll add when I have the time, but for now, over to you.

(And in a related matter, if you're an atheist where do you look for moral guidance and wisdom? How much are you willing to sacrifice to attain those things?)

Morals evolved, and it's more than likely that some of the moral stuff in religious texts came from Greek philosophy.

[veinglory]

"An atheist and a devout christian/jew/muslim/etc both have the opportunity to save the child from the bus. And there are members of both groups that would save the kid, as well as members of both that, when it comes down to it, would not. But the Christian/jew/muslim undoubtedly has more to gain, and nothing to lose, while the exact opposite is true for the atheist."

I don't follow the reasoning here at all.

[Williebee]

I don't either. "the exact opposite" would imply that the athiest doesn't have a conscience.

[veinglory]

And that saving the child would be a personal 'loss' to them. So not just amoral but apparently sadistic?

[AMCrenshaw]

I get the reasoning, but it doesn't follow.

They're saying that saving a child somehow has no intrinsic reward for an atheist. But extrinsic rewards are what the Christian/Jew/Muslim are after.

Wait, that can't be what they're saying! Because to strive after extrinsic rewards has nothing to do with humility, does it?

Or are they saying that if God exists and an atheist doesn't believe in it, that their good deeds somehow do not matter.

Or are they saying that "If we believe in God and God doesn't exist...we've lost nothing" but if an atheist doesn't believe in God and God does exist that they've lost everything.

For me, a relationship with God, the universe, or existence is primary and "morality" (so defined by however many others) should follow. And that morality will follow according to the dictates of love, and of reason. Which...if I have this correctly, is entirely possible for any person to accomplish.

And nothing is gained nor lost, because nothing is ours.

[Danger Jane]

On the topic of egoism as a motivator: I find it very difficult to think of examples of truly selfless behavior--behavior that, though you know it's right, doesn't even offer the slightest shred of good-feeling or self-righteousness. But you do it because you think it's right.

Jumping in front of a bus to save a child, to me, seems to be an instinctive reaction. In a situation that probably would demand instant action rather than thoughtful philosophical motivation, and I think my instinctive motivation to save the child doesn't stem from my religious beliefs.

Maybe that's because I'm Christian, and so I hope for and have faith in an afterlife appropriate to, well, the original life. Anyway, I think probably God understands that when we do good things, we feel good, and we might even do them, sometimes, in hopes of impressing Him. Could it be that the good action itself outweighs the personal satisfaction we get from doing the good things in the first place?

I'm sure there are exceptions to this--for instance, when someone does something "good" for entirely selfish reasons. But I think God can tell the difference.

(Hope this is relevant...)

[veinglory]

I think it could be argued any which way. I could say an atheist is more likely to try and save a live, believing that biological life is all we have and so far more precious (c.f. believing life is eternal in some form).

But I think that is nonsense, really. Religion/atheism doesn't make people more or less virtuous, or make them value life more or less, or more or less selfless.

[Danger Jane]

I think it could be argued any which way. I could say an atheist is more likely to try and save a live, believing that biological life is all we have and so far more precious (c.f. believing life is eternal in some form).

But I think that is nonsense, really. Religion/atheism doesn't make people more or less virtuous, or make them value life more or less, or more or less selfless.

That was meant to be my point, as well. I think as humans, we tend to be drawn toward protecting life, especially life we can recognize as similar to us. There are (too) many exceptions to this, but I'm willing to bet most people would be sprinting toward that kid in front of the bus, not contemplating the philosophical and theological ramifications of their actions.

It makes more sense to me that people would save a life and justify this in different ways--ie, theological, philosophical--than that people with a certain belief set are more or less likely to save a life.

Of course, this is a generalization, because not everyone falls in the middle of the Bell Curve. There are Taoists who watch for insects underfoot, there are extreme hedonists who would kill you if you stood in the way of their plans. But that's not particularly close to the majority, as far as I'm aware.

[Eeek]

There's some evidence that altruism is encoded in our genes, for whatever that's worth.

[Ruv Draba]

Religion/atheism doesn't make people more or less virtuous, or make them value life more or less, or more or less selfless.Hrm. In comparison to what, VG?

The Aztecs had human sacrifice to assure the passage of the seasons --this despite the fact that their clergy knew that their seasons were clockwork-reliable because their calendars and astronomy were very developed. We don't know what the Aztec culture might have been like without its religion, but it sure seems to have been conspicuously brutal with the religion.

The radicalisation of modern, affluent, middle-class suicide-bombers (the so-called 'Third Wave' of home-grown extremism) also seems to offer more support that ideology shapes values.

With those examples floating around, I think it may be hard to show that ideology has no effect on compassion, tolerance and altruism -- even though I think we'd like it to be so.

[Eeek]

The Aztecs had human sacrifice to assure the passage of the seasons --this despite the fact that their clergy knew that their seasons were clockwork-reliable because their calendars and astronomy were very developed. We don't know what the Aztec culture might have been like without its religion, but it sure seems to have been conspicuously brutal with the religion.

The radicalisation of modern, affluent, middle-class suicide-bombers (the so-called 'Third Wave' of home-grown extremism) also seems to offer more support that ideology shapes values.

I think it's a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Do ideologies (which can be religious or non-religious) cause violence, or do people who (unconsciously?) want to be violent seek out ideologies which will justify their acting violently?

Same thing for dramatic acts of self-sacrifice. Do ideologies cause these acts, or is it that people who want to be self-sacrificing adopt ideologies which will give them permission to do so?

[AMCrenshaw]

I think it's a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Do ideologies (which can be religious or non-religious) cause violence, or do people who (unconsciously?) want to be violent seek out ideologies which will justify their acting violently?

Same thing for dramatic acts of self-sacrifice. Do ideologies cause these acts, or is it that people who want to be self-sacrificing adopt ideologies which will give them permission to do so?


This is an interesting comment. Perhaps this can shed some light on the tangential topic: A lot of the theories of Who Join New Religious Movements and Why revolve around the fact that most people who join are: 1) exceptionally educated 2) middle to upper class and 3) already possess some sort of religiosity.

For example, even some members of the Montana Freemen-- a bunch of anti-guvment/anti-Jew folk-- had been through some form of university. But the religious doctrine of violence, the theorists think, came originally from their propensity toward violence against Jews and police officers that existed before the NRM existed.

But, to flip this around: The Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas had no doctrines of violence. Nor were the members of that NRM particularly known to be violent (some would argue against this, however, because the NRM dealt in firearms. But I contend that in Texas, trading in rare or antique firearms is a good way to make money). Regardless, when it came down to it, the Branch Davidians were no Gandhis. When the ATF and FBI sieged their religious compound, they turned violent. Sociological theorists of that time said that the violence was implicit to their doctrine, but not explicit. The NRM had doctrines of dichotomy: Good and Evil, and the ATF/FBI had an obvious place in that dichotomy. I think it would be fair to say, or at least argue, that the Branch Davidians committed violence based on religious doctrine.

Ideology, interestingly enough, is often enforced through religion -- even on people who are ignorant of religion as the cause. I know a lot of people, for example, who cannot comprehend what I say when I speak about Zen Buddhism. A lot (not all, of course!) of Westerners are simply not used to hearing, or dealing with Eastern thought. And yet, I would argue that what the Zen Buddhists have to say about the human condition (as one example) is not so far off from what the Westerners say. They are apple and oranges, sure. But they're both fruit. What I hope to say here is that perhaps essential truths about our condition are revealed in these religions, but that the surface experience of doctrine bears too much a burden to be always practical in an ethical sense. By that I mean, as one or two examples, the product of dichotomous thought in much of (but not all!) Western religious traditions and the hermitic practices (taken straight from Vedas, the Tibetan BoD, etc) of certain sects of Eastern religious traditions.

So for me, and perhaps me only, ideologies that allow for the openness to explore other ideologies and other traditions have a way of bridging gaps between doctrines, moving toward essential truths about the human condition--helping a child, helping anyone in need-- (and as a side note, I believe science can only help these essential truths become more clear, more expressible, more likely to be understood as fact and less likely to be understood as mystification)-- and away from doctrines that possess implicitly or explicitly propensity for violence.

AMC

post script: sorry for that semi-rant.

[Bartholomew]

Religion is a bad place to look for morality.

This just isn't true. I have a very strong moral code, which has deep roots in the Buddhist suttas. Christianity can, and has produced very moral people. So have many other religions. The religions themselves are neither innately moral or amoral. Either religion has value for a practitioner, or it doesn't.

The same is true of religious organizations, with the stipulation that it provides positions of power---and power corrupts.

[Bartholomew]

I think it could be argued any which way. I could say an atheist is more likely to try and save a live, believing that biological life is all we have and so far more precious (c.f. believing life is eternal in some form).

But I think that is nonsense, really. Religion/atheism doesn't make people more or less virtuous, or make them value life more or less, or more or less selfless.

Yep. I could just as easily justify saving a life by thinking, "This is the only one he'll ever get, and if he loses it, he has lost something precious."

Likewise, there are people in my religious tradition who hold that to save a drowning man would create more karma, and force both people stay in a cycle of suffering longer.

Religion doesn't create morality. It creates dogma. Not all dogma is bad, but it can always be taken too far.

Your karma ran over my dogma!

[Danger Jane]

There will always be people who somehow need to control and manipulate others, and there will always be ways for them to achieve this--religiously or not. People can be good or bad regardless of their belief system, perhaps with the exception of a belief system that promotes the harm of others.

[t0neg0d]

What is the hangup with Christianity? O.o You do realize this is only one of many religions, right?

Anyways, on to the topic at hand:

Bill Gates
Warren Buffett
Andrew Carnegie
Robert W. Wilson
Elizabeth Cady-Stanton
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
Susan B. Anthony
Thomas Edison
Ted Turner

all professed to be atheists and have/had major humanitarian contributions.

[veinglory]

Most of us live in countries where Christianity is the predominant religion and people are assumed, as a default status, to be Christian. It is the natural compative and I do not see any hang up whatsoever implied by focussing on Christianity. Especially as I am required to focus on it every time a scientific or economic meeting I am at is led in Christian prayer with the assumption I will participate--something that happens to me at least once month.

This may be the one place I go where the assumption should be that the majority of the participants are atheist unless stating otherwise. It also should be a place where the majority of the threads are about writing. For the month of August I will request that we try starting new threads only on writing topics

[Lhun]

Morals evolved, and it's more than likely that some of the moral stuff in religious texts came from Greek philosophy.More than likely is not even a strong enough choice of words. Of course christianity is a big amalgam or pretty much all the religions known in and around the region where it developed, just like any other religion in the world. Most notably (in christianity) are probably the influences from greek philosphy which provided most of the positive morals, and the mithracult and older mesopotamic myths which provided the messianic story.

Anyway, besides that the question about a moral basis not grounded in religion is quite interesting, though it has been, in a sense, answered for thousands of years. I'm sorry if anyone who seriously thinks that religion is the only possible moral basis is offended, but seriously, dude, get with the times. There have been philosophical moral theories that don't need a god since (at least) the ancient greeks. Most atheists i know, at least those somwhat inclined towards philosophical reflection, can name one of those as their basis for morality.
As some modern philosophers have quite plausibly remarked, humans are socials, and as such moral creatures. It's simply in our nature to find some set of morals to follow, and religion or culture only make the choice easier (or maybe for us). People wholly without a predisposition to act morally are rare. (Sociopaths being to obvious extreme case)
So, wether an atheist prefers a utilitarian or kantian morality is just so much personal preference, but both choices are good examples for an ethical system that doesn't need any deity.

Another interesting theory brought forward by Phillip Kitcher says that religions can actually be explained as mechanisms that evolved in proto-human societies simply as a (quite efficient) way to enforce a moral system within a group. Whithout which a social group obviousl cannot function.

All a bit besides-topic i'm afraid.

[t0neg0d]

/em mourns for Ruv's thread topic.

Maybe try Google?

[Medievalist]

I think it would be helpful to look at the difference between morals and ethics.

They are not the same.

[StephanieFox]

Dommo said: (Many Christians see helping as a reward in and of itself. That the consequence of being right with God is love and compassion.)

In Jewish tradition, this is called a mitzva. It's an obligation, a good deed and the reward you get (a good feeling) for doing a good deed, all rolled into one. And, as you know, Jews can be atheists. There are many secular Jews around who do mitzva not because they are afraid of god's punishment or hoping for god's rewards, but because it's ethical to do so.

[Mom'sWrite]

Dommo said: (Many Christians see helping as a reward in and of itself. That the consequence of being right with God is love and compassion.)

In Jewish tradition, this is called a mitzva. It's an obligation, a good deed and the reward you get (a good feeling) for doing a good deed, all rolled into one. And, as you know, Jews can be atheists. There are many secular Jews around who do mitzva not because they are afraid of god's punishment or hoping for god's rewards, but because it's ethical to do so.


I had a friend tell me about this practice years before "random acts of kindness" had its moment in the sun. He told of a characteristic anonymity that went along with the practice. I was instantly hooked. Still am.

[JimmyB27]

I think it would be helpful to look at the difference between morals and ethics.

They are not the same.
No, they aren't. Morals are the standards a person holds themselves to when deciding if a course of action is acceptable or not.
Ethics is a county in south east England.


sorry.

[Lhun]

I think it would be helpful to look at the difference between morals and ethics.

They are not the same.
That depends on context. Commonly ethics is used to name the more codified and rationally structured systems while morals refers to the internalized morals humans of a specific culture have. In philosophical discourse however, they're usually used synonymous.

[veinglory]

I would see them as quite distinct if only because morals are personal and ethics are collective.

[Lhun]

I would see them as quite distinct if only because morals are personal and ethics are collective.
That may be a distinction you personally use, but it's hardly universal. There are quite many religions for example that'd vehemently disagree that morals are personal.

Both terms are being used in such varying ways, that it's pretty much useless to attempt to define them differently. So philosophers writing about ethics pretty much ignore all that and just explain what exactly they mean each time they talk about ethics or morals.
The standard definition for wich both ethics and morals are used as names (or more specifically ethical or moral systems) is that of a collection of normative statements about socially acceptable behaviour. (read socially accpetable as "living in a society" not as "table manners")

[veinglory]

It was nearly universal in the courses I took and books I have read. I am not taking the Humpty Dumpty approach to meaning here. Just last week I heard professional ethicist Bernie Rollin draw the distinction in a talk about bioethics--specifically why religious morality was not ethics, because ethics had to be debated and adopted by our wider secular society.

Yes, some religions would suggest their own morals should be universal, but is it because religious morals have a universal foundation, or just that they think we should all do what god told them to because that makes them right?

Our society has effectively gone down the path of public ethics rather than moral philosophy a long time ago, partly due to cultural diversity and partly due to a need for transparency.

[Lhun]

Well we could start listing references and try to find a majority decision. :D (I'd cite Kitcher for example who writes at the start of his new book that the terms should be understood as synonyms and he'll use them that way.)

But that's not really a good use of our time. Drawing the distinction between ethics and morals as you do can be done, but is pretty arbitrary. There is no reason why absolutist bottom-up ethical systems should be excluded from the list of ethics, and only rationalist or pragmatist systems included. While it might seem intuitive to use the nomer morals solely for religious ethical systems, since religions like to throw around words like moral or even more so immoral, it's not all that useful i a debate since there are non-religious ethical systems with the same approach. Sentimentalist ethics for exaple. When debating ethics, it's far more useful to categorize according systematic differences, than to call secular ethical systems ethics, and religious ones morals.
This gets even more apparent if you compare what vastly different, but publically accepted ethical systems different human cultures have come up with, or when you take a look at religious ethical systes that quite often do have similarities to secular ones. Take the golden rule in the bible for example.

[veinglory]

Different disctinctions are drawn for different reasons. I think the morality ethics division is drawn not because they are different ways of approaching the issue, but different domains in which it is active--analogous to Gould's attempt to separate the domains of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria.

There are of course non-religious moralities, but I think in general the two issues do tend to conflate. That is, if you can state something in secular terms is is rather likely to be able to enter the arena of mutaul ethics for a modern culture. If not, the not.

The distinction my not be one you would dwell on in this area, but I suspect I would. It is probably the most important issue currently being debated in bioethics and has massive real word implication, for example in what areas of research are being disallowed US government funding and why. For researchers in area such as stem cells what gets considered ethic and what moral is really very important indeed because many legal and regulatory bodies have a mandate to enforce ethics but the freedom to ignore morals.

[Ageless Stranger]

Mom'sWrite,

In the hypothetical situation, it is only one child. A complete stranger to you. Perhaps it wasn't the best example to use. However, my point was simply this.
1) If I believe in heaven, I am not afraid to die.
2) If I die to save a child, then I will go to heaven for my self sacrifice.
Ergo, why not save a life and go to heaven? Win win. I realize that in a spur of the moment situation you wouldn't be sitting there, thinking all this through, but I also believe that our beliefs and convictions, the things we come to hold as truths to our existence, do influence our actions, not just on the conscious level, but on the subconscious one as well.

I might not throw myself in front of a bus to save 1 kid, but to save 10 I probably would.
Perhaps. But do you do that out of "selflessness?" Or do you do it because you would be unable to live with the shame and guilt of letting them all die while you live on? Can it really be considered "selfless" then?


I benefit by knowing that I perhaps might be the one to get a kid out of poverty, and that I actually did try to make our world a bit better.
Some would argue that even the most charitable acts can not really be considered selfless.
Take, for example, the man who donates money to charity. Donating money makes him feel good, and proud. He feels like he's done something important. So he donates again. And again. And continues feeling good. His benefit is not just that he is helping others, but he is also feeling good about himself. On a subconscious level, he may come to associate giving to charities with a state of mental wellbeing. Is his action then, truly selfless?

I don't really believe the point I've bolded in red is a selfless acts. If you save someone with the expectation of being rewarded, knowing that you'll go to paradise, then there is no sacrifice. It's neither selfless nor selfish. At best it's selfless to the smallest degree and at it's worst, it's a neutral, grey, blah. The statement bolded in blue however seems more complex. Guilt occurs when you know you've done something wrong, if you were to save someone because you knew that if you did not, you would feel like you had done something wrong, then you are being at least partially selfless. Shame too would be an indicator of a healthy mind acknowledging a wrong-doing. I suppose the value of the act, the impact it has upon others has to be considered also.

I think you're final statement sums up my own opinion. I'll come back when I have an answer to it :D


As for my own morality, I'm not sure where it comes from. It's instinct,a gut feeling.

EDIT: If anything I've written sounds stupid, please ignore me. :D

[Ruv Draba]

Our society has effectively gone down the path of public ethics rather than moral philosophy a long time ago, partly due to cultural diversity and partly due to a need for transparency.It has, but perhaps this is a deluded path.

Ethics without a shared morality is surely nothing more than custom and law - and these change according to political will. This I think is the concern that some humanitarian religious groups raise. We might have a kind sense of ethics today but what will keep it kind into the future?

I'd argue that religious morality is not the only form of shared morality, and that personal morality isn't the only legitimate kind.

Let me offer the following thought: that once we get skilled at separating custom (what we conventionally do) from morality (what we actually need), a shared morality is possible. Indeed, I think that we already have quite a lot of it already, underpinning various international codes of ethics.

My basis for this is actually a simple scientific observation: viewed as a species we are far more alike than we are different. Even fruit flies are more diverse than we are. But psychologically, we're also very similar too. If we were not, then psychology and psychotheraphy wouldn't have been able to take the strides they have. (By similar I don't mean uniform. I mean that our minds taxonomise neatly; operationally they are not the special, unique, individual organs that our school-teachers told us they were.)

So if our bodies are alike and our minds are alike then is it so hard to conceive that our needs are alike, even if our customs and preferences differ? Could this not then give rise to a shared morality with different customs and slightly differing codes of ethics?

[veinglory]

I think ethics has to have some kind of share assumptions, but they don't need to have a moral character. Bioethics tends to have assumptions such as 'cause the least amount of suffering possible' which could imply but does not presuppose a moral duty.

[Lhun]

Different disctinctions are drawn for different reasons. I think the morality ethics division is drawn not because they are different ways of approaching the issue, but different domains in which it is active--analogous to Gould's attempt to separate the domains of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria.
Then go ahead and try to set out which is the domain of ethics and which that of morals. Trust me, you won't be able to find a useful dividing line without many counterexamples.
There are of course non-religious moralities, but I think in general the two issues do tend to conflate. That is, if you can state something in secular terms is is rather likely to be able to enter the arena of mutaul ethics for a modern culture. If not, the not.
Well that's pretty trivial, simply because modern nations are generally secular, which obviously means that any ethical system accepted at the national level must be secular too. In that case you have simply defined ethics as secular morals which is not a very useful distinction.
The distinction my not be one you would dwell on in this area, but I suspect I would. It is probably the most important issue currently being debated in bioethics and has massive real word implication, for example in what areas of research are being disallowed US government funding and why. For researchers in area such as stem cells what gets considered ethic and what moral is really very important indeed because many legal and regulatory bodies have a mandate to enforce ethics but the freedom to ignore morals.
Nah, it's not even a really interesting issue. Well maybe it is if you're living in the US.
But what you're doing here is simply labelling normative judgements you consider well-founded as ethical and those you don't as moral. That is a distinction you can arrive at, mostly of course because religions tend to use the word moral much more often than ethical, but it is still pretty arbitrary. To give a different kind of example than before, Mill formulated a decidedly unreligious and rationalist ethical system, and still uses the term moral a lot. Almost exclusively iirc.
And let me again mention the sentimentalist tradition wich arrives at simple normative judgements instead of theoretical axioms, pretty much like religious systems, but without invoking the supernatural.
Anyway, it might not be obvious to the casual observer, but in the debate you mention are a lot of unsaid assumptions flying around. For example most of the people who want to keep religious ethics out of the discussion and draw a distinction such as yourself operate under the implicit assumption that all ethics have to be rationalist in a well-reasoned top down approach to formulating normative judgements. Very kantian, but not actually a statement that can be accepted a priori as factual.
While religious ethics are obviously only convincing to those who believe in the relevant god(s) i again mention the sentimentalists.

[Lhun]

I think ethics has to have some kind of share assumptions, but they don't need to have a moral character. Bioethics tends to have assumptions such as 'cause the least amount of suffering possible' which could imply but does not presuppose a moral duty.
Actually this is already a normative judgement. If you say "cause the least amount of suffering" is the basis you already have the direct commandmend not to cause suffering if preventable.
Though i'd like to hear what mean by "moral character" or this could be a misunderstanding.