Atheists of .is, what is the basis for your moral foundation?

[based_meme]

For theists, the basis for their moral foundation is obvious: their God(s). Their religion prescribes right and wrong for them, and they have no do zero thinking. The work is done for them. They simply have to make a choice of following it or not following it.

Atheists, however, must ground their moral foundation on something else. What is the foundation of your morality from which you base all of your moral decision-making from? Do you follow an existing, secular moral system? Do you construct your own? Do you do/don't do only what "feels right" or "seems right" to you? What is your process for determining what actions are morally right and wrong?

 

[RandomGuy]

 

[HotDogCel]

the basis of our moral is the same jfl. Morality is product of evolution as even chimpanzee have a sense of justice for example

For theists, the basis for their moral foundation is obvious: their God(s). Their religion prescribes right and wrong for them, and they have no do zero thinking. The work is done for them. They simply have to make a choice of following it or not following it.

Even between believers they debate on what is good or wrong. Basicly they all use human reason to say what is wrong or good and then say : "and god agree with me"
And for those who follow a precise school in religion, they just follow the human reasoning of others

Atheists, however, must ground their moral foundation on something else. What is the foundation of your morality from which you base all of your moral decision-making from? Do you follow an existing, secular moral system? Do you construct your own? Do you do/don't do only what "feels right" or "seems right" to you? What is your process for determining what actions are morally right and wrong?

I just advocate for what works to minimize human suffering personally. But I have to admit I never made a deep dive into moral philosophy

 

[VideoGameCoper]

I’m agnostic, not an absolute atheist because I have no strong faith god is real, but also no proof he doesn’t. I base my morals on how I’d want to be treated for the most part. Therefore, I’m not bullying anyone for no reason, and also won’t simply tolerate being used or something. Basically Tit for Tat theory. Be ok to me and I’ll be ok to you. Be nasty to me and I stop being nice in return.

 

[sexualeconomist]

Self preservation

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

For theists, the basis for their moral foundation is obvious: their God(s). Their religion prescribes right and wrong for them, and they have no do zero thinking. The work is done for them. They simply have to make a choice of following it or not following it.

Atheists, however, must ground their moral foundation on something else. What is the foundation of your morality from which you base all of your moral decision-making from? Do you follow an existing, secular moral system? Do you construct your own? Do you do/don't do only what "feels right" or "seems right" to you? What is your process for determining what actions are morally right and wrong?

The Golden Rule of Ethics: "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."

 

[Beggar]

Compassion or willpower. Collectivism or individualism.

 

[based_meme]

I just advocate for what works to minimize human suffering personally.

The harm principle as a foundational moral principle has its flaws, but I'm more interested in how you measure harm and suffering, and how you determine whether or not an action brings harm?

I’m agnostic, not an absolute atheist because I have no strong faith god is real, but also no proof he doesn’t. I base my morals on how I’d want to be treated for the most part. Therefore, I’m not bullying anyone for no reason, and also won’t simply tolerate being used or something. Basically Tit for Tat theory. Be ok to me and I’ll be ok to you. Be nasty to me and I stop being nice in return.

The Golden Rule of Ethics: "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."

How do you use this quid pro quo morality to evaluate moral goodness or badness of actions, if they're not done to you?

 

[copemaxx9002]

I am not an atheist I don't have a low IQ.

 

[VideoGameCoper]

How do you use this quid pro quo morality to evaluate moral goodness or badness of actions, if they're not done to you?

If I imagine something would feel bad done to me, I usually wouldn't do it to anyone else. For example, despite never having soup thrown at me, I know this would not be enjoyable and will not do it to anyone else unprovoked. Likewise, when someone, like a neighbor or such asks me if I can jumpstart their car, I do it, since if my own car had a dead battery, I'd want the help too.

 

[VideoGameCoper]

I am not an atheist I don't have a low IQ.

How is being athiest or agnostic low IQ

 

[based_meme]

If I imagine something would feel bad done to me, I usually wouldn't do it to anyone else. For example, despite never having soup thrown at me, I know this would not be enjoyable and will not do it to anyone else unprovoked. Likewise, when someone, like a neighbor or such asks me if I can jumpstart their car, I do it, since if my own car had a dead battery, I'd want the help too.

Do you mean to say that you measure the moral worth of an action based on its costs or benefits?

 

[copemaxx9002]

How is being athiest or agnostic low IQ

We obviously live in a creator made home.

 

[VideoGameCoper]

Do you mean to say that you measure the moral worth of an action based on its costs or benefits?

Kinda. I don't have a desire to hurt anyone for no reason. I'll also do minor favors like helping someone jump start their car since it costs me nothing and is easy. I don't do anything major for anyone I don't know though. I only do unpaid help to family members and other people I'm close with.

Basically, I think it's morally correct to not be an asshole for no reason, but also not necessary to go out of your way much for people you don't know.

 

[VideoGameCoper]

We obviously live in a creator made home.

How so?

 

[HotDogCel]

The harm principle as a foundational moral principle has its flaws, but I'm more interested in how you measure harm and suffering, and how you determine whether or not an action brings harm?

As I said I haven't really scearched into moral philosophy. So I cannot really come with general principles. I only could try to determine "case by case" if something is moral or not based on this "minimizing suffering" method.. And I am not particularly attached to that foundation either as I am not really educated on that subject. All I wanted to point out is that putting in opposition the god believer morality and the atheist one seemed strange to me as they clearly both more or less do the same. They both try to use their reason to determine what is good or not and then they justify it differently at the end. Sometimes the beliver just delegate this work to others and the disbiliever can also do the same btw

 

[SuperKanga.Belgrade]

View attachment 1280128

High IQ Sir

 

[SuperKanga.Belgrade]

We obviously live in a creator made hell realm

 

[based_meme]

Basically, I think it's morally correct to not be an asshole for no reason,

Does this mean that it's morally correct to be an asshole for some reasons? How do you determine those reasons and how would they justify "being an asshole?"

 

[based_meme]

As I said I haven't really scearched into moral philosophy. So I cannot really come with general principles. I only could try to determine "case by case" if something is moral or not based on this "minimizing suffering" method.. And I am not particularly attached to that foundation either as I am not really educated on that subject. All I wanted to point out is that putting in opposition the god believer morality and the atheist one seemed strange to me as they clearly both more or less do the same. They both try to use their reason to determine what is good or not and then they justify it differently at the end. Sometimes the beliver just delegate this work to others and the disbiliever can also do the same btw

That's fine. I'm not really interested in having an academic discussion on ethics (JFL @ thinking that could happen on .is without it degenerating into a clown show).

I'm interested in learning how people think about their own personal morals and how they rationalize their own moral calculus.

 

[SuperKanga.Belgrade]

Moral foundation is built upon the idea of what someone can gain from something.

Therefore there is no high moral foundations in a world as cold as this.

 

[Skelly.Belgrade]

I base my morality on the letter of the law.

 

[VideoGameCoper]

Does this mean that it's morally correct to be an asshole for some reasons?

Yes

How do you determine those reasons and how would they justify "being an asshole?"

If someone is an asshole first, then I have every right to be an asshole back. For example, a while ago, these two cyclists were riding on the car road, and as I was about to pass them, one of them decided to go around an pass the other cyclist WITHOUT CHECKING TO SEE IF TRAFFIC WAS COMING. This asshole is inconsiderately using the road in the first place when there is a bike path off to the side, and then has the audacity to almost cause a car crash because he has no regard for the drivers on the road who actually belong there. I had to swerve to avoid hitting him, and then blared my truck horn at him. They continued to be assholes by riding like 5 feet into the car lane, so I just kept on the horn. Finally they moved over and I passed them.

So basically, if someone does something very inconsiderate, especially something that could have harmed me, then they deserve a little payback. In this case, blaring the horn to scare the fuck outta them was enough. Also, jfl that these cyclists act like they own the road. It's like they think their little bikes are tougher than a 4500 pound lifted truck like mine. The level of entitlement is insane.

 

[Castaway]

My own self-determination and personal excellence. Actions that benefit me in the long term are good, while those that harm me in the long term are bad.

 

[based_meme]

Self preservation

My own self-determination and personal excellence. Actions that benefit me in the long term are good, while those that harm me in the long term are bad.

Are you able to conceive or make moral judgments and evaluations on any actions agents take that don't concern you? If so, how?

 

[lowz1r]

I define my morals based on the feeling of guilt.

If an action evokes guilt in me, I interpret that as an indication that the action is immoral, at least from my perspective.

If one does not consciously adhere to a defined set of morals, they are likely following their own subconscious moral framework, shaped by their experiences and interpretations of the world.

 

[based_meme]

I define my morals based on the feeling of guilt.

If an action evokes guilt in me, I interpret that as an indication that the action is immoral, at least from my perspective.

If one does not consciously adhere to a defined set of morals, they are likely following their own subconscious moral framework, shaped by their experiences and interpretations of the world.

Can you see how this is a deeply flawed basis? (The question isn't as loaded as it appears.)

 

[LeFrenchCel]

Mainly based on justice, injustice, and the right of revenge

If someone is victim of an injustice, he has the right to repair this injustice no matter how. You have the moral right to fight and do whatever it takes to restore that lost equality.

Example: Person A is born in wealth. Person B is a proletarian. This is an injustice, so person B would be morally right to attack person A for his wealth and properties.

I also believe that in any situation of conflict, the person who attacked first is always at fault. No matter what the consequences are, no matter how the other person responds… If you attacked first, you’re at fault, full stop.

Example: You got bullied at school by another person. That person attacked you first, so you can do whatever you want to answer that attack, the blame will always be on the other person, no matter what. Even if you end up killing that person and his/her family, well, that person attacked you first for no reason, so your answer is morally right and excusable.

Other example: Elections took place in your country, the left-wing won but the president decides to elect a right-wing PM. This person has attacked the country and violated its citizens, so it would be morally right to violently punish this person for his actions. (Macron if you watch this)

If you are in a high-responsibility position, it is your duty to make sure people below you in the hierarchy are put in the best possible conditions. In the case of being head of state, it would be caring about your citizens’ level of life.

Example: Supporting tax evasion is morally wrong since it benefits a minority of people who don’t need it (richfags) and all the money that is lost because of tax evasion is money that doesn’t go into public services like schools, hospitals, public transportation, that could be beneficial to a minority of people who need that money.

This is my personal moral code, influenced by my life of incel, bullied at school and coming from working-class background. I think every person has its own, based of what we lived, but I think most of us have a morality code based on those things.

 

[lowz1r]

Can you see how this is a deeply flawed basis? (The question isn't as loaded as it appears.)

yes. some people feel guilt over trivial things, some only feel guilt over really heinous actions, and some people don't feel guilt at all (sociopaths/psychopaths).

religion has a defined set of morals that normalizes these differences for everyone and makes morals more objective (from that religion's perspective).

but that doesn't mean you can't follow those morals subconsciously without even knowing about them. some people just happen to be kind because of their nature or nurture.

 

[Castaway]

Are you able to conceive or make moral judgments and evaluations on any actions agents take that don't concern you? If so, how?

Yes and no, because on the one hand I am conventionally amoral, but on the other hand I can judge the actions of others, which are completely irrelevant to me, based on whether their actions were logically justified to benefit themselves or others they care about, and/or if those actions trigger personal feelings in me. For example, I find homosexuality abhorrent, not because I think it is "immoral" or because God said so, but because it triggers feelings of disgust in me.

 

[based_meme]

Mainly based on justice, injustice, and the right of revenge

If someone is victim of an injustice, he has the right to repair this injustice no matter how. You have the moral right to fight and do whatever it takes to restore that lost equality.

Example: Person A is born in wealth. Person B is a proletarian. This is an injustice, so person B would be morally right to attack person A for his wealth and properties.

I also believe that in any situation of conflict, the person who attacked first is always at fault. No matter what the consequences are, no matter how the other person responds… If you attacked first, you’re at fault, full stop.

Example: You got bullied at school by another person. That person attacked you first, so you can do whatever you want to answer that attack, the blame will always be on the other person, no matter what. Even if you end up killing that person and his/her family, well, that person attacked you first for no reason, so your answer is morally right and excusable.

Other example: Elections took place in your country, the left-wing won but the president decides to elect a right-wing PM. This person has attacked the country and violated its citizens, so it would be morally right to violently punish this person for his actions. (Macron if you watch this)

If you are in a high-responsibility position, it is your duty to make sure people below you in the hierarchy are put in the best possible conditions. In the case of being head of state, it would be caring about your citizens’ level of life.

Example: Supporting tax evasion is morally wrong since it benefits a minority of people who don’t need it (richfags) and all the money that is lost because of tax evasion is money that doesn’t go into public services like schools, hospitals, public transportation, that could be beneficial to a minority of people who need that money.

This is my personal moral code, influenced by my life of incel, bullied at school and coming from working-class background. I think every person has its own, based of what we lived, but I think most of us have a morality code based on those things.

Your moral basis is the abstract ideal of justice and its attendant retribution. That, I can appreciate.

What I have issue with is your application. You seem to assign binary values to injustices done and justices needed to correct it. There are clearly gradations and degrees to it. If I steal your candy bar, I'd argue that it's more wrong for you to kill me over it than my stealing of it is ever will be, unless we posit some bizarre hypothetical where you need that chocolate bar to live AND I steal it knowing this fact with the intent to see you dead. Sure, you served justice and righted the wrong done to you, but you took away something worth far more in response.

yes. some people feel guilt over trivial things, some only feel guilt over really heinous actions, and some people don't feel guilt at all (sociopaths/psychopaths).

religion has a defined set of morals that normalizes these differences for everyone and makes morals more objective (from that religion's perspective).

but that doesn't mean you can't follow those morals subconsciously without even knowing about them. some people just happen to be kind because of their nature or nurture.

But how do you justify your feelings of guilt as a basis for the moral actions of others when you acknowledge that some people feel guilt differently or don't feel it at all. The psychopath won't empathize with your moral position because he literally can't. You speak as though you follow "correct" moral paths incidentally, as a result of the feelings of guilt you happen to possess, which happen to coincide with existing moral systems and social norms (group morality).

If we were to use that as a general basis for most people, there wouldn't be consistent standards of actions and behavior. Right and wrong would carry meaning insofar as how you happen to feel about particular actions. I'm sorry, but I don't see that a reasonable basis for forming and evaluating moral judgments.

Yes and no, because on the one hand I am conventionally amoral,

That changes everything. If you're amoral, then you have no basis for morals, as you're neither moral nor immoral. This entire discussion becomes moot for you, and you evaluate the "goodness" and "badness" of actions based on their values to you personally, which you've already described.

 

[lowz1r]

But how do you justify your feelings of guilt as a basis for the moral actions of others when you acknowledge that some people feel guilt differently or don't feel it at all. The psychopath won't empathize with your moral position because he literally can't. You speak as though you follow "correct" moral paths incidentally, as a result of the feelings of guilt you happen to possess, which happen to coincide with existing moral systems and social norms (group morality).

If we were to use that as a general basis for most people, there wouldn't be consistent standards of actions and behavior. Right and wrong would carry meaning insofar as how you happen to feel about particular actions. I'm sorry, but I don't see that a reasonable basis for forming and evaluating moral judgments.

Everyone judges morality through their own subconscious frameworks, whether religious or not.

Each person's set of moral biases is shaped by their own experiences, and it's impossible to eliminate these influences entirely, no matter how self-aware they are.

Even when someone adheres to a well defined set of rules from a book (like religion),
they inevitably prioritize certain rules over others or assign different weights to moral actions based on personal feelings.

That's why a religious person could be perceived as "better" than another religious person and why being religious is no guarantee that you will be perceived as a better person than a non-religious person. Even the people that judge your moral actions are biased themselves.

 

[based_meme]

Everyone judges morality through their own subconscious frameworks, whether religious or not.

Each person's set of moral biases is shaped by their own experiences, and it's impossible to eliminate these influences entirely, no matter how self-aware they are.

Even when someone adheres to a well defined set of rules from a book (like religion),
they inevitably prioritize certain rules over others or assign different weights to moral actions based on personal feelings.

That's why a religious person could be perceived as "better" than another religious person and why being religious is no guarantee that you will be perceived as a better person than a non-religious person. Even the people that judge your moral actions are biased themselves.

I get all of that, and I appreciate that you (and others) have taken the time to give serious answers to this. Not a lot of people are asked to think about this enough, or often enough.

 

[GeorgeSears]

The Golden Rule of Ethics: "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."

 

[InfernumOsculum]

For theists, the basis for their moral foundation is obvious: their God(s). Their religion prescribes right and wrong for them, and they have no do zero thinking. The work is done for them. They simply have to make a choice of following it or not following it.

Atheists, however, must ground their moral foundation on something else. What is the foundation of your morality from which you base all of your moral decision-making from? Do you follow an existing, secular moral system? Do you construct your own? Do you do/don't do only what "feels right" or "seems right" to you? What is your process for determining what actions are morally right and wrong?

Kantianism with it's foundation being evolutionary psychology. It's in our best interest as a species to do things which advance social cohesion, functionality, and which creates a high trust society that respects the autonomy and self-worth of the person. Evil from this standpoint are those forces which seek to bring us to desolation and destruction. As a Biblical analogy, good is the Civilization of Israel - evil is the desolate wilderness of Edom, where the satyrs and she-owls lurk.

Abrahamics secretly root their morals in the same foundation, which is why figures like Jordan Peterson always have to ad-hoc practical benefits to Christianity and read moral principles into it that were never a part of it historically (like claiming "meek" means brave and ready to fight but always on the defense or that the Israeli theocracy was an Enlightenment social darwinist Capitalistic system), and no Abrahamic would seriously say it's morally okay to unquestionably kill your son if God commanded it (meaning that Abrahamics actually don't root their moral framework in Yahweh's commands).

Everyone wants their family and cultural tradition to be influential and not die out, and we all want to expand and conquer the stars, producing beauty, art, social stability, and wisdom, while minimizing suffering and pain.

 

[InfernumOsculum]

By the way, you can tell a person is anti-social and evil in the core of who they are if they are repulsed by Kantianism and cling to Utilitarianism. Most people who are Utilitarian do so to justify their own anti-social pathologies like heedless sex or excessive drug use.

I actually agree that most atheists are genuinely more evil than Abrahamics for this reason. Most of them cling to an Abrahamic moral paradigm but claim libertarianism to justify their own moral failures in their Abrahamic moral paradigm.

If they weren't Abrahamics, they wouldn't be so naively cuddling of hostile foreigners and morally scandalized by people shitting on mentally ill people. Only Abrahamics worship the slaves and dregs of a civilization.

Groups like the Satanic Temple, as an example, are some of the biggest slave worshippers in history, constantly whining and bitching about mentally ill anti social freaks and grounding their moral critiques on the worship of the dregs of society.

 

[based_meme]

Kantianism with it's foundation being evolutionary psychology.

This is more or less my position also, in addition to incorporating concepts of rights and duty, both of which are less firmly grounded by comparison (to deontological ethics), as well as utilizing libertarian views on personal harm and autonomy. This last item is the weakest link in the foundational chain. I leave open room to make deviations from Kant's moral metaphysic, because there may be instances or edge cases where the categorical imperative cannot be applied, such as novel situations necessitating timely and immediate action, or instances where there is, in fact, greater harm in carrying out some action with good intent behind it and should be carefully evaluated.

It's in our best interest as a species to do things which advance social cohesion, functionality, and which creates a high trust society that respects the autonomy and self-worth of the person. Evil from this standpoint are those forces which seek to bring us to desolation and destruction.

Everyone wants their family and cultural tradition to be influential and not die out, and we all want to expand and conquer the stars, producing beauty, art, social stability, and wisdom, while minimizing suffering and pain.

This should be the primary goal of ethics and moral reasoning for all of humanity.

I'm not too thrilled about the "cultural tradition" element, though. Cultures, like people, like systems, grow and shrink, live and die. Some existing cultural traditions are anachronisms and relics of bygone value systems that would necessarily clash with those grandiose goals of producing timeless art and conquering stars.

 

[To koniec]

Self preservation

 

[based_meme]

By the way, you can tell a person is anti-social and evil in the core of who they are if they are repulsed by Kantianism and cling to Utilitarianism. Most people who are Utilitarian do so to justify their own anti-social pathologies like heedless sex or excessive drug use.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that being "repulsed" (whatever that means in context) is a sign of evil or being anti-social, though Utilitarianism does seem like an ethical system a machine would employ to evaluate and exercise morally weighted decisions.

As to the question of whether or not most people who identify as utilitarians would also identity as hedonists (or at least display strongly hedonistic tendencies and values), that would be something interesting - and potentially valuable to moral psychology - to explore and investigate.

I actually agree that most atheists are genuinely more evil than Abrahamics for this reason. Most of them cling to an Abrahamic moral paradigm but claim libertarianism to justify their own moral failures in their Abrahamic moral paradigm.

If they weren't Abrahamics, they wouldn't be so naively cuddling of hostile foreigners and morally scandalized by people shitting on mentally ill people. Only Abrahamics worship the slaves and dregs of a civilization.

I'm not sure I follow. How do atheists inwardly cling to the Abrahamic moral paradigm, while outwardly using libertarian justifications for their the moral failings of the religious paradigm from which they operate? Could you please elaborate on the examples of foreigners and the mentally ill? How do they use libertarianism to justify their Abrahamic moral failings wrt those two examples?

Groups like the Satanic Temple, as an example, are some of the biggest slave worshippers in history, constantly whining and bitching about mentally ill anti social freaks and grounding their moral critiques on the worship of the dregs of society.

Really? I thought they were all about self-worship and putting the importance of the individual as paramount. Admittedly, I know very little about them beyond their guiding tenets and a brief of their history. I don't know if they have any particular political agendas, beyond spreading their philosophy to every corner of the world (which ideology doesn't, JFL), or group-level morals. I viewed them (perhaps incorrectly) as being all moral relativists who adhere to no shared moral principles.