By Mike, EvilTeuf

From wherever they think best.

Atheism is not a worldview. It doesn't carry any obligation to any kind of political or moral system. In that sense, it is amoral. Note that it is amoral, not immoral. Immorality is flouting the conventions of one's own morality; amorality is being without morality.

You would be justified in asking, then, if this means that in practical terms that Atheists have no morality. The answer is, of course, that Atheists can and do have morality and ethical codes. What the amorality of Atheism entails is a lack of obligation to any system of morality.

An Atheist can have any system of morality he or she wishes.

Why should an Atheist be moral, without a god to make him to do so? You may as well ask why he should use his head for something besides a mobile hat rack. Morality is a built-in condition of humanity; the moral tendency exists in just about everyone, barring psychopaths.

Where does the Moral Tendency come from?

And that, luckily enough, leads us to the foundational principle of morality: empathy. Psychopaths lack empathy with their fellow human beings, and cannot be truly said to have a moral impulse.

The principle of morality is empathy; what differs are our approaches to that principle, and how we interpret our feelings of empathy in order to make a coherent system.

Why do we feel empathy?

Human beings are society animals; we are tribal, fundamentally speaking, and it is this which forms the basis of human morality. It also forms the idea of justice; through our empathy for other humans, we seek to mete out punishment to wrongdoers on the same level of seriousness as the crimes they have committed.

The only difference between people is how they codify and rationalise this morality, and attempt to apply it in rational terms to the way they live. As well as being emotionally-led creatures, we're also afflicted, as a species, with a curiosity which would put cats to shame. This is what, in my opinion, ultimately leads to us assigning causes to things, whether through frustration at not knowing, as with Theism; or through reasoned and rational methods, as with science. It is also the foundation of reasoning and rationality; it's a great deal easier to find out how things work if you use a consistent system of thought, whether intentionally or not.

We attempt to apply our curiosity and the reasoning engendered by it onto everything, which is where we frequently fall into trouble.

Empathy is an inherently subjective emotion. We feel empathy to different degrees according to our relationships with people; mostly for our families or those with the closest emotional bonds to us, then to other members of the 'tribe', and finally to outsiders.

What other reasons can an Atheist have for morality?

Well, there is also the principle of enlightened self-interest; I can be altruistic and kind, because it will eventually benefit me. Is this selfish? Yes, and no. In one way, it is, simply because one is seeking to better one's own situation; but in another, it is not, because it first benefits the situation of others.

What ways do we have of codifying our moral tendency? Enlightened self-interest can be used to expand the empathy concept to new levels, to include everyone. If the whole world is a better place, rather than just my street, surely I benefit from this.

Ways of acting morally

The Golden Rule is perhaps the best known fundamental moral principle, and one of the simplest. It states

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

This is a useful and essentially satisfying way to act. It relies on enlightened self-interest and the principle of empathy to get results.

An expanded version of this rule is called the Categorical Imperative, and was formulated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. He came up with it as a means of expanding and clarifying on the process of how ought becomes is.

The Categorical Imperative is basically as follows:

Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law.

It's a means of testing the moral dimension of our own actions before we take them. What would the world be like if everyone acted exactly as you do in the same situation? If every time you pass someone collecting for a charity, you don't give any money because the next person might, consider how it would affect things if everyone expected the next person to give instead.

Humanism is another system of morality; it is too big a topic to go into here, to be frank. Briefly, though: Humanism is founded on the principle that the only 'saviour' of humanity is humanity itself. To this end, it relies on compassion and enlightened self-interest to foster a sense of altruism and community. A fuller and more accurate look at Humanism can be found at http://www.americanhumanism.org; Humanism is such a massive topic that it is beyond the scope of this article to examine it in detail.

To conclude, though, it should be said that these are not the only options. If all your morality rests upon is a gut feeling of what is right and wrong, it is every bit as valid as any of these, or any other, systems.

However, morality entails the making of choices in difficult situations, and sometimes a gut feeling isn't enough; sometimes we don't have any feeling one way or the other, or our feelings are ambiguous. If you have a codified system of morality, you can more easily make difficult moral decisions, or at least have some kind of rational basis to make them on.

How you make your moral choices is not important, but the fact that you make them at all is. No matter what your reasons for choosing a particular moral stand, you should always remember that no morals are absolute, and that you always have a choice.

By Mike, EvilTeuf. First published on The Atheism File

Republished with permission of the author.