Morality for the atheist?

Of course its ok for an atheist to be a moral objectivist. And there are many positions between objectivism and relativism. There are many atheists who are Kantians and thus are very staunch moral objectivists. Rights theory is usually a moral realist (believes in the existence of objective moral facts) position. Utilitarianism is far from a relativist position also, and attracts a lot of atheists (Peter Singer is a good example of an atheist utilitarian. He is very far from being a relativist.) Personally I am an atheist and a utilitarian; I think that relativism often is just an excuse for bad behavior. I think that what is wrong is what causes suffering unnecessarily, and that is neither relativist nor depends on religion. Virtue ethics is also not relativist but is often a secular morality.

In fact, I would say that not only is religion irrelevant to being a moral person, but the religious people who are moral are moral despite their religion. Think about it: religion says that good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior condemned. But if this is true, being good is not really being good, its only acting in your own self interest. A religious person who donates to charity because they fear going to hell is no more moral than a business executive who gives his money to charity because there is a gun pointed at his head. To be selflessly moral, they would have to give to charity regardless of rewards in the afterlife. This morality, free from consideration of supernatural rewards, is automatically open to the atheist. The religious person would have to be moral not because of religion, but despite it. Being selfishly moral doesn't really mean much, and isn't what we usually call being "moral."

Morality exists despite religion.

jose pizarro: why then, would an atheist protest the law? If the morality of atheists is merely legalism, then why have there been non-believers who have supported moral causes which went beyond the law? Bertrand Russell is a good example of a staunch atheist who nonetheless opposed the law and worked toward a higher code.

Morality is an individual choice.You ultimately decide what is moral or not. A good society just codifies the agreed " morals " into laws that that society implements.

That is different for physical laws. The " law of gravity " has no morals, it just exists.

My relationship with this society is Libertarian in nature. Basically " Do no harm to others " is my moral code, but then I am not an atheist...8-). I hate moral relativism. It leads back to justified barbarism.

" My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins " is the Libertarian Philosophy in a nutshell. That has room for all kinds of atheists.

First, just a matter of plain fact: not all atheists are moral relativists.

Second, these are two distinct issues, whether God exists and whether morality is objective, and I think they have nothing to do with each other. Hence atheists can easily hold all sorts of different positions on the objectivity of morality. In fact, if you look at the field of metaethics (the field that deals with the objectivity of morality), you'll find that even though most people are atheists or agnostics, nevertheless they all hold lots of different positions on the status of morality: non-naturalist realism, naturalist realism, expressivism, constructivism, error theory, etc.

The Euthyphro dilemma is the classic reason for thinking God has nothing to do with the objectivity of morality: are wrong things wrong because God disapproves of them, or does God disapprove of wrong things because they are wrong?

On the first option, God's attitudes or choices are what give things their moral status. But this view is just subjectivism: moral facts aren't objective facts, they're subjective facts, determined by someone's attitudes or choices. Also, God can't have any good reason for disapproving of wrong things, because if he had a good reason, then that reason would be what makes them wrong -- this is a problem, because God is supposed to be what makes wrong things wrong.

On the second option, God's attitudes or choices are a response to the moral status of things. This means that morality is prior to and independent of God. Moral facts would be like mathematical facts: objective facts that no one can change, that are independent of what anyone thinks, even God.

So either morality is subjective (because it depends on God) or it's objective (and hence it can't depend on God).

There's no reason why an atheist couldn't be a moral objectivist or absolutist.

The theist derives both his moral code and many explanations of the world around him (e.g. creation, life) from "divine" sources. The atheist seeks more natural, logical, rational causes for the world around him. There's no reason why an "absolute" moral code couldn't be derived from various human values and from reason & logic. Libertarian morality is one example of this.

I will confess though, I actually believe that absolute morality is an illusion. We're all moral relativists for the simple reason that there IS NO one, single absolute moral code. Every religion and every denomination within each religion and every regional sub-denomination each has its own "absolute morality" which its adherents swear up and down is the only "true" morality, but which nonetheless differs, often significantly, from everyone else's "absolute morality."

Also, contrary to what one answerer wrote above, moral relativism is NOT "justified barbarism." Moral relativism is merely the recognition that we all live by different morals, and that the best moral code for one person may be disastrous for another. What most self-described "moral absolutists" think of as moral relativism is nothing more than a gross caricature. Moral relativism is NOT "do whatever you like," or amorality, or being a libertine (not to be confused with being a libertarian). It is merely "you live your life your way, I'll live my life my way." Or as we libertarians often put it, "live and let live."

First of all, philosophy is the one subject Atheists disagree on more than anything.

Second, NO! They both suck

Third, why are they the only 2 options you give how about altruism? Actually having a conscience? Why do the only options you can even imagine have to be external objective judgements on how humans treat each other? Where's the humanism?

Fourth, how are objectivism and relativism much different, anyway?

Basically you are asking if it is right for an Atheist, someone who does not believe in any type of higher power, to believe that there is a moral code of right and wrong, or rather should said Atheist believe more in a code that is based upon his or her uprbringing, culture and society?

I would say that in the end it is up for an individual to believe what they want to believe. If you look at the two sides, Theism or Atheism, you will see that it comes down to personal choice. People who do believe in a higher power, believe that the higher power also gave them freedom of choice, free will. Atheist would rather say that this free will comes from some other place, not a higher power.

So, in answer to your question, sure its ok for an Athiest to believe in an inherent right and wrong, but its also ok for an Atheist to believe in a moral code that is based up on their social, cultural upbringing.

It comes down to an individual's choice, not what you think they should do.

Morality is Objective to Evolution of both our brains and our society. Since Evolution by its very nature is Change itself and our society is made up of relative and subjective minds that is guided by the evolution of our society and our physical selves. Morality is objective to all of that which is why Morality evolves.

If Morality was Objective to anything like an imaginary sky fairy ( god ) than morality would never change. But it does change over time. It changes because everything in our universe changes. There are no exceptions.

Why do you think the options are so narrow and limited? Moral philosophy (leaving out all he mythological based religions) is not just those two, look into Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Dewey. Neither of those three require one to have a specific theological position, and make more sense of the human condition than mythologies.

I believe that the morality of an Atheist goes only as far as the law strictly specifies.

The morality of a religious person goes together with his religious principles that normally go much further than the law.

Like Christ´s teachings : "Don´t do into others what you would not like to be done into you".

This moral teaching goes much further than any law ever given anywhere. No law protects man so fully.

it's ok but since they are atheist they are more on moral relativism.

Morality do not merely imply on where it did originates or where

do you derived it from,regardless of what your beliefs are as long as we make this world a better place in live in i quess that's the highest form of morality.