From where do atheists/the nonreligious learn morals?

There are a few directions you can take this. Obviously this question is aimed at the nonreligious, but anyone who has an opinion on where secular morals come from may answer.

You may feel that more-or-less absolute morals are part of human nature. Rousseau believed that man in the state of nature is a "noble savage," possessing a healthy self-love as part of the survival instinct. It is vanity that allows us to feel pleasure in the failures of others, and vanity that compels us to seek validation from other people. What morals do you think are part of human nature?

Or you may believe in total moral relativism, and that the only source of morals are cultural. If so, can you separate your secular morals from those that stem from a religion? What are these morals and what are their sources?

I learned my morals from my parents, my experiences and my mistakes. I ain't perfect but I do consider myself to be a good person. I don't need a religion to learn right from wrong or to have morals or values. I think it's very ignorant to think that without religion people have no moral values.

parents, extended family, friends and sosciety itself. that is why morals differ between cultures.

Right and wrong are quite simple to determine for the self-aware individual, possibly easier to tell, because our judgment isn't muddied by years of illogical and contradictory 'teachings'.

Any action that causes loss or harm to another individual is wrong. Waste or wanton destruction of the resources of the Earth that are here for all of us is wrong. These are examples of absolutes.

Some are cultural; certain norms that have evolved over the eons are expected of us. Inappropriate language or actions for a situation, while not intrinsically 'wrong', are perceived as such by others, therefore making them wrong by proxy. We learn these as we grow and experience.

Too often the 'wrongs' preached by religion have far more to do with the control of the 'unwashed masses' than they do with actual moral values.

Biblical teachings contain some wonderful philosophy on this subject, but it is to be pondered & understood, not blindly obeyed for the mere sake of obedience.

Morals become truly human when they are dynamic and progressive, alive with universe reality.

The reality domain of morals is in philosophic reason, the recognition of relative right and wrong.

For the secularists it can be no more than the ethics of the jungle and the morals of the earliest ages.Nature takes no cognizance of so-called morals; it is only and exclusively interested in the reproduction of the species. Nature compellingly insists on reproduction but indifferently leaves the consequential problems to be solved by society, thus creating an ever-present and major problem as we evolve.

Science deals with facts. Philosophy with meanings. Religion with values. It is Religions that uplifts us.

Certainly not from religion... all abrahamic religions permit slavery, paedophilia, polygamy, segregation and even genocide.

You basing your question on the fact that religious followers base their morals solely on the bible etc but this is false, what is morally unacceptable today was morally acceptable in the past including in the bible, for the will of god.

I personally base my morals on reason and compassion.

I leave you a quote from Albert Einstein:

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death

culture, just like everybody else

as for noble savage, there is no possible way to judge a blank slate of human judgement... even tarzan grew up in the culture of the apes... and if you isolate a child for life (which for one would be insanely unethical) the isolation would drive them mad, so you would still have no understanding gleaned from this...

however some morals are inborn... or rather derived from empathy, which develops naturally...

what is derived from religion are not "morals" persay, at least not beyond indirectly through culture... morals are implicit (if your memories were erased, you'd still comply to it) and are based on emotional reactions... what people get directly from religion tends to be an explicit decision (adherence to the decision tends to rely on the memory of the decision being made)...

granted though, over time the religiously based decision can become habit and eventually get to the point where it is ingrained enough to be considered a part of one's moral conduct...

Just obey the laws of the land. If you do that you will be hailed far and wide as an extremely moral person.

All social animals have some sort of morality. It comes from society. Even chimps have a moral code, which if broken by one member of the group will lead to that chimp being left out of the group.

I am reasonably confident that chimps have not read the Bible...

Morals involving our basic emotions. Love, Jealousy, anger etc. Negative emotions are identified in cultures and they damage the society and because a strong society is important for our survival of species we address the things causing us negativity and build up rules to prevent them. Morals existed before religion, think about it, if morals stem from religion, which religion? How far back in history do you go to find this religion? What did other cultures do to survive without this single religion before it was spread to their part of the world?

Besides you only have to open your eyes and ears to know religious people themselves aren't the most morally pure.

Also another thing, if morals stem from religion, how do we get new morals as the world changes? Do we get another Moses to deliver the new set from God? No we make them ourselves as we always have.

Morals can be explained quite well within evolution, however it is a lot to take in and if you condense it too much there are too many gaps. Yes I firmly believe and understand that morals evolved and it is seen throughout the animal kingdom. If you like to read and are interested in the evolution of morals as is accepted by evolutionary psychologists I would recommend "Moral Minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong' by Marc Hauser to give a well rounded explanation as a starting point.

Religion is definitely not the instigator of morals nor are religious people privy to a special immunity to acting immorally - which you would think they should, don't you think, when you then consider how often this question is asked?

It is a great topic and a good question though I apologise for not giving a well fleshed out answer in support of my knowledge though as I stated, the answer really encompasses far too much to fit here.

from the bible , they read the bible

My Priest says that if there are a tribe of people who have not yet heard the "good news" of Jesus... That a good MORAL decent person would go to heaven! There is an inborn natural instinct in human beings to look into another human's eyes and to feel what the other person feels. compassion, sympathy, empathy...There are certain codes of conduct that are considered universally "wrong" even if you are not Christian! Theft and murder are generally considered wrong, no matter what culture you are in.

The Catholic church says that other people can "KNOW" that God is real through divine revelation. you just "KNOW"... when you look at a tree that a tree is "good"... there is an interconnectedness through all of life!

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

Even an Atheist can be a good decent moral person! (shh! Don't tell any of the wacky evangelical R&S Christians!!!) An atheist could donate blood or give money to a charity to save the environment or help babies,humanitarian efforts, .. I even think the good quiet Atheist could go to heaven eventually... as long as he is not openly mocking other religions. Simply being "misinformed" or "uncertain" is not a sin. Openly rejecting Jesus, now, that is a problem! Spreading Atheism is also a bit of a problem. One should not spread disbelief among the believers! yikes! Why would an Atheist want to spread the rather dismal belief that there is no happy land at the end of the tunnel? why take away a Christian's crazy happy joy? If the true Atheist believes that THIS life, THIS is all the joy you get???? Why disillusion the happy Christian?

Reason and common sense. Natural rights arguments have been made without god (i.e. Rothbard). Even when reading Bastiat, the same reasoning could be used without god.

You can also take a utilitarian stance to morality.

As an atheist, I use natural rights as a rule of thumb and occasionally resort to utilitarian justifications.

#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#

15 March 2010 | cameltoepants.com | edit