For an atheist, are there any sure reasons to be ethical?

[Leonid]

We have a lot in common even with fruit flies and amoebas. However, we possess properties which distinguish us from all other species. These properties are self-awareness, mind and volition. That what makes man a man, not the ability to kill , to mat or to follow the leader.

[Gareth]

Do we need to separate "living ethically" from "living in accordance with the law?" Why not admit that our laws are based upon rules that are needed for a harmonious society and that these rules are, in fact, ethical presumptions?

If I double park to rush my dying child into hospital then I have acted against what is in accordance with the law. I await your argument that I have acted immorally...

[MarcusPCato]

You still might have. Suppose you double park to go in to that dying child, and your car, by blocking a lane, contributes to an accident in which yet another person is injured? Double parking in the vicinity of a busy emergency room, for example, might create a very serious hazard.

Ridiculously hypothetical? Not really. I saw an example on one of those "reality shows" where a "good Samaritan" stopped to help the victim of an accident, but his car protruded into another lane. It was then, in turn, struck by a passing car and caused yet additional injuries. In that case, one would certainly say that the action was unethical.

My point is that we make an unnecessary distinction between law and ethics.

[Gareth]

"You still might have. Suppose you double park to go in to that dying child, and your car, by blocking a lane, contributes to an accident in which yet another person is injured? Double parking in the vicinity of a busy emergency room, for example, might create a very serious hazard. "


I think you make my point for me, Simply equating obeyance to some socially constructed rules to an ethical theory is too simple.

There will always be examples where the only moral thing to do is to break the law. Had more done so in the past we wouldn't have had to wait till 1921 for universal sufferage (in the UK) the abolition of slavery (in the USA) and the dismantling of apathheid (in SA).

Societies will be by their very nature self serving and construct laws to support and maintain the power distributions that exist at the time of the laws implementation. Morality should never be based upon self serving legislators indeed it should at best guide such legislators in their deliberations.

BTW the example you give above is of someone acting irresponsibly not immorally imho

[MarcusPCato]

Is it anymore irresponsible than the example you gave? If so, I don't think how.

The problem I see is this: we WANT an objective ethical standard, but then I want a million dollars tomorrow, but that does not mean I will get it, in the same way that it does not mean that such a standard actually exists. We may have beliefs in what constitutes an ethical society, and the beliefs may differ, but so what? Isn't facing up to lack of assurance part of maturing?

[Leonid]

Is it anymore irresponsible than the example you gave? If so, I don't think how.

The problem I see is this: we WANT an objective ethical standard, but then I want a million dollars tomorrow, but that does not mean I will get it, in the same way that it does not mean that such a standard actually exists. We may have beliefs in what constitutes an ethical society, and the beliefs may differ, but so what? Isn't facing up to lack of assurance part of maturing?

This standard is actually exists, that why it's objective. What we need is to discover it. This is not a question of beliefs or wishful thinking, but proper integration of the observable reality by using mind.

[Grecorivera5150]

There are no assurances in life , only opportunities. As an agnostic I feel it is beneficial to act in an ethical manner to show a general amount of respect to the cultural system that I live in in the hopes that this respect will be reciprocal. This is a pragmatic approach to ethics but again there are no assurances that it will yield a desired affect.

[Leonid]

There are no assurances in life , only opportunities. As an agnostic I feel it is beneficial to act in an ethical manner to show a general amount of respect to the cultural system that I live in in the hopes that this respect will be reciprocal. This is a pragmatic approach to ethics but again there are no assurances that it will yield a desired affect.

Suppose you are living in the cultural system based on the Sharia Law or Nazism. How much respect you prepare to give to it? Your pragmatic approach abnegates the concept of standard of value and therefore abnegates morality as such.

[Grecorivera5150]

Morality is not abnegated because morals are separated from ethics in this case because I an an individual. Acting ethically in my culture IMO involves questioning authority on the use of the initiation of violence and on the infringing of the state of the rights of the individual. I can only speak to my point of view in the system that I live in. Even within my community the idea of what is ethical is not in any way a unified theory or practice. I can be seen as unethical by those who feel that in times of war one should forgo their individualism and be patriotic. So the use of pragmatism in this case would have been better described as moral pragmatism, that much I can admit. This moral pragmatism goes back to ethics learned in bible school. Do unto others and such! I did not believe there was a god watching over me but the moral lesson made great sense and it stuck with me. So acting morally in my system is to hold the government to account and to attempt to ensure the continuing rights for individuals and acting ethically would be to not try and undermine the system from without but to work within the system to try and maintain its integrity.

[Leonid]

Let me to define my terms. Morality is a code of values which guides man's choices and actions. Ethics is a branch of philosophy which defines what code of values is proper. Therefore by unethical behavior in the case of the moral pragmatism you mean the behavior which is incompatible with the dominant moral philosophy of the given society. In other words your standard of value is an opinion of majority. As any subjective standard it would eliminate you own choice and therefore morality as such. Moral pragmatism in fact means that good is everything that society defines as good and evil is everything that society considers as evil. As long as society approve, everything goes. You have no say in the moral matters, you don't need to choose between good and evil. The same applies to the ethics of the bible school. Such an approach doesn't require any moral choice and it was a justification of the worst crimes committed throughout human history-from the human sacrifices to the Nazi regime. You system never explain why the infringement of the individual rights is bad and freedom is good. You just accept it because today this is an ethical mainstream. What if tomorrow the mainstream will be different? Even in today's society the individual rights are severely curbed for sake of common good.

[Grecorivera5150]

I have moved in the direction of valuing my individual rights over the years more then I have of pursuing a change through a collectivist philosophy. Indeed I only accepted it after a many years of independent inquiry and through studying history, political science and philosophy. I have moved from a Marxist Leninist as a 19 year old to volunteerist /minarchist as a 42 year old. I also feel this independent inquiry will mean that my views will likely remain in a state of flux. I value the ability to express these opinions openly and to be free to espouse them. This is the major reason I feel that liberty and individualism are so important. In a truly free society were individual rights are protected individuals will be free to group together and create collectives of their own. This is already an evolving subculture in the US. Our USA system is rife with contradictions and has been almost completely corrupted by money. We have no choice but to live in the time we were born. I don't except something only because its popular. Indeed I have found that speaking out against the US regimes/ global initiatives of the military industrial complex and banking cartels have put me in a distinct minority of one who seems ungrateful and unpatriotic. On a couple more points to value individualism is to have a distinctly individual moral code that will reflect some of contemporary cultures values and reject others. There where plenty of Germans who did not go along with the Nazi regime and those who were not eradicated fled. I hope that if I was in that time I would have been one of those Germans. This would be were making a moral choice could be defined as unethical by your peer group. Moral pragmatism practiced by an individual is also not in concordance with a morally pragmatic standard of a society as a whole. This is implicit in the definitions of each IMO. If my morality derives from both outside information and independent inquiry mixed with personal choice then what I feel is practical in a given situation may not seem practical to other individuals or groups. I see humanity as a whole and this perspective is another force that drives me towards individualism in the modern setting. I would argue that if you view the world as your social group and you live in the most powerful section of this whole and that this sections ability to manipulate its polity into supporting aggressive and immoral behavior under the auspice of American Exceptionalism as a motivating factor that it makes both moral and practical sense if I want to act as an individual to promote the individual and not the whole(which in this instance ) is a section of a greater whole. I apologize for not drawing these distinctions earlier and I appreciate the feedback. I will attempt to be more concise with my verbiage in the future. So after all this if we go back to the original question I suppose I can not really give an Atheist perspective as I am agnostic. It just seems to me practical for anyone even one who is willing to practice some of the most degenerate acts of human behavior towards another human to follow a set of ethics that has been established if for no other reason to mask their degenerate behavior.

[Leonid]

"On a couple more points to value individualism is to have a distinctly individual moral code that will reflect some of contemporary cultures values and reject others... If my morality derives from both outside information and independent inquiry mixed with personal choice then what I feel is practical in a given situation may not seem practical to other individuals or groups."

This is very true. But the question remains: what is the foundation of such a moral choice? How you can show that individualism is better than collectivism? In other words, by what standard you define good and evil? Pragmatism cannot be such a standard for the reason that in order to valuate the result of your action you need first to define what is value, what is valuable and what is not and why.

[Grecorivera5150]

The reason for my moral choice of valuing individualism over collectivism specifically as it pertains to the United States is because I see the imposition of force as immoral. The imposition of collectivist policies will require the state to make greater use of it's monopoly on force to impose these policies on individuals. I also feel strongly that the imposition of collectivist policy will lead to a lack of human ingenuity and initiative within the system by talented individuals because there efforts will have been disincentivized. To try an extend this type of policy at this time in history(Globalist era) in the USA would likely lead to an exodus of wealthy citizens from the country. The volunteerism point of view that I espouse allows for collectives to exist within the system through contract law. I would be glad to throw my lot in with like minded people and to be able to invest my effort, time and capital to try and achieve a mutual benefit. A Leviathan Bureaucracy that would be needed to enforce a collectivist state allows for far to much corruption, waste and inefficiency.

[Leonid]

The initiation of force is definitely immoral and the reason for it is that it's incompatible with the man's life which is a standard of value and the basis of morality. Mind is the only tool of man's survival and it cannot operate in full under coercion. In fact any action which hinders life, its bettering and flourishing is immoral. Any ethical system which is based on any standard of value other than man's life ( God, race, society, class, whim-worship etc...) is subjective and evil. So there is an objective sure reason why an atheist should be ethical.

[Grecorivera5150]

What of an individual or group who thinks its moral to take or hinder other lives? A great example in the currently would be extremist jihadist. Its also easy enough to imagine a group of godless heathens who's normative behavior is grounded in exploiting human life most criminal gangs would fit in this category. For us to see there is a sure reason why atheist should be ethical is a value judgement that does not take the dynamic of normative behavior into account and therefore can not be an absolute or "sure" reason to be ethical.