1. What is your view of morality as an atheist?
Oftentimes, people ask this as if I am the definer of what an atheistic moral system is. And yet, some of the most intense disagreements I’ve had regarding morality have been with atheists. I mean, Christians disagree a lot within their thousands of denominations, and they actually have a Bible – who no two people seem to agree on the meaning of. We don’t even have that. So it’s a mess, which is why I gotta say, right out the gate, that this is the answer that makes the most logical sense to me; other atheists may disagree with me.
I see morality as the system we build to try to fulfill the most preferences for the most people in the most equal way we possibly can. In my mind, “morality” looks like a system of complex roads, full of people trying to get to different destinations. It’s not pretty; sometimes differences in goals lead to conflict, there are horrible “accidents” that cause catastrophic damage, and each individual has to compromise every once in a while so that the system, as a whole, can work smoothly. It’s a work in progress, so I can’t define exactly what it will look like, though I can define what seems to be its overall goal.
2. Do you believe absolute morality exists or, at least, could exist?
I get asked various manifestations of this a lot. Usually, a Christian will assume that the only moral system is an absolute moral system, and that, because I don’t have the basis for one, I can’t be a moral person – when all they actually argued is that I don’t have an absolute moral system.
So, because we have two different definitions of morality, we usually get into a definition war until I know what the Christian means by “absolute morality” and the Christian knows the way I view a moral system.
I’ve found, in layman conversation, that when Christians ask if I believe in absolute morality, they usually mean one or more of three things.
First, they may be defining “absolute morality” as a morality that draws the line between right or wrong in a way that is never swayed by personal preference, culture, or any other universe-bound forces. I don’t subscribe to this view of morality — but it’s not because I’m an atheist, because some atheists do subscribe to this mode of morality.
And they can do it even more easily than theists.
They may say, for example, that rape is wrong – just because. And, by definition, that is an unassailable position. How would you rebut it? You can’t use personal preference, because the principle is outside of personal preference. You can’t use culture or any other world-bound force, because the principle is outside of these things. You can’t even really use God, because if the principle depends on God’s existence it wouldn’t be absolute according to this definition, but dependent on something else.
So an atheist can almost have a more absolute morality than many Christians, because a Christian would say, “rape is wrong because God,” while an atheist could simply say, “rape is wrong because it’s wrong because it’s wrong.” See? Absolute morality, not dependent on any external factors.
That’s an easy route to go on. So I’m not saying I can’t embrace a morality like that as an atheist. I’m just saying that I choose not to; it doesn’t seem very helpful or useful for me.
Second, the Christian may be defining “absolute morality” as a moral code that is the best for all people, at all times, in all circumstances. My answer to the question of this kind of absolute morality’s existence is the same to the question of whether we will ever find a cure for cancer – I don’t know. I would like to find such a system, sure. And I think that there is some value in trying to make our moral system (again, defined as the system we build to try to fulfill the most preferences for the most people in the most equal way we possibly can) as streamlined as possible for the benefit of all involved. But this is a work in progress. Just as I wouldn’t depend on a book on road building that was written 2000 years ago to build major highway intersections, so I don’t see the sense in using a 2000+ year old book to figure out what our rules for sexual behavior should be. It seems that the most useful way, in each case, to improve on a moral system is to figure out preferences of those the system is serving, and then study and do serious research to build the best possible system for all those preferences in the most equal way we possibly can.
Is there a perfect major highway intersection that we can name, “the absolutely best possible highway intersection”? Is there a perfect morality that we can name “the absolute morality” (in this sense)? I don’t know, but that’s not exactly my goal. My goal is to continuously hear the concerns and preferences of those involved, try to figure out the best systems to put in place by way of careful research, and keep improving the system as we find out new information.
Third, they may be defining “absolute morality” as a morality that is valid because God makes it valid. Obviously I don’t believe this absolute morality exists, but I think this question of whether I believe in absolute morality that defines it this way actually means to challenge the “basis” of morality or the “right” I have to morality. The question seems to be, “How can there be an enforcer of morality if God doesn’t exist?”
My answer is that we are the enforcers of morality. This is uncomfortable for many people, because it seems that most people don’t really want to see themselves – or others to see them – as the only real enforcers of the morality they claim to hold. It feels awkward, like it’s just you, and no one else outside of humanity will necessarily enforce it. If you’re against homosexuality, it’s just you. You can’t say that it’s because of God.
But, the Christian usually retorts, the same goes for something like murder. If God doesn’t punish murderers, they’ll get away with it.
And they’re right (although, to be sure, a murderer who comes to Christ at the last minute goes to heaven, right?). If we’re against murder, there’s no external being, in my view of morality, to back humanity up. It’s just us.
I totally get how that can make us feel a bit awkward about morality. I also get that this awkwardness can be especially acute when you are being treated unfairly, or not living the kind of life you want to live because of forces of oppression that are beyond your control. I get that you may want to believe that someone is going to set everything right, and that the people causing your state are going to be punished (or, at least, that someone has been punished for them).
But I simply see no evidence that this is the case. So that makes it more important for me to, as much as possible, make things “right” here on earth. This requires examining people’s preferences and figuring out how to create moral systems that will ensure that the most preferences are fulfilled for the most people in the most equal way we can. So I’m for rolling up my sleeves and getting to work.
3. If you don’t believe in God, why don’t you murder people?
The flippant answer is, “Because I don’t want to.” But I think there’s a bit more behind this question that I’d like to address.
Usually Christians seem to answer this question (or something similar) because they think that in order to do something for someone else, you have to dedicate yourself to something outside yourself. It doesn’t make sense to dedicate yourself to another human being, because 1) they won’t necessarily pay you back and/or 2) they’re just another human being, on your level – there’s no reason to do something for them as opposed to yourself.
There are a lot of problems with inserting God as an answer to these two “problems” – because God has an arguably unfair “pay you back” system (there are a slew of examples in the Old Testament, and the concept of hell in the New Testament is problematic) and because any reason God would give you to do something for someone would still be a reason that would fulfill your selfish desires. Arguably, doing something because God told you to do it is doing it to gain something – good favor or something similar – from God (without higher regard for God than for the other person), which can lead to you doing what God says is best for someone, whether they think it’s best for them or not.
But I don’t think I have to point out the problems with inserting God here to answer the question. When I left Christianity, I found I did not want to live in a world in which people murdered each other. This is a strong value I have that I embrace. Many of us do not want to murder people, and we have to combat the people who do want to murder people in the most intelligent ways we can, and that’s just the way it is. Though this may be a rude truth, if it’s the reality, it’s what I’d like to embrace in trying to make the world a better place.
It really surprised me how empathetic I became as an atheist, simply because as a Christian I was so strongly told that my sense of empathy came from God, and that if I left Him I wouldn’t have it. In fact, it was my empathy for other people who I thought were going to hell that led me to check out the Christian claims more thoroughly and eventually leave Christianity.
But yes, I’m also empathetic when it comes to myself and caring about my own needs. So, in addition to making sure others are cared for because it satisfies my sense of empathy, I also try to make sure people are cared for so that, if I am ever in their shoes, I will be decently cared for. This is why I’m such a liberal – I want to do my damnedest to make sure that the person in the street is cared for not only because I empathize with them, but because that might be me one day. It’s why mere charity isn’t enough for this atheist; I also think it’s healthy to have something of a welfare system that acts as “insurance” for us.
Then there’s also the fact that “you scratch my back, I scratch yours” works in society. So, I’m a black man but I’m not a woman. If I stand up for women’s rights to an equal wage – in addition to my doing it because I care about women (and a host of other good reasons – economical and social) – I’m joining a movement that says we all should have equal wages for similar positions, which benefits me as well. If I want other people to apply a certain principle to the way they treat me, it helps to treat others in a way that I want them to reciprocate.
So it’s not just empathy for others, and it’s not just selfishness for myself, but a combination of these things that motivates this atheist to build, improve, and follow a moral system.
Hope that makes some sense!
Thanks for reading.