Was contemplating the other day and I was curious to know how atheists perceive morality. Do you think there are no absolutes? Are all issues of morality clear cut for you, black and white or is everything relative, everything actually a shade of grey?

I appreciate your sincere answers.

why not take you time and research Sam Harris? He did a great job explaining objective morality and absolutism in a way you can clearly understand

In life, nothing is really ever clear cut and morality is not excluded. Everyone is kinda different in this particularly the blurred out parts of morality for example abortion and homosexuality. My stance on both issues will surely vary from other atheists and others don't even bother about it.
In my view, there is no such thing as moral absolutism cos every culture will do something another culture find abominable. some may argue that this can only be so with religion around, I'll rather argue along the lines of growing conditions/environment for children. The environment a child grows up in will build his/her moral compass for life in most cases

Even Christians do not have absolute morality, although they preach it. I can imagine loads of scenarios where they'll toss their moral framework out the window and deal with that situation purely on what is inherent in them.

@Area_boy
Before we go to specific cases, would say your moral compass dictates a black and white view or shades of grey?

Lord_Reed: @Area_boy
Before we go to specific cases, would say your moral compass dictates a black and white view or shades of grey?

My(agnostic) moral view is a shade of gray. What may be right today may be wrong tomorrow, of course, specifics could alter this answer...

Lord_Reed: @Area_boy
Before we go to specific cases, would say your moral compass dictates a black and white view or shades of grey?

you obviously didn't read my post

Area_boy:

you obviously didn't read my post

Indulge me.

musKeeto:
My(agnostic) moral view is a shade of gray. What may be right today may be wrong tomorrow, of course, specifics could alter this answer...

So against what do you measure the change?

Lord_Reed:

So against what do you measure the change?

Against my conscience.... and my needs/feelings at the time..

For me (atheist), morality is generally relative but there are some absolutes, for example, I can't think of any circumstances for which human sacrifice could be justified (assuming that the victim is an innocent person). In fact human sacrifice has only occurred as a matter of religious belief anyway....

In this day I have no problem with accepting homosexual relationships or marriage. However, I can understand why it would have been strongly condemned in an earlier period where populations were low and infant mortality was high, especially among a group (the Hebrews) who were surrounded by more numerous enemies. They needed as many men as possible fathering as many babies as possible.

onetrack: For me (atheist), morality is generally relative but there are some absolutes, for example, I can't think of any circumstances for which human sacrifice could be justified (assuming that the victim is an innocent person). In fact human sacrifice has only occurred as a matter of religious belief anyway....

In this day I have no problem with accepting homosexual relationships or marriage. However, I can understand why it would have been strongly condemned in an earlier period where populations were low and infant mortality was high, especially among a group (the Hebrews) who were surrounded by more numerous enemies. They needed as many men as possible fathering as many babies as possible.

Exactly my point when I talk about environment of up bringing. Take religion away from the equation and sacrifice would probably not be a word. Religion brought about the sacrifice argument.

So I'll still say absolute morality does not exist

Lord_Reed:

Indulge me.

why not present your specific case and lets use my write up above to argue right from wrong?

Area_boy:

why not present your specific case and lets use my write up above to argue right from wrong?

I don't want to get into an argument, I just want to see and compass the atheist thought process on morality.

There's the argument that theists use their own in built moral meter a lot of the time as well. I am of the opinion that in fact religion makes it worse (read:opinion). Its already been stated here in one form. Assume the OT was still relevant, if you were to come across someone performing my favorite sin, working on sabbath, you have the choice of following either the kill people who work on sabbath law or 'thou shall not kill'. You automatically pick 'thou shall not kill' (I hope). I'm no bible expert but I would think there are many such contradiction in NT where you personally pick the better option based on your morals. I would suppose my moral gauge is similar to that.

We are talking about moral good/evil, there's also natural evil, which is simply suffering. I would think most atheists gauge their actions based on the amount of suffering they would engender, universally. Ie regardless of race, religion etc and even species for some people. That's not to say we are saints, we also need pleasure.

Do you atheist think a proper justice and equity system can be built on moral relativity?

Lord_Reed: Do you atheist think a proper justice and equity system can be built on moral relativity?

Can a proper justice system be built on religion?if yes,on which religion should it be built?

Delafruita:
Can a proper justice system be built on religion?if yes,on which religion should it be built?

You are dodging.

Lord_Reed: Do you atheist think a proper justice and equity system can be built on moral relativity?

Absolutely. It is the only workable system for a diverse humanity.

Reyginus: You are dodging.

Dodging what?I asked a simple question

Delafruita:
Dodging what?I asked a simple question

Your simple question was a red herring.

Lord_Reed: Do you atheist think a proper justice and equity system can be built on moral relativity?

What would be 'proper', that's the problem with subjectivity. I think all our justice systems are already built around moral relativity. Be they based on religion, human rights, whatever, all are human constructs. The ultimate would to build something based on the concept of eliminating suffering for all life, in this world (ie this lifetime, not leave everything to $deity or preparing for the next life).

Delafruita:
Dodging what?I asked a simple question

In response to a simple question.

wiegraf:

What would be 'proper', that's the problem with subjectivity. I think all our justice systems are already built around moral relativity. Be they based on religion, human rights, whatever, all are human constructs. The ultimate would to build something based on the concept of eliminating suffering for all life, in this world (ie this lifetime, not leave everything to $deity or preparing for the next life).

In other words a frame of reference has to be built right? Won't that remove the relativity?

Delafruita:
Can a proper justice system be built on religion?if yes,on which religion should it be built?

That is not the question I asked. My question is for atheists and is predicated on their worldview.

Lord_Reed:

In other words a frame of reference has to be built right? Won't that remove the relativity?

I'm not sure if I get you correctly, can you clarify pls?

Edit: oops, I really should pay attention and read.
This an attempt to remove subjectivity, yes. Having a fully objective moral code is of course impossible, considering mitigating good, limited resources, emotions etc, so it will fail if I am to be frank. But its the best place to start and build. The golden rule more or else is in the spirit of this suggestion, so we've probably been attempting this since antiquity, we just have to focus now, let go of the pettiness (well, as best we can).

Opinions all mine, not all atheists, in fact quite a few theists would think along these lines as well.

wiegraf:

I'm not sure if I get you correctly, can you clarify pls?

Edit: oops, I really should pay attention and read.
This an attempt to remove subjectivity, yes. Having a fully objective moral code is of course impossible, considering mitigating good, limited resources, emotions etc, so it will fail if I am to be frank. But its the best place to start and build. The golden rule more or else is in the spirit of this suggestion, so we've probably been attempting this since antiquity, we just have to focus now, let go of the pettiness (well, as best we can).

Opinions all mine, not all atheists, in fact quite a few theists would think along these lines as well.

My thoughts at the time I thought up this thread was to see the possibility of creating a justice system that would be based on moral subjectivity. My fear is that it would collapse on itself without an acceptable frame of reference and thus introducing a dilemma in that how do you maintain subjectivity when you create a frame of reference.

I understand that atheist may not have a universal code so I felt the differing opinions here may provide a better insight.

Lord_Reed:

My thoughts at the time I thought up this thread was to see the possibility of creating a justice system that would be based on moral subjectivity. My fear is that it would collapse on itself without an acceptable frame of reference and thus introducing a dilemma in that how do you maintain subjectivity when you create a frame of reference.

I understand that atheist may not have a universal code so I felt the differing opinions here may provide a better insight.

Ignorance.


Does a country like Sweden have a justice system based on absolute morality? No.


They are very secular and morality is subjective and so their laws are based on effectiveness, common sense, and practicality.

Lord_Reed:

My thoughts at the time I thought up this thread was to see the possibility of creating a justice system that would be based on moral subjectivity. My fear is that it would collapse on itself without an acceptable frame of reference and thus introducing a dilemma in that how do you maintain subjectivity when you create a frame of reference.

I understand that atheist may not have a universal code so I felt the differing opinions here may provide a better insight.

Why would it collapse without a frame of reference? It seems I might be missing something. When you say frame of reference, do you mean like using the bible as the base for a moral code, then building around it?

wiegraf:

Why would it collapse without a frame of reference? It seems I might be missing something. When you say frame of reference, do you mean like using the bible as the base for a moral code, then building around it?

No but laws are fixed and do not discriminate or discern the emotional states or any other subjective characteristics which a reasoning being maybe able to apply.

MacDaddy01:

Ignorance.


Does a country like Sweden have a justice system based on absolute morality? No.


They are very secular and morality is subjective and so their laws are based on effectiveness, common sense, and practicality.

Thanks for the the brief education but can you give me an example of how it works in real life.

Lord_Reed:

Thanks for the the brief education but can you give me an example of how it works in real life.

Abortion

Religious absolute morality
-Abortion is murder
-Only abort when the woman's life is in danger
-According to the bible, there is no exception for rape.
-Condoms breed immorality.


Secular subjective morality
-Abortion is not murder depending on your definition
-Abortion is okay as long as the woman has had counseling about her options and is in sound mind
-Abortion should be made more regulated when moving nearer to the 9 month period.
-Condoms and contraceptives can reduce abortion



Tell me why I should accept your religious absolute morality not based on common sense but the word of god?

MacDaddy01:


Abortion

Religious absolute morality
-Abortion is murder
-Only abort when the woman's life is in danger
-According to the bible, there is no exception for rape.
-Condoms breed immorality.


Secular subjective morality
-Abortion is not murder depending on your definition
-Abortion is okay as long as the woman has had counseling about her options and is in sound mind
-Abortion should be made more regulated when moving nearer to the 9 month period.
-Condoms and contraceptives can reduce abortion



Tell me why I should accept your religious absolute morality not based on common sense but the word of god?

This topic is not to argue. I asked a specific question so please add your contribution and stick to the topic.

Lord_Reed:

This topic is not to argue. I asked a specific question so please add your contribution and stick to the topic.

You are indeed a foolish person.


Yo asked for an example and I gave a clear example. Since the example clearly answers your topic question in a way that you do not like, you are now saying htat I am arguing off topic. Please, don piss me off



Atheists base their "morality" generally on 4 prinicples;

-practicality
-effectiveness
-logic
-balance of the greater good (pros and cons)



The abortion debate is a clear example of this in reality.