The Atheists Moral Pledge

I'm trying to get a better sense of what nonspiritual atheists pledge their morality to. That is, what do they ascribe to be the purpose of their morality?

My guess is that most would say for self, loved ones, planning ahead, or society, with a tendency to invoke the survival mechanism ideology.

I'm particularly interested in understanding what the perceived logic is in pledging your emotional sense of right and wrong, to your other emotional senses.

If "when you die you're gone", is a true sentiment for you, how do you justify only doing what is morally right, if doing something morally wrong will help you better survive in the here and now? i.e. What logic, or rationale, is there in being morally just, if it does not help you better survive?

The way I see it is that your pledge is to your own emotions, and nothing else, since everlasting, or higher than self, does not exist beyond an emotionally charged ideological concept...

So, what is your pledge to, and how do you justify it?

Is morality stupidity, insanity, delusional, rational, logical, beneficial, or any, and all of the above?

Any of you care to share your thoughts? (All are invited to answer.)

P.s. I will not judge your responses morally - I just want to know for my own understandings of the human mind. (Please answer honestly.)

reply to post by Bleeeeep

Interesting postulate, I am a non-religious self-described Taoist with undeniable spiritualist tendencies.

My main question is for so-called nihilists, what purpose have you for making any argument at all given that there can be no purpose to existence?

As a child I was not taught religion.
I was taught to be aware of how my actions affected myself and others.

So to answer your question; critical thinking

I also recognize that doing the right thing as prescribed by popular consensus improves my mental ease and creates a healthier mind/body interface

reply to post by greencmp


One of my follow up questions would be similar:

What rights should nonspiritual atheists have to the morality of others', if morality is purely based on the emotions of self.

tanda7
As a child I was not taught religion.
I was taught to be aware of how my actions affected myself and others.

So to answer your question; critical thinking

Are you saying you were taught morality as a component of critical thinking?

To what regard should critical thinking be held?

Is the mind the highest regard to your sense of morality? Is it a survival mechanism of the mind for the mind? Is morality for the betterment of all minds, just your mind, or just for your minds sake of critical thinking?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I don't get why it's such a hard thing to grasp when removed from a religious context. Why?

I don't plan on death. I don't look toward the end of my life to reflect on my past and go "Ahh who cares, I'm dead now anyway!".. there is no goal post to run toward. No ball to shoot. Why are you asking it in that context?

I live right now. Right at this moment. Not 5 minutes ago nor 5 minutes from now. That is simply where I am and where I make my choices. I don't want to see people suffer. I don't want to see people in pain. So why would I act right now in a way that would cause it, either by my action or inaction?

I smile at people. Sometimes they smile back. Do I get a brownie point? No... I do it because I feel that expressing it is no effort on my part and maybe someone may benefit from being reminded that even big ugly hairy buggers can be decent.

I give to homeless people, or buskers, or when someone asks for some change. If I can, I do. Not because I want god to love me for being a superficially moral person. Not because I think karma will repay me thrice... never has, never will.. But I do it because I know what it's like to be in their position and how much of a difference being nice to people can make in their day.

I don't kick puppies or microwave kittens. Why? I don't think the puppy god or kitten lord will strike me down should I do it, like a religiously moral person would, so I must have a different reason.. like, knowing causing pain and suffering is wrong. I don't like it when I'm kicked. Or treated with less than decency when I've not caused any reason to be treated so.

God doesn't instil morals. The idea simply installs a fear. Don't be bad or god will not be happy, and it's off to the fires of Hades for you, sonnyjim. Nice.

Most religious people do nice things to get a better lot in the after life. Not because they really care about people. That's why they will cause suffering to everything that does not believe in their god, or look down on them as if they're not worthy of decent acceptance but still have to be treated nice because god says so.

"I'll pray for you." - to god? why? what will he do? Pray to me. That would be nice. Give ME nice thoughts. Wish ME well.. don't pray to your god because you're only sending letters to santa. "Dear santa, please give me a new bike. I've been really good."

Morals, if they need a chain to ensure you have them, are not morals. They're rules and laws instilled by religious fearmongers.

Be nice. Don't steal. Give back more than you take. Share. Don't cause pain or anguish and accept you're not the centre of the universe.

Why does this all seem to foreign to someone coming from a religious angle.. Not saying you are OP, but the question has arisen more than once here, from people who think that without morals instilled by religion, then we're all running around raping everything, eating everything, killing anything, stomping on ants because they're just ants.. etc etc.

I find religious morals very strict in their application. And far from honest.

greencmp
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

Interesting postulate, I am a non-religious self-described Taoist with undeniable spiritualist tendencies.

My main question is for so-called nihilists, what purpose have you for making any argument at all given that there can be no purpose to existence?

edit on 11-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

Are you equating non-spiritual atheism with nihilism?

That's a new one.

We're also neo-pagan anarchists.

*thros stone at a mountain*

Self reflection, trial and error, education and as someone else said critical thinking.

That might be more along the lines of how it is done and less about the justification for it however.

The justification for why someone chooses to have morals and to act accordingly is really up the individual. Some never develop any justification for morality or ethics such as sociopaths who actually lack the development for such emotional processing. My justification personally comes from my own personal assessment of the world I live in and how I effect it and others around me. Based upon those assessments I adjust my interactions with it so as to achieve what I see as the most beneficial overall.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

As far as what I was taught, morality was never mentioned.
Empathy was.

I have since developed a more complex idea of the nature and mechanics of reality.
Now my actions and intentions are probably more in line with true morality than most so-called devout Christians.

I know the value of being a positive force. For the enjoyment of the whole, not myself.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


What has any of that got to do with being spiritual abnd believing in god?

If anything, what we do now here on earth is meaningless because we're all going to have a party in the after life. Just pretend to be nice RIGHT before you die. That's all god wants.

I asked a born again christian once, if I were a good person my entire life and never believed in god, would I go to heaven. He said certainly not.

I said, if I was an evil person and did bad things, but right before I died, I repented and asked forgiveness, would I go to heaven. He said Absolutely.

Ahh.. so what is the point in your view then, or your perceived morals?

reply to post by Bleeeeep

I'd say that the conundrum goes deeper than that. The hard question is not [/I] to what do you pledge your morality?, but how do you define and defend the morality that you pledge?

If there is no transcendent God who is the source and measure of moral law, then who gets to define what is "moral?"

If it is society, then societal mores change over time and from culture to culture. There are places in the world where, today, paedophilia is institutionalized, considered a moral norm. If there is no transcendent law giver who says that this practice is wrong, who are you, then, to pass judgment on those who practice such things?

If there is no transcendent source of moral law, then moral law is no more than the construct of your own mind. It will, on a societal level, be determined by whomever happens to have the biggest club (or gun, or bomb) and is willing to use it to enforce his view of morality. What authority has anyone to gainsay that person?