One of the most common reactions I hear from theists on atheism or even on freethought in general is a question on where the nonbelievers base their morality considering they do not hold themselves accountable to an absolute standard or have their actions confined by the threat of eternal fire. A number of articles had already been written about the morality of an atheist/freethinker – some mention for comparison the “morality” of the Abrahamic god who condoned or even commissioned slavery, rape, and genocide; others talk about respect, doing no harm, and the Golden Rule (which isn’t of Judeo-Christian origin, by the way) – and yet the question remains: What compels the nonbeliever to respect others and do no harm?
I have tried to answer that in The Morality of a Freethinker where I said:
Life is not a zero-sum game where each person’s gain necessitates an equal amount of loss to another; in nature and in society teamwork and cooperation have proven that it is actually possible for everyone to win, and that every now and then small civilized gestures go a long way and eventually trickle down to the pool of moral standards, gradually raising its level. And it only takes rationality – not religion – to realize that.
Admittedly, though, not all nonbelievers realize that; rationality is not really a requirement for atheism – all babies are born atheists – so some nonbelievers really do not have moral standards. And this reminds me of M. Scott Peck’s stages of spiritual growth. (While Dr. Peck talked about four stages, I will describe only the first three because I am rather skeptical about the fourth.)
Stage I: Chaotic, Antisocial. All children are born into this stage, but some reach adulthood without ever leaving it. These are the people who submit to nothing but their own free will and have no beliefs or principles, and their relationships with other people are often manipulative and self-serving.
Stage II: Formal, Institutional, Fundamental. Because of the chaotic life in Stage I, some people experience intense psychological pain or get into trouble and end up converting into Stage II by joining or being committed to an institution – military, school, an organization, jail, a church. Stage II people follow rules but do not care to think about the reasons behind them. They do not want to hear anyone question the beliefs they hold so dearly especially if it is a logical, valid question, because the institution with its dogma is the only thing preventing these people from falling back into the chaotic life in State I, and they especially do not want that. (Some criminals, when caught and imprisoned, quickly turn into model prisoners and given early paroles, only to commit another crime on the first day of their release. That’s because they rely solely on the institution – prison – and have no principles of their own.)
Stage III: Skeptic, Individual. When Stage II people marry and raise a family, their children often become Stage II at a very early age. But as they grow into their teens they become so used to order that they sometimes take for granted the rules and beliefs of their parents and even question the reasons behind these rules and challenge the bases of these beliefs. Here they start getting into Stage III, the truth seeker. (For the Stage II people, Stage III is the same as Stage I – nonbelievers – and so they would try to convert them with their doctrines, only to end up getting ridiculed.) But Stage I and Stage III are very much different even though they both do not submit to an institution or dogma. Because while Stage I people yield only to their own free will, people in Stage III submit to something higher: truth, justice, and welfare.
But then, why would a nonbeliever submit to such noble concepts? I posted this question in the forum and I got very interesting answers. Basically, a nonbeliever (both Stages I and III) cares only about survival, but an enlightened nonbeliever (Stage III), while driven by selfishness, has less shortsightedness, “choosing a strategic behavior that yields the highest utility for all (all being a more positive rebounding system that is more long term)“. And here the Golden Rule comes naturally and is followed subconsciously. A person may strive only for his wellbeing, but somehow he realizes that he cannot achieve that without treating others well or at least how he would have them treat him.
Going back to the stages of spiritual growth, Dr. Peck asserts that one cannot reach Stage III without passing through Stage II; a man cannot see the reasons behind the rules if he himself has not undergone being subjected to some rules. And here some might argue that religion is necessary for morality after all, even if only as a stepping stone to get from Stage I to Stage III. To this I would answer that the “rules” need not be what Religion dictates. It could come from the secular parents and teachers who, for example, teach children not to steal – not because they would go to hell but because it would not be beneficial to their long-term interests.
Still, some religious people and organizations would protest, “What about sexual morality, the ‘contraceptive culture’ that legalizes free sex and separates the unitive from the procreative purpose of sex according to God’s design?”
Well, this is all I can say to them: You really need to get laid.
Morality is relative. Morality is absurd.
It is moral for cannibals to implement justice by eating humans.
It is moral for eskimos let their wives to have sex to a stranger as showing of politeness and courtesy.
How could these people understand rationality? For these people, it is rational to implement justice, it is rational to be polite and courteous. That is rational and that is moral. Then you might say, no, rationality is only for civilized people. Damn, what a stupidity.
And it is moral for the RCC to quietly transfer child-molesting priests instead of letting them face the law 😉
Yup, morals are relative, especially if you're religious.
I am quite happy to have stumbled onto this site. Good to know that more and more Filipinos are actually… well thinking. while I am not an atheist myself, I am a former Catholic who have recently decided to become a Buddhist. I do not believe in the Christian God much less the Holy Bible, the Torah, nor the Quran. I once told my friends that I do not believe in hell and they asked me what prevents me from committing "sins" and I told them that my belief in doing the right thing prevents me from committing the so called sins.
Er, is this about karma and stuff all over again? 🙁
It sounds more like being good for its own sake.
Very nice article. Looking forward to your next one. I am glad there is Filipino Freethinkers.
Thank you, Ed, for that very generous comment. 🙂
Very nice article. It orginized my thoughts of the process which led me to where I am now. I hardly look back these days, but I will say this: "I am ultimately responsible for my own behavior" -Eddie
Looking forward to your next article.
Sam Harris sums all of this up in his speech on TED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
here's one writer unashamedly highlighting his own previous work. before you get annoyed, let me say it's not immoral to do that.
@beast:
"Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose"
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
Schopenhauer, for some reason I no longer get annoyed with your cheap tricks. My annoyance has been replaced by pity – pity towards a middle-aged man acting like a child. Has the world been treating unfairly?
@inner
I'm afraid you can't do that. Everybody knows that the only one who can dispense pity is Mr. T.
As for me, I'd prefer to handle this sort of thing with humor…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrI7QUJfkvI
Wow, insults instead of answering questions directed at you, coz you don't have anything intelligent to say (a lot to say, but nothing even remotely smart). That's really helps your position… And shows us that you're nothing but a stupid, unimaginative idiot who "tries to live his life well", but is obviously not succeeding.
Bravo.
if for you i have nothing intelligent to say, why do you keep talking to me..and with great gusto in replying! haha talk to the wall ka na lang, same din naman yun no intelligence..
and about "living life well", everyone is entitled to his own idea of living his life well. mine is trolling around, and yours is neurotically replying to the stupid troll. it takes two to tango.
and you seem so sure i'm stupid. and who am i to deny, it takes one to know one di ba?
I prefer ethics, not morals. Morals is about blindly following rules, while morals is the comparison of values and choosing what is best for humanity.
Okay, Beast. Let me read up and work on that. 🙂
My reflection on morality:
Morality is not abstract. It's not a debate on what one will do when confronted with hypothetical situations. Morality is being fully conscious of your decisions and the way you are living your life. It is not about what you might do or what you want to do, it's about what you are already doing. It's about how aligned your thoughts and speech and actions are to your aspirational values.
In fact ; the only people who are entitled to talk about morality are those who have free minds , free thinking and those who do not restrict themselves with any religions , this is because ; modern networking have made religions and Gods an excuse and a cover to commit murders and distribute wealth among members without being questioned since they say that these are all are (Act of gods !).Free thinkers can determine more efficiently what is write and what is wrong since their thoughts and opinions are based on realities and experience unlike others whom thoughts and opinions are based on hallucinations , wishful thinking , insanity ; things that usually religions offer.
justice, truth, love, compassion, peace, freedom, and equality are few good bases for morality even without religion.
..continuation…,.. not only that those murderers , ill brained , "twisted minded" net workers commit crimes but also they brag about it ! ; calling themselves sometimes the (Intel), sometimes; (the Gods),the (securities) or whatever other name they may call themselves ,they also accuse honest , decent , straight , and bright individuals or groups of being stupid , that is how much garbage they are !another alarming signal is that ; those are actually new species of human evolving ; with these specifications ; cruel ,vulgar,vicious,mean,insensitive ,harsh ,careless ,selfish ,virus likes and similarity in behavior ,criminal characteristics , and depreciated from any morals.
Stage 2 reminds me of a lot of people I know- the same people who ask me where I get my moral standards.
For me, not being associated with any religion makes ME accountable for my actions (not the other way around). I find that religions tend to make many people complacent. As long as they pray, they believe it's enough and they're done. It's like outsourcing intentions. Intentions are good, but intentions alone don't get far. People have this mindset that the world must change (whine about this, complain about that), all the while not doing anything to change their own lives. This is an observation of both theists and atheists by the way. I say change your own life first. Praying, complaining, and bitching are optional.
Now to answer the question on what compels me to want to do no harm: connectedness and the awareness of it. Connectedness is knowing that my own actions impact the lives of others. Praying is not the answer, doing something is, even if it's just a personal decision. This is why I'm vegan, I boycott Coke, and boycott other companies that I find out to be supporting violence towards people and animals and our environment. That's my "label of morality"- to remove myself from supporting a system that is wrong.
I think most people protect what they love- family and friends, their home, their passions. Morality is just a constant progression of expanding that circle.
That was very nice, Nancy! Hey, care to write another article for the FF? 🙂
Not too sure I agree with the vegan but, but I do agree with the sense of interconnectedness.
As for bitching and complaining, well the fact of life is that they're fun…and if I may toss in a quick joke:
If Hitler were born today, he'd never have started World War II or caused the holocaust. He'd be too busy bitching about how much he hates Jews on his Blog, and on youtube XD
This video opened my eyes to the interconnectedness of veganism with everything else: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6_hjA4cdjM
I know it's a joke but…bitching and complaining do not always take away from the action of expressing it. Let's not forget that he made violence institutional.
[Let’s not forget that he made violence institutional.]
Or to be exact, genocide 🙁
yes, in infinite ways everything is related to everything else, and violence is the result of not seeing clearly the interdependence of all things. only by being fully aware of it can one effect real change in one's behaviors towards others. not by preaching or compelling others to change! praying, complaining, and bitching are not options at all.
was it gandhi who said that the change you long to see in the world must begin in yourself, or something to that effect?
Thanks Jong. Due to the popular demand of one, I will think of what subject to write. =)
Thanks, Nancy! Your readers, converts, and future converts will be looking forward to it. 🙂