I was just recently asked a question that irks me to no end. I am often asked as someone who does not believe in a god how I can determine what is moral without a divine arbiter of moral doctrines. I can get passed the seemingly condescending nature of this question. However I really cannot get passed the assumption they so haughtily make, and that is that their God ( God of Abraham) is the sole source of morality whilst excluding the possibilities of other gods that are not their own.
So if I may I will first answer the question asked of me before I will get angry, curse, and ridicule the stupidity that often surrounds this particular question. The source of morality is nothing divine and is not even specific to humans as most would assume. Morality is something innate within all social animals that is why we behave as we do that is why we are capable of things like empathy and sympathy. Social species without certain codes of conduct will not be able to propagate effectively and will simply die out. Imagine a society without a moral code of conduct, a society where murder was prevalent, theft was a regular occurrence, lying was expected, and empathy was dead. How long will a society like that last? It sure as hell is not stable, bugger a society like that is representative of some of the fiction stories I have written during my spare time. They typically are crash and burn stories much like the Lord of The Flies except without the naval officer to end the barbarity. If you would just simulate an amoral society in your mind you will see that it quickly decays and thus does not propagate or survive effectively.
Morality is not a human construct but one formed naturally and originally for pragmatic reasons. Social animals do very well when compared to organisms that survive on their own. We do not murder because it is bad for society, we do not steal from other because it is bad for society, and we deceive in a way that will harm others. Once you recognise that society is for the benefit of those and involved you can why they would form (out of completely selfish reasons).
As the title suggest I am going to compare the very basic morality derived from evolutionary processes to that of religious morality. Namely the morality within the Christian and Jewish holy texts it may seem like I speak of them more often than other faiths but this is with good reason. They are the most prevalent within my society and the most influential when it comes to governing. The influence of other religious doctrines on my life is nonexistent so If I were to speak on that it would be out of ignorance.
This may seem a bit backwards but before I address what their morality is I am going to address things like their motivation to behave morally, why they call a moral and b immoral etc.. The reason for this is to establish beforehand the faulty premises of their moral code as faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. So if I first establish the faulty premises I will not have to address the conclusions as extensively. Let us look at why something would be immoral under the Christian/Jewish world view. Under this worldview morality is determined by divine command there is no way around it, it is cited as their sole source for moral behaviour. So moral behaviour is determined by divine mandate, what is moral is now determined by the whims of a deity. So if a god order the slaughter of men, women, and children as he often did the immoral thing to do would be to let them live. Not murdering children in these instances are immoral act while murdering them made you a righteous man of god. This renders morality to be a measure of obedience rather than a display of ethical behaviour. Yet they claim my morality is not sound and consistent? Secular morality advocates the well being of society and individuals. Religious morality demands obedience to the whims of a celestial tyrant with a blood fetish.
Now for the motivation as mentioned previously the motivation for acting morally is for the benefit of individual and society. The motivation for following religious morality is fear of divine retribution and hope of divine reward. I almost feel like I don't have to expand on why fear is an inferior motivation, that should be self-evident. Contained withing secular motivation is an innate concern for the well being of others... Religious motivation for acting morally comes from a fear of an authority figure.
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-Einstein
Now who is moral within these groups and what is the criteria for being a good person... In secular morality you are judged on your behaviour toward others, what kind of person you are, and the kind of life you lead. In christianity you need only to do one thing believe that Jesus was saved you and you are off the hook for anything you could dream of doing. Under christianity you are no longer accountable for what you do as god has made someone accountable for you. Yet I am an atheist because I want to sin? If I wanted to act immorally and get away with it I would have remained a christian and heeded the great enlightened moral lessons of not boiling a baby goat in its mothers milk.
So in conclusion it is pretty clear that secular morality provides a far more reasonable and objective moral code than that of religious morality. Secular morality also holds people to a higher standards and does not shift the blame on a human scapegoat. So next time you ask me where my morals come from in that "holier than thou" tone of voice you should probably ask yourself that same question beforehand.
P.S. My views on morality have significantly changed since my last post on the subject nearly a year ago, I am leaving it up for the purpose of reference. So please note that they are no longer indicative of my beliefs and any contradictions between this post and my last one are not accidental.
